GOP Dials Back the Clock on Progress for Women

[gekaap]

You seem all to happy to deny the unborn the most basic right, that of life.

Who's trolling?

You keep trying to frame the debate in terms of your own opinion alone having merit. Such post reasoning is invalid.

 

[The T]

You seem all to happy to deny the unborn the most basic right, that of life.

Who's trolling?

You keep trying to frame the debate in terms of your own opinion alone having merit. Such post reasoning is invalid.

By that notion neither do you. Happy?

 

[gekaap]

I guess gaskap ran out of convoluted logic.. time for gaskap to fire up another bowl!

In other words, you cannot provide any meaningful rebuttal to my arguments on their merits. So you have to make slanderous statements about me that have nothing to do with the discussion, in hopes that people will be compelled to disagree with someone who is allegedly a pot head, and presumably dim witted because of being a pot head. But none of this does anything to establish anything in favor of your own point.

And I don't do drugs. At all. I don't even drink. Not even socially.

 

[code1211]

The purpose of any society is to band together so that the strength of numbers and the the strong can protect the weak.

There is no weaker entity in society than the new born or the unborn. Protecting the weak is not any more a religious directive than it is a societal one.

Citing a 4 week old embryo as a human being is largely unfounded. The medical community does not support that theory. If you do, then fine. If you have looked to your faith to offer you guidance to come to your conclusion, that's fine. But to insist that yours is the only acceptable opinion on the matter is extremely flawed. Considering the lack of evidence in support of it, there's nothing wrong with someone else coming to another opinion on the matter. Thus, for you to frame the issue in terms of protecting the "unborn" is entirely illogical and unfounded.

The subsequent consequences then raise questions about "how" unborn does some hypothetical and potential person have to be before they gain or lose the right to be "protected"? Should people be required to copulate, in order to protect the unborn children that will never be born if people don't start copulating? That, for course, becomes absurd. But logically, it is a necessary consequence that those hypothetical people protected to under the umbrella of the "unborn." There's then the question of the many pregnancies that women have, and lose, without ever knowing they were momentarily pregnant. In an effort to protect the unborn, should we start requiring women to undergo pregnancy screening twice a week, in order to identify pregnancies and help nurture them to full fruition?

Your argument is not a matter of protecting the "unborn." It is a matter of one group of people dictating their opinion that a 4 week old embryo is an unborn human being, and that people disagreeing should be forced to accept that opinion for use in their own lives.

Why must every pro choicer condemn religion to protect abortion?

I don't condemn religion for anything. I condemn any effort to enact public policy that will force people to live under the rule of a religious belief that they do not accept. And before someone says something about murder laws, inasmuch as a public policy has an objective purpose and interest, completely separate from any religious concern, that is still sufficient to justify the policy, then it's not a religious matter. But when it comes to abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger, saying something like "this baby was created by the breath of God" shows that the speaker's intent and position is based on religion alone. Thus, it is appropriate to criticize the position on that merit.

A four week old human embryo will grow to become a human being. It won't grow to be an oak tree or a frog. Your fig leaf argument that a 4 week old embryo may or may not be a human being is utter and complete bull. Forget that.

If a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer is tried on two counts of murder. The convoluted logic of whether or not the embryo or zygot or whatever the evasion de jour might be is just so many rationalizations to do the deed.

99% of the time, abortion is a matter of convenience and the argument that a woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases is the base proof of this. The law has nothing whatever to do with the description of the embryo, the rights of the embryo or the definition of life. Any thinking person knows that a human embryo is a human life. You may rationalize this away, but it does not reduce the truth of it.

As long as society does not have a defined and effective method to care for the unwanted unborn, then abortion will be practiced. That is a fact of life. That children can become pregnant is tragic, but true. Abortion should be an available option, but degrading human life to justify this is simply a lie.

If you support abortion, you support ending life. That is what it is. At least have the decency to acknowledge the thing for what it is.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

Not to put too fine a point on this, but unemployment is dropping. In November it was 9.8 and now it's 9.0.

The dog fight over the budget is coming and the lines are already being drawn. If you haven't noticed this, you just haven't been looking.

You're right - the UE rate is down to 9.0. I hope you're not suggesting that the GOP's new House majority had anything to do with it. They haven't touched jobs; and even if they did, those policies wouldn't have an effect on the economy this soon. So far, all they've done is focus on health care and social issues. Looks like they really got the message

You are typical of the dimwits on the left that think that jobs only come from government and politicians. The mere fact that the Republicans took over a majority in the House would make some employers more hopeful for the future and thus willing to chance the hiring of new workers. Just as the losers that have lived off the taxpayers their whole life are excited at the prospect of new taxpayer funded handouts when their pals in the Democrat party are elected. Stop watching the imbeciles on MSNBC.

And you, sir, are moronically mistaken if you really believe that the mere fact that Republicans took over the House is enough to drive down UE numbers. BWAHAHAHAHAHA, what a fucking joke! If that's how you really interpret the new UE numbers, then you are a fool. You might want to get your money back on that Glenn Beck Decoder Ring TM. It's doing you no good. And while you're at it, you might want to remove that tinfoil hat and wipe that koolaid mustache.

 

[gekaap]

A four week old human embryo will grow to become a human being.

And a single root can grow to become an entire forest. But it's not there yet, which is the point.

It won't grow to be an oak tree or a frog. Your fig leaf argument that a 4 week old embryo may or may not be a human being is utter and complete bull. Forget that.

This is a non-sequitor. The fact that a human embryo won't grow into a frog does not mean that it is yet a human being. Would you call a fertilized ova a human being? It will become one eventually, but that does not mean it is yet a human being. You're trying to avoid the difficulty of identifying that "magic moment" by dismissing its importance to the question at hand. But it is the entirety of the question at hand. The Supreme Court has recognized this difficulty as part of the legal framework for constitutionally protected abortion rights, and the fact that the medical establishment cannot offer answers is part of the reason why the Supreme Court found the matter to be legally deferred to decisions between a patient and doctor, and protected under a person's right to privacy.

If a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer is tried on two counts of murder. The convoluted logic of whether or not the embryo or zygot or whatever the evasion de jour might be is just so many rationalizations to do the deed.

Yes, in some jurisdictions this does happen. And I'm usually the first one to point out the inconsistencies in this and legalized abortion. But if you are going to raise this point in support of your position then you should know a little more about it first. When laws allow prosecution for the murder of an unborn child associated with the murder of a pregnant woman, the mother has to be at a certain point in pregnancy. A woman who gets pregnant tonight, and murdered 6 weeks from now, will not present a case to charge the criminal with two homicides. So actually, the point you bring up affirms my position if it affirms anyone's.

99% of the time, abortion is a matter of convenience and the argument that a woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases is the base proof of this.

So do you mean to deny that a person has the right to do with their own body what they so choose? Should the government outlaw consumption of certain foods because it clogs people's arteries?

The law has nothing whatever to do with the description of the embryo, the rights of the embryo or the definition of life.

Perhaps you should actually read the Roe v. Wade decision. It discusses the development of pregnancy as time goes along, and addresses whether anything in the history of our constitutional law can has ever or can be so interpreted to imply that an unborn embryo or fetus has any protected rights under our constitution. The court also specifically notes that determining exactly when the "magical moment" occurs where a human being's life begins is a question best left to scientists and philosophers, and the court refuses to proclaim any such decision on that question absent evidence from the medical establishment.

Any thinking person knows that a human embryo is a human life.

Let's be clear on some terms here. Nobody is denying that an embryo is "life." But even a single bacterium is life. And nobody is denying that it's "human" life. But then again, my appendix is life, and human at that. But my appendix can be legally removed from my body and discarded, because it is not a human being. An embryo is life, but it is not yet a human being.

You may rationalize this away, but it does not reduce the truth of it.

The only one trying to rationalize things away is you. You keep trying to rationalize away the importance of the "magical moment" concept to the issue, and your constant dismissal thereof. You don't seem interested in addressing it; I suspect because you can't offer a meaningful answer to it.

but degrading human life to justify this is simply a lie.

This is question begging.

If you support abortion, you support ending life. That is what it is. At least have the decency to acknowledge the thing for what it is.

Maybe you need to have the decency to acknowledge that your position on what an embryo is is not founded on any medical evidence, that it is actually counter to the general consensus that a human being begins to exist at some time DURING pregnancy and not at the beginning of pregnancy, and that your opinion on the matter is no more valid than any opinion to the contrary.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I find it more than a ltitle disturbing that a man would feel justified in telling a woman what her opinions about her own "rights" ought to be.

I would suggest that there is at least ONE Man who definitely has a right to an opinion on the disposition of that fetus.... The Man who helped her create it.

Way to respond to something completely different from what I actually said.

When I start talking about men's rights and dispositions of fetuses, please feel free to bring this post back up, because it will FINALLY be relevant to the topic. Until then, perhaps you could produce a post that relates to what I was actually talking about, if it's not too much trouble? And oh, maybe you could tone your blind zeal down a notch or ten, just enough to stop rabidly kneejerk preaching against abortion to people who don't support it. That'd be nice.

Feminists like to say that men don't have abortions, so they shouldn't get to have an opinion. Right at this moment, I'm inclined to agree.

Considering that I don't believe women should have anywhere near the level of Rights that they have in this country today, I am going to have to completely and totally disagree.

Way to utterly misunderstand what was said by virtue of listening to the frothing anti-abortion rhetoric stream in your head in place of reading and comprehending the conversation on your screen. You clearly have no idea what I was responding to, or what the meaning of my words actually was.

Total waste of space post. Thanks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But I DO definitely know two things you DON'T do. You just demonstrated it.

You really just don't know anything. If you think that there's any consensus in the medical world as to the magical moment when the transition occurs between a collection of cells and a human being, the by all means enlighten us.

The fact that you erroneously believe there's a "transition" at all is what tells me you aren't a doctor or a biologist.

Many doctors and scientists support legal abortion, but it isn't because of any nonsensical idea that embryos and fetuses aren't alive, or that there's some apocryphal "magical moment" involved.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fair enough. But I find it a little disturbing that a woman would so easily be willing to throw out rights for women.

I find it more than a ltitle disturbing that a man would feel justified in telling a woman what her opinions about her own "rights" ought to be.

Feminists like to say that men don't have abortions, so they shouldn't get to have an opinion. Right at this moment, I'm inclined to agree.

As far as I am aware, it still requires input from both a man and a woman to create a life.

Further, no one on this planet has the right to tell anyone else what they are entitled to have an opinion about.

I'm not surprised at the kneejerk preaching from Anachronistic, but I am from you. I'll tell you what I told him: when I start talking about "dispositions of fetuses" and "creating life", this will be relevant. As of yet, I haven't commented on either.

Furthermore, my "inclination to agree, right at this moment" was a reference to the poster's nerve in lecturing women as to what they should think about abortion, not any universal belief that men shouldn't have an opinion on abortion in general. Clearly, this was just too subtle for all the zealots in the audience who cannot hear any discussion relating to abortion without massive overreaction and paranoiacally seeing feminazis everywhere.

Ratchet it down a bit before your eyes start spinning in opposing directions.

 

[gekaap]

Many doctors and scientists support legal abortion, but it isn't because of any nonsensical idea that embryos and fetuses aren't alive, or that there's some apocryphal "magical moment" involved.

Nor did I say that an embryo or fetus is not alive. As I've already said, even a single celled bacterium is alive. I said an embryo is not yet a human being. There is a huge difference to what you are trying to put in my mouth and what I am actually saying.

 

[Right of Neocon]

the Supreme Court found the matter to be legally deferred to decisions between a patient and doctor, and protected under a person's right to privacy.

Actually it was deferred to the individual States and the balance between the mothers health compared to a viable birth. Its been misconstrued because they don't use the formula, the states just use a further ruling of know viability at 6 months.

There is more proof like how it feels pain at 20 days so since than there has been medical breakthroughs that will support the opposition and if this comes up again I'm sure the ruling will be much different.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Many doctors and scientists support legal abortion, but it isn't because of any nonsensical idea that embryos and fetuses aren't alive, or that there's some apocryphal "magical moment" involved.

Nor did I say that an embryo or fetus is not alive. As I've already said, even a single celled bacterium is alive. I said an embryo is not yet a human being. There is a huge difference to what you are trying to put in my mouth and what I am actually saying.

I get extremely tired of your endless hairsplitting and backpedaling in an attempt to pretend that you didn't say the things you did, didn't make the arguments you did, and claim other people's positions as yours as soon as your own is proven untenable.

Let's cut through your typical meanderings to the heart of things, shall we? There is no scientific or medical difference between saying an embryo or fetus is alive and saying that he is a life, however much you'd like to pretend there is. This is because science and medicine have zero - ZERO - question on the differences between cells, tissue, organs, and organisms. Unless something new and startling is discovered, this is settled and over: a fetus is an organism, alive, and therefore a separate life form.

Further, science and medicine ALSO have zero argument on the topic of a human fetus being a human being, by definition. Biology has long been settled that like produces like; two humans produce another human. And the English language is quite definitive on what a human being is, so there's no wiggle room there, either.

Continuing on, there is no scientific or medical basis for waffling nonsense like "personhood". You can try to make as many lame philosophical arguments about it as you like, but it simply doesn't exist in science.

Therefore, if you are making nonsensical arguments about medicine or science "not knowing when the magical transition moment to a person is", you have revealed yourself as being neither a doctor nor a scientist, because neither of those things ever WILL make a determination of such an unscientific concept. You might as well expect science to make a determination on when YOU will hit the magical transition moment to being a worthwile and meaningful debater.

To sum up: science and medicine both know perfectly well that a fetus is a living, separate, human organism. You cannot make a pro-abortion argument on the basis of any confusion there, because there isn't any, and no honest doctor or biologist supports legal abortion on that basis.

You may now feel free to stop squirming around, trying to split hairs between "alive,but not a life", and other equally specious garbage.

 

[gekaap]

This is because science and medicine have zero - ZERO - question on the differences between cells, tissue, organs, and organisms.

Wow, really! I guess that settles how much merit your arguments have.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is because science and medicine have zero - ZERO - question on the differences between cells, tissue, organs, and organisms.

Wow, really! I guess that settles how much merit your arguments have.

Yes, a line of LOLs in response to ONE LINE out of a post is all the rebuttal you need . . . no, wait, it's not.

Thanks for admitting you have no argument except "just knowing" I'm wrong.

Like I said, we definitely know you're neither a doctor nor a scientist. Now we also know you're not a lawyer, given your debating skills.

 

[code1211]

A four week old human embryo will grow to become a human being.

And a single root can grow to become an entire forest. But it's not there yet, which is the point.

It won't grow to be an oak tree or a frog. Your fig leaf argument that a 4 week old embryo may or may not be a human being is utter and complete bull. Forget that.

This is a non-sequitor. The fact that a human embryo won't grow into a frog does not mean that it is yet a human being. Would you call a fertilized ova a human being? It will become one eventually, but that does not mean it is yet a human being. You're trying to avoid the difficulty of identifying that "magic moment" by dismissing its importance to the question at hand. But it is the entirety of the question at hand. The Supreme Court has recognized this difficulty as part of the legal framework for constitutionally protected abortion rights, and the fact that the medical establishment cannot offer answers is part of the reason why the Supreme Court found the matter to be legally deferred to decisions between a patient and doctor, and protected under a person's right to privacy.



Yes, in some jurisdictions this does happen. And I'm usually the first one to point out the inconsistencies in this and legalized abortion. But if you are going to raise this point in support of your position then you should know a little more about it first. When laws allow prosecution for the murder of an unborn child associated with the murder of a pregnant woman, the mother has to be at a certain point in pregnancy. A woman who gets pregnant tonight, and murdered 6 weeks from now, will not present a case to charge the criminal with two homicides. So actually, the point you bring up affirms my position if it affirms anyone's.



So do you mean to deny that a person has the right to do with their own body what they so choose? Should the government outlaw consumption of certain foods because it clogs people's arteries?



Perhaps you should actually read the Roe v. Wade decision. It discusses the development of pregnancy as time goes along, and addresses whether anything in the history of our constitutional law can has ever or can be so interpreted to imply that an unborn embryo or fetus has any protected rights under our constitution. The court also specifically notes that determining exactly when the "magical moment" occurs where a human being's life begins is a question best left to scientists and philosophers, and the court refuses to proclaim any such decision on that question absent evidence from the medical establishment.



Let's be clear on some terms here. Nobody is denying that an embryo is "life." But even a single bacterium is life. And nobody is denying that it's "human" life. But then again, my appendix is life, and human at that. But my appendix can be legally removed from my body and discarded, because it is not a human being. An embryo is life, but it is not yet a human being.



The only one trying to rationalize things away is you. You keep trying to rationalize away the importance of the "magical moment" concept to the issue, and your constant dismissal thereof. You don't seem interested in addressing it; I suspect because you can't offer a meaningful answer to it.

but degrading human life to justify this is simply a lie.

This is question begging.

If you support abortion, you support ending life. That is what it is. At least have the decency to acknowledge the thing for what it is.

Maybe you need to have the decency to acknowledge that your position on what an embryo is is not founded on any medical evidence, that it is actually counter to the general consensus that a human being begins to exist at some time DURING pregnancy and not at the beginning of pregnancy, and that your opinion on the matter is no more valid than any opinion to the contrary.

Everything you said is ridiculous.

Abortion of a healthy unborn whatever term you care to apply is ending a life. Period.

Part of the Roe v Wade decision was based on the 14th Amendment which says at its beginning that a "Person" is only a citizen if that person is "born". Because an unborn entity at any point in the pregnancy is not born, it has no rights before the law. Your argument in this topic about the "spark of life" is completely unrelated to the law.

The law is quite clear that an unborn entity is not a person and therefore not a citizen and therefore unprotected by law. I get it. You don't.

What is legal and what is obviously true are two quite different and separate things. If you cannot even accept the obvious truth of something, you have no hope of ever grasping any of the reality that surrounds it.

I am not arguing to overturn or weaken Roe. I am only arguing to see this for what it is and not to lie to yourself while arguing vague points of technicalities before the awesome weight of what the discussion is about.

 

[sitarro]

You're right - the UE rate is down to 9.0. I hope you're not suggesting that the GOP's new House majority had anything to do with it. They haven't touched jobs; and even if they did, those policies wouldn't have an effect on the economy this soon. So far, all they've done is focus on health care and social issues. Looks like they really got the message

You are typical of the dimwits on the left that think that jobs only come from government and politicians. The mere fact that the Republicans took over a majority in the House would make some employers more hopeful for the future and thus willing to chance the hiring of new workers. Just as the losers that have lived off the taxpayers their whole life are excited at the prospect of new taxpayer funded handouts when their pals in the Democrat party are elected. Stop watching the imbeciles on MSNBC.

And you, sir, are moronically mistaken if you really believe that the mere fact that Republicans took over the House is enough to drive down UE numbers. BWAHAHAHAHAHA, what a fucking joke! If that's how you really interpret the new UE numbers, then you are a fool. You might want to get your money back on that Glenn Beck Decoder Ring TM. It's doing you no good. And while you're at it, you might want to remove that tinfoil hat and wipe that koolaid mustache.

Oh look, it's a Keithy Olberfuhrer wannabe. Sorry ace, never watch or listen to Beck. How do you interpret the numbers, do you honestly think that there is a single business person in this country that is thrilled with the clown in chief?

 

[sparky]

This is because science and medicine have zero - ZERO - question on the differences between cells, tissue, organs, and organisms.

The law is quite clear that an unborn entity is not a person and therefore not a citizen and therefore unprotected by law. I get it. You don't.

Abortion of a healthy unborn whatever term you care to apply is ending a life. Period.

Do Doctors. Lawyers & Scientists all agree when life begins? Is there some common medical,legal,scientifc,spiritual ground where all are in agreement?

How would a fibroid tumor differ from a fetus in utero to all the above factions?

Define 'life' , does it mean existing on it's own? Does it mean a heartbeat*? brainwaves?, etc? Or does it mean the temple of the soul? If so, can two souls , mother/fetus exist in one body? Or does the fetus gain a soul externally?



*Well, the doctor and the lawyer and Indian chief
They all dig that crazy beat
Way Out Willie gave 'em all a treat
When he did that hand jive with his feet


Fetus Jive, Fetus Jive, doin' that crazy Fetus Jive.....

 

[gekaap]

Thanks for admitting you have no argument except "just knowing" I'm wrong.

Like I said, we definitely know you're neither a doctor nor a scientist. Now we also know you're not a lawyer, given your debating skills.

You've established the absolute lack of merit that your arguments possess by claiming that medical sciences do not differentiate between cells, tissue, organs, and organisms. That's like saying mechanics make no distinction between bolts, mufflers, fuel injection systems, and cars. It is both a ridiculous concept, and it is so blatantly false that if you do not know the fact already, then your complete lack of knowledge is really just sad. By your argument, getting your appendix removed is killing a human being. Because even though it's just an organ, there is no difference between an organ and organism. I've been debating politics on the internet for over 10 years, and without a doubt your arguments here have proven to be the most sad and devoid of merit.

 

[gekaap]

Everything you said is ridiculous.

If that is the case, then why do you still have yet to address the merits of my arguments?

Abortion of a healthy unborn whatever term you care to apply is ending a life. Period.

"It just is! I just know!" Something like that what you're trying to say? Repeating something over and over does not make it true. You have yet to provide a single piece of support for your position.

Part of the Roe v Wade decision was based on the 14th Amendment which says at its beginning that a "Person" is only a citizen if that person is "born". Because an unborn entity at any point in the pregnancy is not born, it has no rights before the law. Your argument in this topic about the "spark of life" is completely unrelated to the law.

The only mention of the law I made in that regard was to point out that the Supreme Court explicitly refused to take on the question of judicially declaring just when a human being begins their existence. So what is your complaint?

The law is quite clear that an unborn entity is not a person and therefore not a citizen and therefore unprotected by law. I get it. You don't.

If you go back and review, you'll see that I am not the one who brought up that aspect. Oh, wait, wasn't it YOU who brought up the issue of trying a person for the murder of an unborn person when the mother is murdered? So obviously I do get it, and you just don't get your own arguments and their implications.

What is legal and what is obviously true are two quite different and separate things. If you cannot even accept the obvious truth of something, you have no hope of ever grasping any of the reality that surrounds it.

So, you would suggest that your position, that an embryo constitutes a human being, is an "obvious truth." Why can't you just provide support for your position, instead of falliciously proclaiming it "obvious truth"? It seems to me that you aren't capable of supporting your position, which makes your arguments without merit.

I am not arguing to overturn or weaken Roe. I am only arguing to see this for what it is and not to lie to yourself while arguing vague points of technicalities before the awesome weight of what the discussion is about.

What? Are you in the same reality here? As I see it, the awesome weight of this issue is politicians trying to restrict abortion rights and trying to force their opinion on the rest of the people, via legislation. I don't know what you're on about.

 

[kaz]

Sen. Richard Blumenthal: GOP Dials Back the Clock on Progress for Women


The bills introduced by Representatives Mike Pence and Christopher Smith take an unprecedented step of blocking women's access to the reproductive health care they need and have a right to -- and I will strongly oppose them. These bills seek to overturn years of long-standing legal doctrine and, even worse, they endanger the health of women in this country by attempting to end insurance coverage -- including private coverage -- for all abortions. We cannot allow women's health to be jeopardized by limiting the options that they and their doctors have when it comes to their reproductive health care.

I like the double standard of your avatar where you attack a woman because she's a woman who DARED to leave the Democratic Party plantation where women are bitches who will serve the liberal collective and be destroyed if they don't, but it's OK because they can get someone to fund an abortion...