The Politics of Pregnancy.

[dblack]

The only “politics” here is the government should allow its CITIZENS to have LIBERTY.
Both liberals and conservatives should agree with USA’s founding premise.

If modern liberals and conservatives agree on anything, it's that liberty has no place in modern government. Both parties see government as a tool to shape society.

Interesting.

Clearly true of Liberals.....but I'd like links to the same for conservatives.

This thread for starters. But I don't expect you to admit it. You're all filled with self-righteous zeal. That's got to feel good after wading through Trump's sewer for the last two years.

You can't specify how conservatives are for banning and mandating, as Liberals are?

Despite your blinders, I'll say it again: this thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.A perennial mistake that folks make is awarding an undeserved objectivity, trustworthiness and/or ability to make decisions for the entire public. Nowhere is this more evident that that awarded to politicians, economists, bureaucrats, and weathermen. But awarding same to those nominally known as ‘scientists’ is surely a close second. Biases, preferences, politics and credit card debt all enter ‘scientist’s’ claims as do they any average citizen.

If all of the above named functionaries were as honest and reputable as claimed, abortion would not even be an issue: it would not be an option.




2.For context, it is a tenet of faith for every Liberal/Democrat/Progressive, that women have the right to exterminate the unique, separate, living human being that, under their own auspices, now absorbs nourishment in said woman’s body.

And, as we have learned in recent weeks, Democrat controlled legislative bodies have determined that not only is said murder a ‘right,’ but should the baby actually be born, it can be set aside and be allowed, if they so consider, to pass away.




Savages cheered when the New York State government passed such a bill into law.

And another savage: “‘It was the best decision I have ever made’: Actress Jameela Jamil defends her abortion, criticizes bans”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...es-bans/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e72235056612


And more: “Oprah Winfrey Promotes “Shout Your Abortion” Movement Where Women Brag About Their Abortions”
Oprah Winfrey Promotes “Shout Your Abortion” Movement Where Women Brag About Their Abortions | LifeNews.com




3. The questions that surround the issue are largely political, rather than scientific. Is it a living thing that is to be made non-living? Of course. "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

Is it a human being? I will no doubt be a Homo sapiens…if you keep your hands off.

Is it part of the woman’s body? Nay….it has entirely different DNA, fingerprints, and, often, a different gender.



Let’s get to the law…..

Next.

You clearly do not understand science.
The only “politics” here is the government should allow its CITIZENS to have LIBERTY.
Both liberals and conservatives should agree with USA’s founding premise.

Let's see which of us understands science: is the fetus a part of the woman's body?


Take your time.

Yes, a fetus is a part of the womans’s body, and so are unused eggs, and so are bacteria.

Take your time with “science”.

Watch how deftly I prove you know less than nothing about science:



The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?


Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The only “politics” here is the government should allow its CITIZENS to have LIBERTY.
Both liberals and conservatives should agree with USA’s founding premise.

If modern liberals and conservatives agree on anything, it's that liberty has no place in modern government. Both parties see government as a tool to shape society.

Interesting.

Clearly true of Liberals.....but I'd like links to the same for conservatives.

This thread for starters. But I don't expect you to admit it. You're all filled with self-righteous zeal. That's got to feel good after wading through Trump's sewer for the last two years.

You can't specify how conservatives are for banning and mandating, as Liberals are?

Despite your blinders, I'll say it again: this thread.

You can't specify how conservatives are for banning and mandating, as Liberals are?



Of course you can't.


Given an enema, you could be buried in a matchbox.

 

[Moonglow]

1.A perennial mistake that folks make is awarding an undeserved objectivity, trustworthiness and/or ability to make decisions for the entire public. Nowhere is this more evident that that awarded to politicians, economists, bureaucrats, and weathermen. But awarding same to those nominally known as ‘scientists’ is surely a close second. Biases, preferences, politics and credit card debt all enter ‘scientist’s’ claims as do they any average citizen.

If all of the above named functionaries were as honest and reputable as claimed, abortion would not even be an issue: it would not be an option.




2.For context, it is a tenet of faith for every Liberal/Democrat/Progressive, that women have the right to exterminate the unique, separate, living human being that, under their own auspices, now absorbs nourishment in said woman’s body.

And, as we have learned in recent weeks, Democrat controlled legislative bodies have determined that not only is said murder a ‘right,’ but should the baby actually be born, it can be set aside and be allowed, if they so consider, to pass away.




Savages cheered when the New York State government passed such a bill into law.

And another savage: “‘It was the best decision I have ever made’: Actress Jameela Jamil defends her abortion, criticizes bans”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...es-bans/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e72235056612


And more: “Oprah Winfrey Promotes “Shout Your Abortion” Movement Where Women Brag About Their Abortions”
Oprah Winfrey Promotes “Shout Your Abortion” Movement Where Women Brag About Their Abortions | LifeNews.com




3. The questions that surround the issue are largely political, rather than scientific. Is it a living thing that is to be made non-living? Of course. "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

Is it a human being? I will no doubt be a Homo sapiens…if you keep your hands off.

Is it part of the woman’s body? Nay….it has entirely different DNA, fingerprints, and, often, a different gender.



Let’s get to the law…..

Next.

You clearly do not understand science.
The only “politics” here is the government should allow its CITIZENS to have LIBERTY.
Both liberals and conservatives should agree with USA’s founding premise.

Let's see which of us understands science: is the fetus a part of the woman's body?


Take your time.

Yes, a fetus is a part of the womans’s body, and so are unused eggs, and so are bacteria.

Take your time with “science”.

Watch how deftly I prove you know less than nothing about science:



The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?


Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Asians use test tube babies to populate China..

 

[dblack]

If modern liberals and conservatives agree on anything, it's that liberty has no place in modern government. Both parties see government as a tool to shape society.

Interesting.

Clearly true of Liberals.....but I'd like links to the same for conservatives.

This thread for starters. But I don't expect you to admit it. You're all filled with self-righteous zeal. That's got to feel good after wading through Trump's sewer for the last two years.

You can't specify how conservatives are for banning and mandating, as Liberals are?

Despite your blinders, I'll say it again: this thread.

You can't specify how conservatives are for banning and mandating, as Liberals are?

"It's different when we do it".

You're proposing banning abortion and mandating births, but it's different because you have reasons!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Interesting.

Clearly true of Liberals.....but I'd like links to the same for conservatives.

This thread for starters. But I don't expect you to admit it. You're all filled with self-righteous zeal. That's got to feel good after wading through Trump's sewer for the last two years.

You can't specify how conservatives are for banning and mandating, as Liberals are?

Despite your blinders, I'll say it again: this thread.

You can't specify how conservatives are for banning and mandating, as Liberals are?

"It's different when we do it".

You're proposing banning abortion and mandating births, but it's different because you have reasons!

I propose banning murder.

You have a problem with that, dunce?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats Legalize Murder

1.The greatest claim for voters that the Democrats have is absolving their adherents of any personal responsibility.

Up to and including an inconvenient birth.


2. “New York passes law allowing abortions at any time if mother's health is at risk” New York passes law allowing abortions at any time if mother's health is at risk


This is simply one more of the pretenses Liberals/Democrats use to allow murder.


3. Snopes:

“What's True

The New York state legislature passed a law allowing abortions after 24 weeks if the mother's health is at risk or there is an absence of fetal viability.

What's False

The law does not allow for unrestricted abortion up through the normal term of pregnancy.”
FACT CHECK: Did New York Pass a Bill Legalizing Abortions Up to Birth?


Fact: if you can get any doctor to claim physical, or psychological, harm….you get the abortion, the legal right to kill the child you created....up to the moment before birth.




4. Is it murder?

There is the case of America’s greatest serial killer, Dr. Kermit Gosnell.

“Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Guilty of Murder in Late-Term Procedures” Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Guilty of Murder in Late-Term Procedures



Convicted of first degree murder, and now, everything that Gosnell was convicted of is legal in NY….thanks to Democrats.

 

[Silver Blooded]

The only “politics” here is the government should allow its CITIZENS to have LIBERTY.
Both liberals and conservatives should agree with USA’s founding premise.

If modern liberals and conservatives agree on anything, it's that liberty has no place in modern government. Both parties see government as a tool to shape society.

I don't agree -- at all. I think federal laws should mostly be about protection of its citizens, not about culture. If the New York savages want to kill all their unborn babies at 9 months, I say go for it: It's their state. Those guys want that kind of toxic attitude towards their unborn children that's fine. If the southern states want to ban abortion, they should. It's their state; it's their cultural beliefs. Arrogant pricks living in ivory towers several hundred miles away shouldn't tell those people how to live. That's why Roe v. Wade needs to be abolished -- So the states (and the people living in them) can decide what they want to do with abortion.

 

[dblack]

I propose banning murder.

You have a problem with that, dunce?????

Don't lie. That's not what you're proposing. Otherwise, you'd just propose that. You're proposing that the legal definition of murder be changed to include women refusing to give birth.

 

[denmark]

1.A perennial mistake that folks make is awarding an undeserved objectivity, trustworthiness and/or ability to make decisions for the entire public. Nowhere is this more evident that that awarded to politicians, economists, bureaucrats, and weathermen. But awarding same to those nominally known as ‘scientists’ is surely a close second. Biases, preferences, politics and credit card debt all enter ‘scientist’s’ claims as do they any average citizen.

If all of the above named functionaries were as honest and reputable as claimed, abortion would not even be an issue: it would not be an option.




2.For context, it is a tenet of faith for every Liberal/Democrat/Progressive, that women have the right to exterminate the unique, separate, living human being that, under their own auspices, now absorbs nourishment in said woman’s body.

And, as we have learned in recent weeks, Democrat controlled legislative bodies have determined that not only is said murder a ‘right,’ but should the baby actually be born, it can be set aside and be allowed, if they so consider, to pass away.




Savages cheered when the New York State government passed such a bill into law.

And another savage: “‘It was the best decision I have ever made’: Actress Jameela Jamil defends her abortion, criticizes bans”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...es-bans/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e72235056612


And more: “Oprah Winfrey Promotes “Shout Your Abortion” Movement Where Women Brag About Their Abortions”
Oprah Winfrey Promotes “Shout Your Abortion” Movement Where Women Brag About Their Abortions | LifeNews.com




3. The questions that surround the issue are largely political, rather than scientific. Is it a living thing that is to be made non-living? Of course. "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

Is it a human being? I will no doubt be a Homo sapiens…if you keep your hands off.

Is it part of the woman’s body? Nay….it has entirely different DNA, fingerprints, and, often, a different gender.



Let’s get to the law…..

Next.

You clearly do not understand science.
The only “politics” here is the government should allow its CITIZENS to have LIBERTY.
Both liberals and conservatives should agree with USA’s founding premise.

Let's see which of us understands science: is the fetus a part of the woman's body?


Take your time.

Yes, a fetus is a part of the womans’s body, and so are unused eggs, and so are bacteria.

Take your time with “science”.

Watch how deftly I prove you know less than nothing about science:



The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?


Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

It is very simple. Watch this:
The science is OBVIOUS; the fetus is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on the pregnant woman, and that pregnant woman is the master of her body.
The politics is CLEAR; the fetus is not a citizen, but the pregnant woman may be a citizen, and has full rights to her FREEDOM ... to choose.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The only “politics” here is the government should allow its CITIZENS to have LIBERTY.
Both liberals and conservatives should agree with USA’s founding premise.

If modern liberals and conservatives agree on anything, it's that liberty has no place in modern government. Both parties see government as a tool to shape society.

I don't agree -- at all. I think federal laws should mostly be about protection of its citizens, not about culture. If the New York savages want to kill all their unborn babies at 9 months, I say go for it: It's their state. Those guys want that kind of toxic attitude towards their unborn children that's fine. If the southern states want to ban abortion, they should. It's their state; it's their cultural beliefs. Arrogant pricks living in ivory towers several hundred miles away shouldn't tell those people how to live. That's why Roe v. Wade needs to be abolished -- So the states (and the people living in them) can decide what they want to do with abortion.

How about the concept of right and wrong?

Or should we have simply left Europe to the Nazis, and the world to the Bolsheviks?




BTW.....welcome to the board and the battles.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.A perennial mistake that folks make is awarding an undeserved objectivity, trustworthiness and/or ability to make decisions for the entire public. Nowhere is this more evident that that awarded to politicians, economists, bureaucrats, and weathermen. But awarding same to those nominally known as ‘scientists’ is surely a close second. Biases, preferences, politics and credit card debt all enter ‘scientist’s’ claims as do they any average citizen.

If all of the above named functionaries were as honest and reputable as claimed, abortion would not even be an issue: it would not be an option.




2.For context, it is a tenet of faith for every Liberal/Democrat/Progressive, that women have the right to exterminate the unique, separate, living human being that, under their own auspices, now absorbs nourishment in said woman’s body.

And, as we have learned in recent weeks, Democrat controlled legislative bodies have determined that not only is said murder a ‘right,’ but should the baby actually be born, it can be set aside and be allowed, if they so consider, to pass away.




Savages cheered when the New York State government passed such a bill into law.

And another savage: “‘It was the best decision I have ever made’: Actress Jameela Jamil defends her abortion, criticizes bans”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...es-bans/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e72235056612


And more: “Oprah Winfrey Promotes “Shout Your Abortion” Movement Where Women Brag About Their Abortions”
Oprah Winfrey Promotes “Shout Your Abortion” Movement Where Women Brag About Their Abortions | LifeNews.com




3. The questions that surround the issue are largely political, rather than scientific. Is it a living thing that is to be made non-living? Of course. "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

Is it a human being? I will no doubt be a Homo sapiens…if you keep your hands off.

Is it part of the woman’s body? Nay….it has entirely different DNA, fingerprints, and, often, a different gender.



Let’s get to the law…..

Next.

You clearly do not understand science.
The only “politics” here is the government should allow its CITIZENS to have LIBERTY.
Both liberals and conservatives should agree with USA’s founding premise.

Let's see which of us understands science: is the fetus a part of the woman's body?


Take your time.

Yes, a fetus is a part of the womans’s body, and so are unused eggs, and so are bacteria.

Take your time with “science”.

Watch how deftly I prove you know less than nothing about science:



The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?


Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

It is very simple. Watch this:
The science is OBVIOUS; the fetus is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on the pregnant woman, and that pregnant woman is the master of her body.
The politics is CLEAR; the fetus is not a citizen, but the pregnant woman may be a citizen, and has full rights to her FREEDOM ... to choose.

So is a 6-month old, breast feeding.

Kill it, too???????



No one has 'freedom' to kill a separate, unique, innocent human being......other than Liberals, of course.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I propose banning murder.

You have a problem with that, dunce?????

Don't lie. That's not what you're proposing. Otherwise, you'd just propose that. You're proposing that the legal definition of murder be changed to include women refusing to give birth.

I never lie.

I'm not a Liberal.

 

[denmark]

The only “politics” here is the government should allow its CITIZENS to have LIBERTY.
Both liberals and conservatives should agree with USA’s founding premise.

If modern liberals and conservatives agree on anything, it's that liberty has no place in modern government. Both parties see government as a tool to shape society.

I don't agree -- at all. I think federal laws should mostly be about protection of its citizens, not about culture. If the New York savages want to kill all their unborn babies at 9 months, I say go for it: It's their state. Those guys want that kind of toxic attitude towards their unborn children that's fine. If the southern states want to ban abortion, they should. It's their state; it's their cultural beliefs. Arrogant pricks living in ivory towers several hundred miles away shouldn't tell those people how to live. That's why Roe v. Wade needs to be abolished -- So the states (and the people living in them) can decide what they want to do with abortion.

Should the states decide on slavery, as in the past?
This abortion issue is at the basis of liberty.
Who has more claim to liberty: mother or fetus?

 

[denmark]

You clearly do not understand science.
The only “politics” here is the government should allow its CITIZENS to have LIBERTY.
Both liberals and conservatives should agree with USA’s founding premise.

Let's see which of us understands science: is the fetus a part of the woman's body?


Take your time.

Yes, a fetus is a part of the womans’s body, and so are unused eggs, and so are bacteria.

Take your time with “science”.

Watch how deftly I prove you know less than nothing about science:



The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?


Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

It is very simple. Watch this:
The science is OBVIOUS; the fetus is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on the pregnant woman, and that pregnant woman is the master of her body.
The politics is CLEAR; the fetus is not a citizen, but the pregnant woman may be a citizen, and has full rights to her FREEDOM ... to choose.

So is a 6-month old, breast feeding.

Kill it, too???????



No one has 'freedom' to kill a separate, unique, innocent human being......other than Liberals, of course.

You are an extremist. How many “liberals” want to terminate their pregnancy? If they do, it’s THEIR PRIVATE MATTER, not the government. Every case is different. I have no problem killing MY fetus if I discover it is an unhealthy mutant. MY decision, not yours.
Don’t be a Nazi.

 

[depotoo]

Directly from the Bill-

The term does not include these activities if done with the intent to save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child, remove a dead unborn child, to deliver the unborn child prematurely to avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother, or to preserve the health of her unborn child. The term does not include a procedure or act to terminate the pregnancy of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, nor does it include the procedure or act to terminate the pregnancy of a woman when the unborn child has a lethal anomaly.

Let's see which of us understands science: is the fetus a part of the woman's body?


Take your time.

Yes, a fetus is a part of the womans’s body, and so are unused eggs, and so are bacteria.

Take your time with “science”.

Watch how deftly I prove you know less than nothing about science:



The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?


Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

It is very simple. Watch this:
The science is OBVIOUS; the fetus is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on the pregnant woman, and that pregnant woman is the master of her body.
The politics is CLEAR; the fetus is not a citizen, but the pregnant woman may be a citizen, and has full rights to her FREEDOM ... to choose.

So is a 6-month old, breast feeding.

Kill it, too???????



No one has 'freedom' to kill a separate, unique, innocent human being......other than Liberals, of course.

You are an extremist. How many “liberals” want to terminate their pregnancy? If they do, it’s THEIR PRIVATE MATTER, not the government. Every case is different. I have no problem killing MY fetus if I discover it is an unhealthy mutant. MY decision, not yours.
Don’t be a Nazi.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's see which of us understands science: is the fetus a part of the woman's body?


Take your time.

Yes, a fetus is a part of the womans’s body, and so are unused eggs, and so are bacteria.

Take your time with “science”.

Watch how deftly I prove you know less than nothing about science:



The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?


Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

It is very simple. Watch this:
The science is OBVIOUS; the fetus is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on the pregnant woman, and that pregnant woman is the master of her body.
The politics is CLEAR; the fetus is not a citizen, but the pregnant woman may be a citizen, and has full rights to her FREEDOM ... to choose.

So is a 6-month old, breast feeding.

Kill it, too???????



No one has 'freedom' to kill a separate, unique, innocent human being......other than Liberals, of course.

You are an extremist. How many “liberals” want to terminate their pregnancy? If they do, it’s THEIR PRIVATE MATTER, not the government. Every case is different. I have no problem killing MY fetus if I discover it is an unhealthy mutant. MY decision, not yours.
Don’t be a Nazi.

Nazi?????

In every post you prove you not equipped to have any adult conversation.

The Nazis were socialists, Leftist, and stood for every program Liberals stand for.



Workers Welfare Programs:

In the best passage of Government largess, the Nazi regime fostered a purified liberal concept to enhance the living standard of German citizens across all segments of society. In order to stimulate the spirit of integrity, comradeship and happiness, Adolf Hitler fanned numerous programs and instituted strict rules for officials to carry them in eternal way.

a) Highly Subsidized International vacation trips.

b) Between 1933-1938 Strength through Joy (KDF) movement Organized 134,000 theater and concert events for 32 million people. 2 million people went on cruises and weekend trips and 11 million went on theater trips.

c) Nazis ensured that every citizen had a Radio.

d) 5 day week.

e) Free Public Health.

f) Trade Unions were banned. All workers had to join German labor Front. Strikes for higher wages were banned. People who refused to work were imprisoned. With fall in Inflation, purchasing power increased and wages actually fell.

g) Large factories had to provide rest areas, cafeterias, dressing rooms, even playing fields and swimming pools

h) They also banned "lock outs" for industries. No "reverse strikes"for them either.

LIES YOUR TEACHER TAUGHT YOU: Nazi Hitler Economic Social and Political Policies



Of course, Nazis 'aborted' adults....by the millions.


Please don't come back until you have an actual education, you imbecile.

 

[denmark]

Yes, a fetus is a part of the womans’s body, and so are unused eggs, and so are bacteria.

Take your time with “science”.

Watch how deftly I prove you know less than nothing about science:



The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?


Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

It is very simple. Watch this:
The science is OBVIOUS; the fetus is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on the pregnant woman, and that pregnant woman is the master of her body.
The politics is CLEAR; the fetus is not a citizen, but the pregnant woman may be a citizen, and has full rights to her FREEDOM ... to choose.

So is a 6-month old, breast feeding.

Kill it, too???????



No one has 'freedom' to kill a separate, unique, innocent human being......other than Liberals, of course.

You are an extremist. How many “liberals” want to terminate their pregnancy? If they do, it’s THEIR PRIVATE MATTER, not the government. Every case is different. I have no problem killing MY fetus if I discover it is an unhealthy mutant. MY decision, not yours.
Don’t be a Nazi.

Nazi?????

In every post you prove you not equipped to have any adult conversation.

The Nazis were socialists, Leftist, and stood for every program Liberals stand for.



Workers Welfare Programs:

In the best passage of Government largess, the Nazi regime fostered a purified liberal concept to enhance the living standard of German citizens across all segments of society. In order to stimulate the spirit of integrity, comradeship and happiness, Adolf Hitler fanned numerous programs and instituted strict rules for officials to carry them in eternal way.

a) Highly Subsidized International vacation trips.

b) Between 1933-1938 Strength through Joy (KDF) movement Organized 134,000 theater and concert events for 32 million people. 2 million people went on cruises and weekend trips and 11 million went on theater trips.

c) Nazis ensured that every citizen had a Radio.

d) 5 day week.

e) Free Public Health.

f) Trade Unions were banned. All workers had to join German labor Front. Strikes for higher wages were banned. People who refused to work were imprisoned. With fall in Inflation, purchasing power increased and wages actually fell.

g) Large factories had to provide rest areas, cafeterias, dressing rooms, even playing fields and swimming pools

h) They also banned "lock outs" for industries. No "reverse strikes"for them either.

LIES YOUR TEACHER TAUGHT YOU: Nazi Hitler Economic Social and Political Policies



Of course, Nazis 'aborted' adults....by the millions.


Please don't come back until you have an actual education, you imbecile.

You refer to youself as an imbecile when you
misunderstand the simple text I write or try diversion tactics to avoid admitting your stupidity.
I used YOUR text “Nazi”, which refers to ultra authoritarian people like you who want to take away a woman’s liberty to choose her future lifestyle.
Come back when you educate yourself.

 

[Silver Blooded]

Should the states decide on slavery, as in the past?
This abortion issue is at the basis of liberty.
Who has more claim to liberty: mother or fetus?

I'm not going to derail the thread by talking about slavery, but if you want to talk about that privately I'm all for it.

Who has more of a claim? That depends on the beliefs of local culture. In New York, the mother does. In Alabama, the fetus does.

End Roe v. Wade,
Let local culture decide what to do,
Case closed,
Move on to gun control.

How about the concept of right and wrong?

Or should we have simply left Europe to the Nazis, and the world to the Bolsheviks?

BTW.....welcome to the board and the battles.

Right and wrong depends on culture. To expand on that point, I will discuss WWII. Should we have entered WWII: yes and no. The war in Europe: yes, because that was a geopolitical issue, rather than a moral issue. England's an ally and Hitler would have attacked us eventually anyway. But war with Japan? No. Pearl Harbor ended up getting bombed because FDR decided to embargo Japan out of morality. We got sucked into war with Japan because FDR tried to do the "right thing." We should have left Asia alone because that was none of our business. Let Asia burn themselves to the ground -- They never would have bothered us. We got lucky in the pacific, but imagine what the USA would be like today if we lost to Japan (probably would have just lost a lot of resources and Hawaii, but can't really say). Fighting for morality can make things worse sometimes.

We always feel we know what's best for our neighbors, and try to tell them so. This can cause discourse and drama. How about we decide what's best for us, let our neighbors decide what's best for them, and we can all stop bickering about who's right.

Thanks for the welcome.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Should the states decide on slavery, as in the past?
This abortion issue is at the basis of liberty.
Who has more claim to liberty: mother or fetus?

I'm not going to derail the thread by talking about slavery, but if you want to talk about that privately I'm all for it.

Who has more of a claim? That depends on the beliefs of local culture. In New York, the mother does. In Alabama, the fetus does.

End Roe v. Wade,
Let local culture decide what to do,
Case closed,
Move on to gun control.

How about the concept of right and wrong?

Or should we have simply left Europe to the Nazis, and the world to the Bolsheviks?

BTW.....welcome to the board and the battles.

Right and wrong depends on culture. To expand on that point, I will discuss WWII. Should we have entered WWII: yes and no. The war in Europe: yes, because that was a geopolitical issue, rather than a moral issue. England's an ally and Hitler would have attacked us eventually anyway. But war with Japan? No. Pearl Harbor ended up getting bombed because FDR decided to embargo Japan out of morality. We got sucked into war with Japan because FDR tried to do the "right thing." We should have left Asia alone because that was none of our business. Let Asia burn themselves to the ground -- They never would have bothered us. We got lucky in the pacific, but imagine what the USA would be like today if we lost to Japan (probably would have just lost a lot of resources and Hawaii, but can't really say). Fighting for morality can make things worse sometimes.

We always feel we know what's best for our neighbors, and try to tell them so. This can cause discourse and drama. How about we decide what's best for us, let our neighbors decide what's best for them, and we can all stop bickering about who's right.

Thanks for the welcome.

Right and wrong are the basis of Western Civilization.

"This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience."
David Mamet


It is a terrible mistake to accept the postmodernist's moral equivalence.