A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Slade3200]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

I'm pro-life but honestly it isn't a huge issue for me, and I am for choice in certain circumstances.

However here is what I really don't understand:

If you murder a pregnant women you get charged for murdering TWO people. How is that possible? That makes no sense to me whatsoever if we were to buy into the notion that a fetus is not a human being and therefore an abortion is not murder.

The only difference between those two scenarios is that in one the baby was wanted, in the other the baby was not. However, the mother's wishes have zero impact on the biological characteristics of the fetus.

You make a good point... The two laws do present a bit of a paradox. My reasoning would be the double murder is just a way to justify serving a harsher punishment for what is a heinous crime.

 

[Boss]

I'm pro-life but honestly it isn't a huge issue for me, and I am for choice in certain circumstances.

However here is what I really don't understand:

If you murder a pregnant women you get charged for murdering TWO people. How is that possible? That makes no sense to me whatsoever if we were to buy into the notion that a fetus is not a human being and therefore an abortion is not murder.

The only difference between those two scenarios is that in one the baby was wanted, in the other the baby was not. However, the mother's wishes have zero impact on the biological characteristics of the fetus.

A few things here... There is no biological argument. A living human organism exists in a state of being from the point of conception. There is no other intelligent argument, those are the facts.

Pro-abortionists like to call themselves "pro-choice" because it makes their position sound better. They are actually not "pro-choice" they are in favor of avoiding the consequences of choice by denying another all their choices.

Finally, in addition to being protected against violent crimes, the fetus also has legal property rights.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm pro-life but honestly it isn't a huge issue for me, and I am for choice in certain circumstances.

However here is what I really don't understand:

If you murder a pregnant women you get charged for murdering TWO people. How is that possible? That makes no sense to me whatsoever if we were to buy into the notion that a fetus is not a human being and therefore an abortion is not murder.

The only difference between those two scenarios is that in one the baby was wanted, in the other the baby was not. However, the mother's wishes have zero impact on the biological characteristics of the fetus.

A few things here... There is no biological argument. A living human organism exists in a state of being from the point of conception. There is no other intelligent argument, those are the facts.

Pro-abortionists like to call themselves "pro-choice" because it makes their position sound better. They are actually not "pro-choice" they are in favor of avoiding the consequences of choice by denying another all their choices.

Finally, in addition to being protected against violent crimes, the fetus also has legal property rights.

You sound very confident in the validity of your statement but I can assure you for many it is quite the opposite. The "human organism" you refer to is a mass of cells that is developing within a woman, It is a part of her body. It is more of a parasite than a human until it reaches a state where it can survive on its own. I find it amusing to hear men who think they have all the answers about this yet they can never really understand what its like to grow something inside of them. It would be like a girl trying to tell you what it feels like to get kicked in the balls... There is just no way for her to know what kind of feeling that entails. jk

So when the term "pro-choice" is used, it is a very literal, accurate and deliberate phrase used in respect to the right for a woman to have control over what she does with her body. This is a very complicated issue and there is much to debate, however, don't belittle and mischaracterize the other sides point of view.... Even if you might not agree with it.

 

[Boss]

You sound very confident in the validity of your statement but I can assure you for many it is quite the opposite. The "human organism" you refer to is a mass of cells that is developing within a woman, It is a part of her body. It is more of a parasite than a human until it reaches a state where it can survive on its own.

Well okay.. First of all, a parasite is a living organism independent of the host. It is NOT a part of the host organism. The "mass of cells" are carrying on the process of life... it IS a biologically independent organism. Cancer is a part of her body, her fingernails are part of her body.... those cells are reproducing as a part of her organism. They are unable to maintain homeostasis and carry on the process of life. The fetus is not reproducing through her organism it is merely using her organism to develop as that is how humans reproduce. The fetus has it's own DNA, it's own heartbeat, it's own fingerprints, it's own brainwaves and nervous system. In biology, nothing is ever defined by it's ability to survive on it's own. Survival is subjective, some things can't ever survive on their own... it doesn't mean they weren't what they were. Newborn babies die every day because they couldn't survive on their own... it does not make them non-human. At some point, EVERY human being will be unable to survive on it's own. According to biology, the zygote qualifies as a living organism the moment the fused egg cell reproduces more cells. That instant, it becomes a living organism. It exists in the state of being,,, therefore, we call it a being. It is human, so we call it a human being.

I find it amusing to hear men who think they have all the answers about this yet they can never really understand what its like to grow something inside of them. It would be like a girl trying to tell you what it feels like to get kicked in the balls... There is just no way for her to know what kind of feeling that entails. jk

This isn't about feelings. This is about biology and ethics. What if it was a law that men could kill people who hit them in their testicles? Would you stand by the men fighting for that "right" because females don't know what it feels like?

So when the term "pro-choice" is used, it is a very literal, accurate and deliberate phrase used in respect to the right for a woman to have control over what she does with her body. This is a very complicated issue and there is much to debate, however, don't belittle and mischaracterize the other sides point of view.... Even if you might not agree with it.

But it's not accurate and it's not even literal... it's a lie. The woman had a choice... she chose to have unprotected sexual relations and she became pregnant as a result of her choice. For the record, it was also the male's choice and he should bear just as much responsibility. Our choices have consequences. Pro-abortionists like to call themselves "pro-choice" but they are actually opposed to taking responsibility for choices and they seek to escape their responsibility by removing ALL choices from another. You could more literally describe them as ANTI-choice.

Any point of view that does not recognize the biological fact that a fetus is a living human being is wrong and worthy of belittling and ridicule. I have NO problem with an honest objective debate over when it may be appropriate to terminate a human life. We can't have that conversation until we're on the same page. Denying the fetus is a human being is biological illiteracy.

 

[Chuz Life]

Secondly, if a foetus has the rights of a citizen...

But a fetus DOESN'T have the rights of a citizen or you couldn't arbitrarily kill them with abortions!

So you are trying to argue against a point that hasn't been established. We're arguing that they SHOULD have the rights of a citizen at some point. In the US, they are protected as victims of violent acts under the law and they do have property rights.

Nailed it.

 

[Chuz Life]

Secondly, if a foetus has the rights of a citizen...

But a fetus DOESN'T have the rights of a citizen or you couldn't arbitrarily kill them with abortions!

So you are trying to argue against a point that hasn't been established. We're arguing that they SHOULD have the rights of a citizen at some point. In the US, they are protected as victims of violent acts under the law and they do have property rights.

Have you never seen the argument made that foetus' should have citizenship or personhood rights?
Don't you think it's legitimate to argue against a position just because it's a hypothetical situation or a proposition for a change to the law?

Are you confusing yourself about your own idiotic argument?

You asked:
If a foetus is a person, shouldn't every miscarriage be investigated by the police?

Current law doesn't recognize the fetus as a person. They should be and maybe if they were, the police should investigate nefarious miscarriages? But you're asking the question as if it's legally established the fetus is a person.

Then you ask again:
If the fetus has the rights of a citizen...

But again, they DON'T have the rights at this time. So what the fuck are you arguing?

Sure... IF they DID... we'd have to deal with a whole host of issues. Just like we had to deal with a host of issues regarding freed slaves. That took us a century to work through but we eventually did. We're currently working through a host of issues pertaining to gay marriages but I don't recall all the "slippery slope" arguments carrying much weight in deciding whether to allow that.

"But again, they DON'T have the rights at this time."

You're dead right...they don't.

Do you care to explain the difference between having rights that are being violated and not having rights at all? Or can you not comprehend the difference?

 

[Chuz Life]

Do you think we should all "butt out" and mind our own business when it comes to any other forms of child molestations and murders. . . Or only when it's in the form of an abotion?

Also. . .

Why?

Okay. So, no abortions. Then, we can count on your support for federal assistance to women who can't afford a child being forced to have one, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I know that I have already answered this post one but I have another response as well.

1. You didn't answer my question about "butting out." Are you consistent with the view that we should all "butt out" in any other cases where children are molested and killed? or only with abortion? And why do you draw distinctions between them?

I did answer your question. I have never suggested that we "butt out" of cases of child molestation, or murder. A fetus is not a child. Yeah, yeah. You're going use an appeal to definition fallacy to insist that fetus is synonymous with child. That doesn't make the argument any less irrational. So, since a fetus is not a child, your question is fallacious, and irrelevant.

2. You seem to think that the children's right to not be murdered by abortions is something that others can barter with. In your comment, you seem to be suggesting that the child's right to not be aborted is contingent upon whether or not I or others will help provide for them once they are "born" through welfare and other government programs.

I can't find anything in the Constitution where it suggests that any "person's" rights are contingent in that way. So, can you quote the portion of the Constitution that you think supports your views on that?

The problem is your irrational appeal to emotion, by continually trying to get everyone to agree with your characterization of a fetus as a child. Since you have not succeeded in doing that, your entire argument is specious. Come on back, when you have something more than an attempt at making us "feel guilty".

1. If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child and not a person. . . then how do you explain the murder charges for killing one under in one of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws?

That's easy. Bad Law. One should never use bad law to try to justify an erroneous position. Those laws should never have been passed. They, in fact, were only given approval by the pro-choice activists when they were assured, repeatedly, that the laws were not designed to, nor would ever be used for, the very purpose for which you are now attempting to use them. They were assured that these laws were never meant to ensure the "rights of fetuses", but were allegedly meant only to get justice for women for whom the right to have a child was taken from them, against their will, by violent criminals. Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later. Like you are attempting to use those bad laws to do, now. Personally, I hope someone attempts what you are in the court system. Maybe then we can see those ill-conceived laws struck down.

2. Why is a pregnant woman said to be "with child?"

Really? Euphemisms? You are resorting to euphemisms to defend your position?

3. What is it that makes a biological "father" of any child - including a child in the womb? When did YOUR biological father become YOUR biological father?

Of course you can be a father to a fetus. That is merely an acknowledgement that your DNA contributed to the genetic makeup of the fetus. That still doesn't make the fetus synonymous with child.

Also, just so you know. . . You are using your accusation of "appeals to definitions" ass backwards.

As the link explains: "Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term."

YOU are trying to use the dictionary (definitions for child and children for example) to EXCLUDE children in the womb. And according to your cited fallacy. . . You are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of doing.

The word "child" is much more INCLUSIVE that you are comfortable with it being. And when I or anyone else try to point that out for you. . . . you fucking cry foul like a little fucking puss.

The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus.

I dont have the need to convince you of anything. You are not between myself and where this issue is going. Every member of this site could completely agree on every aspect of the abortion issue and it would not change ANYTHING with regard to the legality and future Supreme Court decisions.

You have a right to believe Fetal Homicide laws are "bad" laws if you want to but only will tell if you are right on that. So far, the SCOTUS has upheld both those laws and the convictions under them.

It's hilarious that you think that I am using the fetal homicide laws to challenge Roe. Because, the contradiction between our fetal homicide laws and Roe is not being brought to the attention of the SCOTUS by people like me. It is going to be pushed by those who are convicted under the fetal homicide laws as rhey try to get their convictions overturned.

 

[Conservative65]

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

Sure they do.....the facts don't agree with your rhetoric. Quit fudging the truth and face the facts.


For years the Republican Party has been telling us that the welfare system in America is helping to make people lazy and making them too dependent on the federal government.

As it turns out, Red states are far more likely to depend on federal welfare than blue states, and they are also more likely to have a higher percentage of poor people in their states. A new report from the Tax Foundation shows that two of the most conservative states in America – Louisiana and Mississippi – rank in the top 3 recipients of federal handouts.

Both Louisiana and Mississippi are run by backwards-thinking Republican governors who feel like it’s their job to cut benefits for the needy while at the same time handing out welfare to wealthy corporations. They have both also allowed the energy industry to operate with few limitations in their states, further reducing the health of the overall state.

Republicans love to tell us that welfare recipients are lazy and shiftless and that an individual’s success or failure is the sole responsibility of the individual, but THEY are actually the ones who depend the most on government handouts.
Welfare Hypocrisy: Red States Are The Real Freeloaders - The Ring of Fire - The Ring of Fire Network

Interesting how you don't know the state where I live yet seem to know a lot about it. I live here, bitch, you don't.

I wondered why you appeared so stupid....now I know...you live in one of those backward states. Just because you live there doesn't mean you are aware of what is going on....do some research...find out that your state is one of the states that sucks the government dry.

I told you why the state looks bad. All the leeches in the blue district suck it dry. Look at the demographics of that district and you'll understand why they do.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

I'm pro-life but honestly it isn't a huge issue for me, and I am for choice in certain circumstances.

However here is what I really don't understand:

If you murder a pregnant women you get charged for murdering TWO people. How is that possible? That makes no sense to me whatsoever if we were to buy into the notion that a fetus is not a human being and therefore an abortion is not murder.

The only difference between those two scenarios is that in one the baby was wanted, in the other the baby was not. However, the mother's wishes have zero impact on the biological characteristics of the fetus.

That's easy. Bad Law. You see, when we allow our emotions to over-rule our reason, we often pass bad, irrational law: Prohibition, the Patriot act, fetal homicide laws. You see those fetal homicide laws were sold to the Pro-choice activists as being specific to the crimes committed. In other words, it was promised that no one was ever going to try to argue that a fetus is a person, beyond the purpose of adding an additional layer to the consequences of a thoughtless, violent criminal. After all. the goal was to bring justice to a poor, victimized woman, right? See how that was done? The fetus,and the "rights" of a fetus were never even mentioned, or considered. At least that was how it was presented to the pro-choice folks who were worried about the law being used to justify anti-abortion legislation. "Look," they were told. "It's right in the verbiage of the law! Abortion is exempt from these laws. They can't be used to justify criminalizing abortion,"

Yet, here we are, less than 20 years later, and the sanctimonious moralists are using that very irrational law to do exactly what the Pro-Choice crowd was promised would never be done to win their support. It's bad, irrational law, and someone really should grow the balls to challenge it.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm pro-life but honestly it isn't a huge issue for me, and I am for choice in certain circumstances.

However here is what I really don't understand:

If you murder a pregnant women you get charged for murdering TWO people. How is that possible? That makes no sense to me whatsoever if we were to buy into the notion that a fetus is not a human being and therefore an abortion is not murder.

The only difference between those two scenarios is that in one the baby was wanted, in the other the baby was not. However, the mother's wishes have zero impact on the biological characteristics of the fetus.

A few things here... There is no biological argument. A living human organism exists in a state of being from the point of conception. There is no other intelligent argument, those are the facts.

Pro-abortionists like to call themselves "pro-choice" because it makes their position sound better. They are actually not "pro-choice" they are in favor of avoiding the consequences of choice by denying another all their choices.

Finally, in addition to being protected against violent crimes, the fetus also has legal property rights.

Ya see? This is why you keep being confused as one of the moralistic crackpots, Boss. Out of one side of your mouth you affirm that fetuses do not have personhood, and do not have "rights. You affirm that you are pro-choice (at least up to the end of the first trimester), but then out of the other side of your mouth you call us baby murderers\, abortionists, and insist that we have no "rational" argument.

And your arguments for insisting such are specious. You rather need to choose a position, and stick with it. Guess what? If you support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion - I don't care what timeframe you want to put on that support, then you are Pro-Choice. So, when you, then, call Pro-Choice activists "abortionists", you get that you are referring to yourself, right?!?!

Pick a position, and have the balls to stand behind it!

 

[Czernobog]

You sound very confident in the validity of your statement but I can assure you for many it is quite the opposite. The "human organism" you refer to is a mass of cells that is developing within a woman, It is a part of her body. It is more of a parasite than a human until it reaches a state where it can survive on its own.

Well okay.. First of all, a parasite is a living organism independent of the host. It is NOT a part of the host organism. The "mass of cells" are carrying on the process of life... it IS a biologically independent organism. Cancer is a part of her body, her fingernails are part of her body.... those cells are reproducing as a part of her organism. They are unable to maintain homeostasis and carry on the process of life. The fetus is not reproducing through her organism it is merely using her organism to develop as that is how humans reproduce. The fetus has it's own DNA, it's own heartbeat, it's own fingerprints, it's own brainwaves and nervous system. In biology, nothing is ever defined by it's ability to survive on it's own. Survival is subjective, some things can't ever survive on their own... it doesn't mean they weren't what they were. Newborn babies die every day because they couldn't survive on their own... it does not make them non-human. At some point, EVERY human being will be unable to survive on it's own. According to biology, the zygote qualifies as a living organism the moment the fused egg cell reproduces more cells. That instant, it becomes a living organism. It exists in the state of being,,, therefore, we call it a being. It is human, so we call it a human being.

Except it doesn't have it's own heartbeat until 6 weeks, and it is not independent of the woman's until, at lest week 12. Fingerprints do not begin developing until at least the 10th week, and no independent brain activity has been recorded before the 20th week. Which, incidentally, is when the fetus is actually capable of homeostasis. You claim that a fetus is capable of homeostasis, as if that is true from the moment of conception. That is a lie. It relies entirely on the host's body to regulate temperature, digestion, even circulation. So, even using your criteria, it is not an independent organism until, at best, 6 weeks, more 20 weeks, as that is when it has attained true homeostasis.

So when the term "pro-choice" is used, it is a very literal, accurate and deliberate phrase used in respect to the right for a woman to have control over what she does with her body. This is a very complicated issue and there is much to debate, however, don't belittle and mischaracterize the other sides point of view.... Even if you might not agree with it.

But it's not accurate and it's not even literal... it's a lie. The woman had a choice... she chose to have unprotected sexual relations...

Wrong. Your statement is the lie, and a presumption. What evidence do you have that every woman who is considering an abortion knowingly, and willingly had unprotected sex? Not had sex, mind you - the evidence of that is the pregnancy - but that it was unprotected, with her knowledge, and consent? You see, it is about emotions for you. It's just that it's about the worst kind of emotion - hubris. You self-righteously, and sanctimoniously decide that any woman who is pregnant is some ignorant skank who was too stupid to keep her legs closed without a condom, or birth control, so she deserves to have her entire life interrupted with the pain, and indignity of a pregnancy. She deserves to be forced to give up whatever plans she may have had, in order to spend the next 9 months as a walking, talking incubator.

Maybe, next time, she'll think twice before opening her legs, right? Now, you're going to insist that you didn't say any of that. Except you do, every time you talk about "choosing to have unprotected sex". It's time you moralists understand what everyone hears when you say the things that you say, whether you intend for that to be your meaning, or not. It's why we call, it slut shaming.

These seem to be the only weapons in the arsenal of the anti-choice activists - guilt tripping with "child", and slut shaming with "She chose to open her legs". And they wonder why those of us who are pro-choice remain unconvinced of their arguments some 40 years later.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. So, no abortions. Then, we can count on your support for federal assistance to women who can't afford a child being forced to have one, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I know that I have already answered this post one but I have another response as well.

1. You didn't answer my question about "butting out." Are you consistent with the view that we should all "butt out" in any other cases where children are molested and killed? or only with abortion? And why do you draw distinctions between them?

I did answer your question. I have never suggested that we "butt out" of cases of child molestation, or murder. A fetus is not a child. Yeah, yeah. You're going use an appeal to definition fallacy to insist that fetus is synonymous with child. That doesn't make the argument any less irrational. So, since a fetus is not a child, your question is fallacious, and irrelevant.

2. You seem to think that the children's right to not be murdered by abortions is something that others can barter with. In your comment, you seem to be suggesting that the child's right to not be aborted is contingent upon whether or not I or others will help provide for them once they are "born" through welfare and other government programs.

I can't find anything in the Constitution where it suggests that any "person's" rights are contingent in that way. So, can you quote the portion of the Constitution that you think supports your views on that?

The problem is your irrational appeal to emotion, by continually trying to get everyone to agree with your characterization of a fetus as a child. Since you have not succeeded in doing that, your entire argument is specious. Come on back, when you have something more than an attempt at making us "feel guilty".

1. If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child and not a person. . . then how do you explain the murder charges for killing one under in one of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws?

That's easy. Bad Law. One should never use bad law to try to justify an erroneous position. Those laws should never have been passed. They, in fact, were only given approval by the pro-choice activists when they were assured, repeatedly, that the laws were not designed to, nor would ever be used for, the very purpose for which you are now attempting to use them. They were assured that these laws were never meant to ensure the "rights of fetuses", but were allegedly meant only to get justice for women for whom the right to have a child was taken from them, against their will, by violent criminals. Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later. Like you are attempting to use those bad laws to do, now. Personally, I hope someone attempts what you are in the court system. Maybe then we can see those ill-conceived laws struck down.

2. Why is a pregnant woman said to be "with child?"

Really? Euphemisms? You are resorting to euphemisms to defend your position?

3. What is it that makes a biological "father" of any child - including a child in the womb? When did YOUR biological father become YOUR biological father?

Of course you can be a father to a fetus. That is merely an acknowledgement that your DNA contributed to the genetic makeup of the fetus. That still doesn't make the fetus synonymous with child.

Also, just so you know. . . You are using your accusation of "appeals to definitions" ass backwards.

As the link explains: "Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term."

YOU are trying to use the dictionary (definitions for child and children for example) to EXCLUDE children in the womb. And according to your cited fallacy. . . You are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of doing.

The word "child" is much more INCLUSIVE that you are comfortable with it being. And when I or anyone else try to point that out for you. . . . you fucking cry foul like a little fucking puss.

The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus.

I dont have the need to convince you of anything. You are not between myself and where this issue is going. Every member of this site could completely agree on every aspect of the abortion issue and it would not change ANYTHING with regard to the legality and future Supreme Court decisions.

You're right. I'm not. You are irrelevant. The Supreme Court proved that, yesterday. You are just a tiny little voice whispering out of a fading history.

Buh bye.

 

[Czernobog]

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

Sure they do.....the facts don't agree with your rhetoric. Quit fudging the truth and face the facts.


For years the Republican Party has been telling us that the welfare system in America is helping to make people lazy and making them too dependent on the federal government.

As it turns out, Red states are far more likely to depend on federal welfare than blue states, and they are also more likely to have a higher percentage of poor people in their states. A new report from the Tax Foundation shows that two of the most conservative states in America – Louisiana and Mississippi – rank in the top 3 recipients of federal handouts.

Both Louisiana and Mississippi are run by backwards-thinking Republican governors who feel like it’s their job to cut benefits for the needy while at the same time handing out welfare to wealthy corporations. They have both also allowed the energy industry to operate with few limitations in their states, further reducing the health of the overall state.

Republicans love to tell us that welfare recipients are lazy and shiftless and that an individual’s success or failure is the sole responsibility of the individual, but THEY are actually the ones who depend the most on government handouts.
Welfare Hypocrisy: Red States Are The Real Freeloaders - The Ring of Fire - The Ring of Fire Network

Interesting how you don't know the state where I live yet seem to know a lot about it. I live here, bitch, you don't.

I wondered why you appeared so stupid....now I know...you live in one of those backward states. Just because you live there doesn't mean you are aware of what is going on....do some research...find out that your state is one of the states that sucks the government dry.

I told you why the state looks bad. All the leeches in the blue district suck it dry. Look at the demographics of that district and you'll understand why they do.

Yes, you have told us that. We just don't believe you, because you're a liar.

 

[Chuz Life]

I know that I have already answered this post one but I have another response as well.

1. You didn't answer my question about "butting out." Are you consistent with the view that we should all "butt out" in any other cases where children are molested and killed? or only with abortion? And why do you draw distinctions between them?

I did answer your question. I have never suggested that we "butt out" of cases of child molestation, or murder. A fetus is not a child. Yeah, yeah. You're going use an appeal to definition fallacy to insist that fetus is synonymous with child. That doesn't make the argument any less irrational. So, since a fetus is not a child, your question is fallacious, and irrelevant.

2. You seem to think that the children's right to not be murdered by abortions is something that others can barter with. In your comment, you seem to be suggesting that the child's right to not be aborted is contingent upon whether or not I or others will help provide for them once they are "born" through welfare and other government programs.

I can't find anything in the Constitution where it suggests that any "person's" rights are contingent in that way. So, can you quote the portion of the Constitution that you think supports your views on that?

The problem is your irrational appeal to emotion, by continually trying to get everyone to agree with your characterization of a fetus as a child. Since you have not succeeded in doing that, your entire argument is specious. Come on back, when you have something more than an attempt at making us "feel guilty".

1. If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child and not a person. . . then how do you explain the murder charges for killing one under in one of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws?

That's easy. Bad Law. One should never use bad law to try to justify an erroneous position. Those laws should never have been passed. They, in fact, were only given approval by the pro-choice activists when they were assured, repeatedly, that the laws were not designed to, nor would ever be used for, the very purpose for which you are now attempting to use them. They were assured that these laws were never meant to ensure the "rights of fetuses", but were allegedly meant only to get justice for women for whom the right to have a child was taken from them, against their will, by violent criminals. Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later. Like you are attempting to use those bad laws to do, now. Personally, I hope someone attempts what you are in the court system. Maybe then we can see those ill-conceived laws struck down.

2. Why is a pregnant woman said to be "with child?"

Really? Euphemisms? You are resorting to euphemisms to defend your position?

3. What is it that makes a biological "father" of any child - including a child in the womb? When did YOUR biological father become YOUR biological father?

Of course you can be a father to a fetus. That is merely an acknowledgement that your DNA contributed to the genetic makeup of the fetus. That still doesn't make the fetus synonymous with child.

Also, just so you know. . . You are using your accusation of "appeals to definitions" ass backwards.

As the link explains: "Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term."

YOU are trying to use the dictionary (definitions for child and children for example) to EXCLUDE children in the womb. And according to your cited fallacy. . . You are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of doing.

The word "child" is much more INCLUSIVE that you are comfortable with it being. And when I or anyone else try to point that out for you. . . . you fucking cry foul like a little fucking puss.

The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus.

I dont have the need to convince you of anything. You are not between myself and where this issue is going. Every member of this site could completely agree on every aspect of the abortion issue and it would not change ANYTHING with regard to the legality and future Supreme Court decisions.

You're right. I'm not. You are irrelevant. The Supreme Court proved that, yesterday. You are just a tiny little voice whispering out of a fading history.

Buh bye.

Do you care to predict what the scotus is going to do when they finally take on a case that pits a murder conviction under a fetal homicide law against the courts own prior rulings in Roe?

Man how I am looking forward to that day.

 

[Conservative65]

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

Sure they do.....the facts don't agree with your rhetoric. Quit fudging the truth and face the facts.


For years the Republican Party has been telling us that the welfare system in America is helping to make people lazy and making them too dependent on the federal government.

As it turns out, Red states are far more likely to depend on federal welfare than blue states, and they are also more likely to have a higher percentage of poor people in their states. A new report from the Tax Foundation shows that two of the most conservative states in America – Louisiana and Mississippi – rank in the top 3 recipients of federal handouts.

Both Louisiana and Mississippi are run by backwards-thinking Republican governors who feel like it’s their job to cut benefits for the needy while at the same time handing out welfare to wealthy corporations. They have both also allowed the energy industry to operate with few limitations in their states, further reducing the health of the overall state.

Republicans love to tell us that welfare recipients are lazy and shiftless and that an individual’s success or failure is the sole responsibility of the individual, but THEY are actually the ones who depend the most on government handouts.
Welfare Hypocrisy: Red States Are The Real Freeloaders - The Ring of Fire - The Ring of Fire Network

Interesting how you don't know the state where I live yet seem to know a lot about it. I live here, bitch, you don't.

I wondered why you appeared so stupid....now I know...you live in one of those backward states. Just because you live there doesn't mean you are aware of what is going on....do some research...find out that your state is one of the states that sucks the government dry.

I told you why the state looks bad. All the leeches in the blue district suck it dry. Look at the demographics of that district and you'll understand why they do.

Yes, you have told us that. We just don't believe you, because you're a liar.

Your belief isn't required in order for it to be true and never will.

 

[Czernobog]

I did answer your question. I have never suggested that we "butt out" of cases of child molestation, or murder. A fetus is not a child. Yeah, yeah. You're going use an appeal to definition fallacy to insist that fetus is synonymous with child. That doesn't make the argument any less irrational. So, since a fetus is not a child, your question is fallacious, and irrelevant.

The problem is your irrational appeal to emotion, by continually trying to get everyone to agree with your characterization of a fetus as a child. Since you have not succeeded in doing that, your entire argument is specious. Come on back, when you have something more than an attempt at making us "feel guilty".

1. If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child and not a person. . . then how do you explain the murder charges for killing one under in one of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws?

That's easy. Bad Law. One should never use bad law to try to justify an erroneous position. Those laws should never have been passed. They, in fact, were only given approval by the pro-choice activists when they were assured, repeatedly, that the laws were not designed to, nor would ever be used for, the very purpose for which you are now attempting to use them. They were assured that these laws were never meant to ensure the "rights of fetuses", but were allegedly meant only to get justice for women for whom the right to have a child was taken from them, against their will, by violent criminals. Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later. Like you are attempting to use those bad laws to do, now. Personally, I hope someone attempts what you are in the court system. Maybe then we can see those ill-conceived laws struck down.

2. Why is a pregnant woman said to be "with child?"

Really? Euphemisms? You are resorting to euphemisms to defend your position?

3. What is it that makes a biological "father" of any child - including a child in the womb? When did YOUR biological father become YOUR biological father?

Of course you can be a father to a fetus. That is merely an acknowledgement that your DNA contributed to the genetic makeup of the fetus. That still doesn't make the fetus synonymous with child.

Also, just so you know. . . You are using your accusation of "appeals to definitions" ass backwards.

As the link explains: "Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term."

YOU are trying to use the dictionary (definitions for child and children for example) to EXCLUDE children in the womb. And according to your cited fallacy. . . You are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of doing.

The word "child" is much more INCLUSIVE that you are comfortable with it being. And when I or anyone else try to point that out for you. . . . you fucking cry foul like a little fucking puss.

The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus.

I dont have the need to convince you of anything. You are not between myself and where this issue is going. Every member of this site could completely agree on every aspect of the abortion issue and it would not change ANYTHING with regard to the legality and future Supreme Court decisions.

You're right. I'm not. You are irrelevant. The Supreme Court proved that, yesterday. You are just a tiny little voice whispering out of a fading history.

Buh bye.

Do you care to predict what the scotus is going to do when they finally take on a case that pits a murder conviction under a fetal homicide law against the courts own prior rulings in Roe?

Man how I am looking forward to that day.

So am I. Maybe, then, we can finally see those badly written, irrational laws struck down. I wish someone would have the balls to challenge those very laws.

 

[Czernobog]

Sure they do.....the facts don't agree with your rhetoric. Quit fudging the truth and face the facts.


For years the Republican Party has been telling us that the welfare system in America is helping to make people lazy and making them too dependent on the federal government.

As it turns out, Red states are far more likely to depend on federal welfare than blue states, and they are also more likely to have a higher percentage of poor people in their states. A new report from the Tax Foundation shows that two of the most conservative states in America – Louisiana and Mississippi – rank in the top 3 recipients of federal handouts.

Both Louisiana and Mississippi are run by backwards-thinking Republican governors who feel like it’s their job to cut benefits for the needy while at the same time handing out welfare to wealthy corporations. They have both also allowed the energy industry to operate with few limitations in their states, further reducing the health of the overall state.

Republicans love to tell us that welfare recipients are lazy and shiftless and that an individual’s success or failure is the sole responsibility of the individual, but THEY are actually the ones who depend the most on government handouts.
Welfare Hypocrisy: Red States Are The Real Freeloaders - The Ring of Fire - The Ring of Fire Network

Interesting how you don't know the state where I live yet seem to know a lot about it. I live here, bitch, you don't.

I wondered why you appeared so stupid....now I know...you live in one of those backward states. Just because you live there doesn't mean you are aware of what is going on....do some research...find out that your state is one of the states that sucks the government dry.

I told you why the state looks bad. All the leeches in the blue district suck it dry. Look at the demographics of that district and you'll understand why they do.

Yes, you have told us that. We just don't believe you, because you're a liar.

Your belief isn't required in order for it to be true and never will.

Nor does your claiming that it is true, absent a single shred of evidence, make it so, liar.

 

[Faun]

I did answer your question. I have never suggested that we "butt out" of cases of child molestation, or murder. A fetus is not a child. Yeah, yeah. You're going use an appeal to definition fallacy to insist that fetus is synonymous with child. That doesn't make the argument any less irrational. So, since a fetus is not a child, your question is fallacious, and irrelevant.

The problem is your irrational appeal to emotion, by continually trying to get everyone to agree with your characterization of a fetus as a child. Since you have not succeeded in doing that, your entire argument is specious. Come on back, when you have something more than an attempt at making us "feel guilty".

1. If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child and not a person. . . then how do you explain the murder charges for killing one under in one of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws?

That's easy. Bad Law. One should never use bad law to try to justify an erroneous position. Those laws should never have been passed. They, in fact, were only given approval by the pro-choice activists when they were assured, repeatedly, that the laws were not designed to, nor would ever be used for, the very purpose for which you are now attempting to use them. They were assured that these laws were never meant to ensure the "rights of fetuses", but were allegedly meant only to get justice for women for whom the right to have a child was taken from them, against their will, by violent criminals. Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later. Like you are attempting to use those bad laws to do, now. Personally, I hope someone attempts what you are in the court system. Maybe then we can see those ill-conceived laws struck down.

2. Why is a pregnant woman said to be "with child?"

Really? Euphemisms? You are resorting to euphemisms to defend your position?

3. What is it that makes a biological "father" of any child - including a child in the womb? When did YOUR biological father become YOUR biological father?

Of course you can be a father to a fetus. That is merely an acknowledgement that your DNA contributed to the genetic makeup of the fetus. That still doesn't make the fetus synonymous with child.

Also, just so you know. . . You are using your accusation of "appeals to definitions" ass backwards.

As the link explains: "Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term."

YOU are trying to use the dictionary (definitions for child and children for example) to EXCLUDE children in the womb. And according to your cited fallacy. . . You are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of doing.

The word "child" is much more INCLUSIVE that you are comfortable with it being. And when I or anyone else try to point that out for you. . . . you fucking cry foul like a little fucking puss.

The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus.

I dont have the need to convince you of anything. You are not between myself and where this issue is going. Every member of this site could completely agree on every aspect of the abortion issue and it would not change ANYTHING with regard to the legality and future Supreme Court decisions.

You're right. I'm not. You are irrelevant. The Supreme Court proved that, yesterday. You are just a tiny little voice whispering out of a fading history.

Buh bye.

Do you care to predict what the scotus is going to do when they finally take on a case that pits a murder conviction under a fetal homicide law against the courts own prior rulings in Roe?

Man how I am looking forward to that day.

I predict they will decide that such fetal protection laws are unconstitutional. Especially so if Hillary Clinton wins the election this year.

 

[Czernobog]

1. If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child and not a person. . . then how do you explain the murder charges for killing one under in one of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws?

That's easy. Bad Law. One should never use bad law to try to justify an erroneous position. Those laws should never have been passed. They, in fact, were only given approval by the pro-choice activists when they were assured, repeatedly, that the laws were not designed to, nor would ever be used for, the very purpose for which you are now attempting to use them. They were assured that these laws were never meant to ensure the "rights of fetuses", but were allegedly meant only to get justice for women for whom the right to have a child was taken from them, against their will, by violent criminals. Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later. Like you are attempting to use those bad laws to do, now. Personally, I hope someone attempts what you are in the court system. Maybe then we can see those ill-conceived laws struck down.

2. Why is a pregnant woman said to be "with child?"

Really? Euphemisms? You are resorting to euphemisms to defend your position?

3. What is it that makes a biological "father" of any child - including a child in the womb? When did YOUR biological father become YOUR biological father?

Of course you can be a father to a fetus. That is merely an acknowledgement that your DNA contributed to the genetic makeup of the fetus. That still doesn't make the fetus synonymous with child.

Also, just so you know. . . You are using your accusation of "appeals to definitions" ass backwards.

As the link explains: "Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term."

YOU are trying to use the dictionary (definitions for child and children for example) to EXCLUDE children in the womb. And according to your cited fallacy. . . You are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of doing.

The word "child" is much more INCLUSIVE that you are comfortable with it being. And when I or anyone else try to point that out for you. . . . you fucking cry foul like a little fucking puss.

The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus.

I dont have the need to convince you of anything. You are not between myself and where this issue is going. Every member of this site could completely agree on every aspect of the abortion issue and it would not change ANYTHING with regard to the legality and future Supreme Court decisions.

You're right. I'm not. You are irrelevant. The Supreme Court proved that, yesterday. You are just a tiny little voice whispering out of a fading history.

Buh bye.

Do you care to predict what the scotus is going to do when they finally take on a case that pits a murder conviction under a fetal homicide law against the courts own prior rulings in Roe?

Man how I am looking forward to that day.

I predict they will decide that such fetal protection laws are unconstitutional. Especially so if Hillary Clinton wins the election this year.

And rightly so. The laws were irrational, and poorly written. You can't write a law that states, "A fetus is a person, and afforded all the protections under the constitution....unless we're talking about abortion. Then a fetus isn't a person," It's inherently contradictory.

The laws need to be stricken, and the states forced to redraft them without the contradictions. Or just let them die.

I would so love to see the states try to craft those laws without the conflicting abortion clause, and see how far they get.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

That's easy. Bad Law. One should never use bad law to try to justify an erroneous position. Those laws should never have been passed. They, in fact, were only given approval by the pro-choice activists when they were assured, repeatedly, that the laws were not designed to, nor would ever be used for, the very purpose for which you are now attempting to use them. They were assured that these laws were never meant to ensure the "rights of fetuses", but were allegedly meant only to get justice for women for whom the right to have a child was taken from them, against their will, by violent criminals. Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later. Like you are attempting to use those bad laws to do, now. Personally, I hope someone attempts what you are in the court system. Maybe then we can see those ill-conceived laws struck down.

Really? Euphemisms? You are resorting to euphemisms to defend your position?

Of course you can be a father to a fetus. That is merely an acknowledgement that your DNA contributed to the genetic makeup of the fetus. That still doesn't make the fetus synonymous with child.

The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus.

I dont have the need to convince you of anything. You are not between myself and where this issue is going. Every member of this site could completely agree on every aspect of the abortion issue and it would not change ANYTHING with regard to the legality and future Supreme Court decisions.

You're right. I'm not. You are irrelevant. The Supreme Court proved that, yesterday. You are just a tiny little voice whispering out of a fading history.

Buh bye.

Do you care to predict what the scotus is going to do when they finally take on a case that pits a murder conviction under a fetal homicide law against the courts own prior rulings in Roe?

Man how I am looking forward to that day.

I predict they will decide that such fetal protection laws are unconstitutional. Especially so if Hillary Clinton wins the election this year.

And rightly so. The laws were irrational, and poorly written. You can't write a law that states, "A fetus is a person, and afforded all the protections under the constitution....unless we're talking about abortion. Then a fetus isn't a person," It's inherently contradictory.

The laws need to be stricken, and the states forced to redraft them without the contradictions. Or just let them die.

I would so love to see the states try to craft those laws without the conflicting abortion clause, and see how far they get.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And in time, they will be. Just like the law in Texas yesterday was. Especially if Hillary is elected president. She will be adding a couple of liberal justices to the Supreme Court.