Abortion: A Sad Reality

[Cecilie1200]

Why is that relevent in the least?

Don't pretend to be any more ignorant than you are.

How could it be her body?



Clearly, different fingerprints, different blood type....

....and guess what: different DNA.


Not the same person....is it.



I dare you to answer that.

It is inside her body, attached to her body, feeding off her body. How is it NOT her body?

Australian high schools just print their diplomas directly onto toilet paper to save time, don't they?

 

[Cecilie1200]

My point....proven....is that she is killing a discrete individual.....a separate entity.

Except that it is not separate. It is attached to her body. If it was separate, it wouldn't need to be attached her via the umbilical cord, would it?

Facts are overrated. Stop that!

And what, pray tell, did Noomi's post have to do with facts?

I swear, leftists don't have the medical savvy to apply a Band-Aid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Except that it is not separate. It is attached to her body. If it was separate, it wouldn't need to be attached her via the umbilical cord, would it?

So you are saying that the unborn child is like any other part of the body like the appendix or the gal bladder, etc.

An appendix doesn't drain the body of nutrients in order to stay alive, does it?

Could you explain what your point is supposed to be, and how it supports your amusingly inane position that a fetus is part of his mother's body?

Consistency, dimwit. I know it's a big four-syllable word, but try to figure out what it is and display some, huh?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Guess what, she throws it out of her body in the first two trimesters-

IT DIES!!!!!!!

Which makes it her body, her choice. Period.

By avoiding the question, I'll assume you have no way to dispute the fact that the baby is clearly not.....as you claimed....'her body.'


This is not about when or if the separate individual can survive. We'll leave up to medical science.

My point....proven....is that she is killing a discrete individual.....a separate entity.





At this point you can choose any of the moral, legal, or political arguments in the thread....

...but the truth is that the most attractive aspect of Liberalism....for many folks....is that you can create a private morality that excuses any behavior.

Including killing a baby for convenience.



My work here is done.

I thought you right wingers were against being mandated to being responsible for others, separate entities? You don't want others leeching off of you against your will, no?

Really? You're really going to compare MY child, created by MY actions, to total ******* strangers too lazy to get a job?

Do you really, seriously want to go with that argument? Do I even need to respond to this reeking pile of shit, or does just restating it tear it to shreds sufficiently?

You should be ashamed of yourself for fraudulently claiming to be a human.

 

[lakeview]

Except that it is not separate. It is attached to her body. If it was separate, it wouldn't need to be attached her via the umbilical cord, would it?

Facts are overrated. Stop that!

And what, pray tell, did Noomi's post have to do with facts?

I swear, leftists don't have the medical savvy to apply a Band-Aid.

Noomi said that the fetus is connected to the mother and in other posts made the case that the fetus needed the mother in order to survive for most of it's development. You think that's inaccurate? She's correct by the way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Exactly. I am so sick and tired of seeing some people argue that funding planned parenthood is welfare and then making the argument that welfare is broken because it encourages women to have children. wtf?

Just eliminate welfare & planned parenthood.

Problem solved with billions of dollars saved!

The stupidity and cruelity of the right is unbounded. "Eliminate welfare and planned parenthood" and the problem is solved. The problem with this is that millions of women depend on Planned Parenthood for basic health care that they cannot afford any other way. "Hell, they don't need healthcare. Let them die." And as for getting rid of welfare, who cares if families are being forced to starve and die on the streets. "I've got mine! **** um!!!!! I only care about children if they are still in the womb. After they are born, who cares if they live or die." Isn't that what you are thinking? You define POS!

I'll worry about my stupidity and cruelty when, like YOUR side, I'm advocating the killing of a million-plus babies a year based on arguments so biologically unsound and laughable that middle-schoolers could pick them apart.

Unfortunately for you, I don't take my wisdom or my moral guidance from people less intelligent than the contents of my toilet before I flush.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've simply proven that abortions take another human being's life.

You've haven't proven anything other than your unfailing belief in your own importance.

A fetus is not a human being, it is a potential human being. A lot can happen to a fetus on the way to becoming a human being which is why women have so many miscarriages. There is basis in religion or at law for considering a fetus to be a human being. This is a construct on the part of those who wish to curtail women's freedom to determine her own path in life and make her a slave to her biology.

Those with any intellectual capacity can see that fetal rights are being used by those with an agenda to control women's sexuality. Countries which genuine care about the babies being aborted, don't restrict abortion, they assist women in chosing to carry those babies to term. As a result, they have lower rates of abortion than the US.

The American way is to make it difficult to obtain abortion, but not to provide maternity leave, or to prevent women who become pregnant, from being fired.

Dragontwat (Sorry, but anyone who is such an embarrassment to the supposition that women are intelligent human beings doesn't deserve to be called "lady"), please show us the medical or biology textbook that contains the scientific term "potential human being".

For that matter, show us any scientific evidence whatsoever of ANY position you have taken on the subject of abortion.

Don't look too long. I'm not getting any younger.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Facts are overrated. Stop that!

And what, pray tell, did Noomi's post have to do with facts?

I swear, leftists don't have the medical savvy to apply a Band-Aid.

Noomi said that the fetus is connected to the mother and in other posts made the case that the fetus needed the mother in order to survive for most of it's development. You think that's inaccurate? She's correct by the way.

Okay. So while she would be correct in making such a claim, it doesn't explain away the fact that the baby's body forms into something entirely separate from the mother's. As the fetus develops, the need for its reliance the mother decreases. That's called gestational maturity. When its born, it still relies on it's mother until at a point it is capable of self sustenance. Is it still then connected to the mother in some way until then? Yes, that's where this argument falls apart.

Science. Learn it.

 

[lakeview]

And what, pray tell, did Noomi's post have to do with facts?

I swear, leftists don't have the medical savvy to apply a Band-Aid.

Noomi said that the fetus is connected to the mother and in other posts made the case that the fetus needed the mother in order to survive for most of it's development. You think that's inaccurate? She's correct by the way.

Okay. So while she would be correct in making such a claim, it doesn't explain away the fact that the baby's body forms into something entirely separate from the mother's. As the fetus develops, the need for its reliance the mother decreases. That's called gestational maturity. When its born, it still relies on it's mother until at a point it is capable of self sustenance. Is it still then connected to the mother in some way until then? Yes, that's where this argument falls apart.

Science. Learn it.

Jellyfish, you need to deal with PC and your "limits" first, then we can talk. Until then I'm not going to concern myself with the opinions of a Quisling and your input will be assigned the weight it deserves.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We live in america and with that comes a thing called "freedom". The law of the land is the constitution, not the bible. You far right wingnuts need to understand that,..

And abortion has nothing to do with the Constitution. You far-left wingnuts need to understand THAT.

Wrong again, as usual:

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is profound and difficult. No person undertakes such a decision lightly--and States may not presume that a woman has failed to reflect adequately merely because her conclusion differs from the State's preference. A woman who has, in the privacy of her thoughts and conscience, weighed the options and made her decision cannot be forced to reconsider all, simply because the State believes she has come to the wrong conclusion. [n.5]

Part of the constitutional liberty to choose is the equal dignity to which each of us is entitled. A woman who decides to terminate her pregnancy is entitled to the same respect as a woman who decides to carry the fetus to term.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

And spare us your usual tedious, ignorant, and subjective disdain for the Supreme Court and Constitutional case law.

You disagree with the Court and consider its jurisprudence on privacy rights ‘wrong.’

Noted. You’re entitled to your opinion, however much in error.

But it is a fact of law that abortion is indeed an issue that involves the Constitution, and to argue otherwise is idiocy.

Dipshit, I don't have disdain for the Constitution and case law. I have disdain for YOU, and your belief that you have anything to say to me.

When you learn the difference between moral and legal, and can argue the one without hiding behind the other, maybe I will respect you as . . . well, not a human, but maybe a vertebrate . . . enough to talk to you.

Until then, you lost the argument ten pages before you ever addressed me directly, or even knew I was reading the thread, so we're done here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Facts are overrated. Stop that!

And what, pray tell, did Noomi's post have to do with facts?

I swear, leftists don't have the medical savvy to apply a Band-Aid.

Noomi said that the fetus is connected to the mother and in other posts made the case that the fetus needed the mother in order to survive for most of it's development. You think that's inaccurate? She's correct by the way.

No, dipshit. Noomi said that a fetus is PART OF HIS MOTHER'S BODY BECAUSE HE'S CONNECTED TO HER.

Let me guess. Your school district jettisoned biology AND reading comprehension as necessary classes, huh?

Noomi couldn't manage to be correct if she stated the sky was blue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Noomi said that the fetus is connected to the mother and in other posts made the case that the fetus needed the mother in order to survive for most of it's development. You think that's inaccurate? She's correct by the way.

Okay. So while she would be correct in making such a claim, it doesn't explain away the fact that the baby's body forms into something entirely separate from the mother's. As the fetus develops, the need for its reliance the mother decreases. That's called gestational maturity. When its born, it still relies on it's mother until at a point it is capable of self sustenance. Is it still then connected to the mother in some way until then? Yes, that's where this argument falls apart.

Science. Learn it.

Jellyfish, you need to deal with PC and your "limits" first, then we can talk. Until then I'm not going to concern myself with the opinions of a Quisling and your input will be assigned the weight it deserves.

Say what now? It seems to me that you've already exceeded your intellectual limits for the day.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Saying a fetus is "not people" means what? What is the human fetus? I can tell you that it is a complete human organism- just like you and that would be 100% correct. It is not an adult- it is at the fetal stage- development is the only thing that separates. No different than outside the womb when it is an infant-

It can't live outside the woman's body, so it's not "complete".

Funny thing about language is that abortions used to be call infanticide- but it suits the pro abortionist to call it a fetus. Words however do not change what it is. A completed human being at its earliest stages of development- again a 100% accurate scientific fact.

Sorry, this happens to be your opinion. Not a legal or scientific one.

I note you didn't bother to answers my questions Joe- It's because to do so would show your barbarianism and stupidity laid bare- and even you would have to look at it.

Illegal abortions would be handled the way they always were- we don't pay for them, we don't claim them as a right-

Oh, you mean you just let them happen anyway, but dammit, you are really, really disapproving. That's helpful.

But mostly we make it loud and clear that they are human beings not blobs of cells- they are deserving of the opportunity that loud mouthed assholes such as your self have...the right to live!

Right. So how do you do that when women are going to end up having the abortions anyway, and you can't stop them from doing it?

Again- dirty little secret.. All Roe did was legalize what was already happening.

Again, I don't feel like criminilizing women because you are trying to please your invisible sky pixie...

 

[Mac1958]

It is not within the purview of the Supreme Court to play King Solomon, and it has wisely and appropriately elected not to do so.

Consequently, the Court has correctly determined that prior to viability, the state lacks the authority to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.

And, also wisely, the Court left the issue of life to each individual to decide for himself in his own good conscience, free from interference by the state.

As such, the issue is not about life, but the appropriate relationship between government and those governed.

Citizens are at liberty to debate what constitutes life and when human life begins in the context of philosophy and religion. But no court or government enjoys a similar privilege to the extent that it may compel citizens to abide by any determination made.

Therefore, it is not the role of the Supreme Court to solve the problem of abortion, or to decide when life begins, or at what point in development that life might manifest ‘rights,’ the Court’s sole responsibility in this matter is to safeguard the civil liberties of citizens from the unwarranted encroachment of the state, and to leave the task of solving the problem of abortion to the political and democratic process.

My point is not about the Supreme Court's ruling nor about the Constitution; and, as I pointed out a while back (post 224), I'm pro-choice because I think a civilization has to make some tough choices and allow society actions like this on the margins.

My problem is with the way the Left has chosen to defend abortion by pretending that a fetus is not life, which is so intellectually dishonest as to be insulting. I've seen a fetus compared to any number of inanimate objects, and it just doesn't stop.

The pro-choice movement doesn't need to lie like this, but it continues. That's one of the hazards of commitment to an ideology - ideologues often have to put themselves in absurd positions just to defend an indefensible point. It's much easier to just be honest, but that's not the way they want to play the game.

A fetus is not life; Wednesday does not follow Tuesday; water is not wet. Okay, fine, I'm used to being insulted by partisan ideologues who think they're getting away with dishonesty and absurdity, but this is getting ridiculous.

.

 

[JoeB131]

[
My point is not about the Supreme Court's ruling nor about the Constitution; and, as I pointed out a while back (post 224), I'm pro-choice because I think a civilization has to make some tough choices and allow society actions like this on the margins.

My problem is with the way the Left has chosen to defend abortion by pretending that a fetus is not life, which is so intellectually dishonest as to be insulting. I've seen a fetus compared to any number of inanimate objects, and it just doesn't stop.

The pro-choice movement doesn't need to lie like this, but it continues. That's one of the hazards of commitment to an ideology - ideologues often have to put themselves in absurd positions just to defend an indefensible point. It's much easier to just be honest, but that's not the way they want to play the game.

A fetus is not life; Wednesday does not follow Tuesday; water is not wet. Okay, fine, I'm used to being insulted by partisan ideologues who think they're getting away with dishonesty and absurdity, but this is getting ridiculous.

.

Guy, a fetus is not the same as a baby.

I've known women who've lost babies
I've known women who've had miscarriages.
I've known women who've had abortions.

The three categories aren't even close to each other.

A fetus isn't "life" because it's not viable outside of the womb before 22 weeks. Remove it from the womb, it dies. It can't live on its own, so it's not life.

But to grant a kidney-bean sized fetus more rights than the woman it is in, is just insanity on an epic scale.

Incidently, all this whinging about "life" is a fairly recent tacit. Abortion used to be illegal because it was about controlling women and their sexuality. Now that they aren't putting up with that shit anymore, suddenly, everyone is sooooooo concerned about "life".

Meanwhile, while the religious stupids are working themselves up in a lather over this NON-issue, the Plutocrats are sneaking out the back door with your middle class lifestyle.

 

[lakeview]

A fetus isn't "life" because it's not viable outside of the womb before 22 weeks. Remove it from the womb, it dies. It can't live on its own, so it's not life.

But to grant a kidney-bean sized fetus more rights than the woman it is in, is just insanity on an epic scale.

A fetus inside a woman is by definition a developing human being and must be alive because dead things don't develop but I agree with you about the rights, when the rights of a woman and a fetus are in conflict the rights of the woman take precedence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. "A fetus is not a human being, it is a potential human being."That's exactly the feeling I have about you.

I recognize your debate technique.

The "when losing an argument become incoherent" one.

.

You're hypothesizing.....

The event you suggest has never occurred.


But....based on our previous confrontations, I can understand why you'd fantasize such.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who said there is no way to avoid pregnancy? Link it, quote it, whatever you need to do to show where someone said that.

It's the implication of support for 'planned parenthood' abortion centers.

Connect the dots.

I think you've got this backward. Support for planned parenthood, or any other organization that deals in contraception, indicates a belief that there is a way to avoid pregnancy.

Nonsense.

So....you fail to see 'planned parenthood' as anything but an abortion mill?

Have someone else connect the dots for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. "A fetus is not a human being, it is a potential human being."That's exactly the feeling I have about you.

I recognize your debate technique.

The "when losing an argument become incoherent" one.

.

Naw, she's incoherent most of the time....

So that's why you're called 'ErroneousJoe'!!

 

[lakeview]

Since you said it's nonsense that people who believe that contraception can help avert a pregnancy and seek it out in order to do exactly that are really proving the point that they don't think you can avoid pregnancy it must be true. I acknowledge your superior reasoning skills and humbly ask that you not embarrass me anymore in this thread.