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

[JoeMoma]

I forget, what's the law on this again?

I forget, who has the Constitutional authority to create laws again?

In this case, the supreme court "created" the law.

Do they have the Constitutional authority to create law?

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

They disagree that they should be constrained by the Constitution?

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

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

 

[Fenton Lum]

I forget, what's the law on this again?

I forget, who has the Constitutional authority to create laws again?

Oh, you don’t like the law.

Law created by the judicial branch?

Well it does seem to be the law, does it not.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Which is why we need men like Neil Gosuch on the Bench. Not because he will repeal RvW, but because he will follow the Constitution, something that few SCOTUS justices do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


Well it does seem to be the law, does it not.

It seems to be an illegal ruling by a rogue court.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I forget, who has the Constitutional authority to create laws again?

In this case, the supreme court "created" the law.

Do they have the Constitutional authority to create law?

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

They disagree that they should be constrained by the Constitution?

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

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

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

 

[Fenton Lum]

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

Which is why we need men like Neil Gosuch on the Bench. Not because he will repeal RvW, but because he will follow the Constitution, something that few SCOTUS justices do.

Guess you can't rely on your party to pass anything? I mean it's kinda like replace/repeal. All mouth, no action. For decades.

 

[Fenton Lum]

[


Well it does seem to be the law, does it not.

It seems to be an illegal ruling by a rogue court.

Gee that's too bad.

 

[oldsoul]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[oldsoul]

In this case, the supreme court "created" the law.

Do they have the Constitutional authority to create law?

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

They disagree that they should be constrained by the Constitution?

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

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

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

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

 

[Dragonlady]

I appreciate your attempt to spark a discussion on the issue of abortion with that cute, if tendentious, questionnaire, but your questions are about a definition of the word "life," not about the medical procedure of abortion. I suppose it seems self-evident to you that as abortion takes away life, the meaning of the word "life" is critical to discussion of the abortion question. I can see how you think that way, but you don't grasp that such thinking and the questions it produces for you are begging the question, that is, assuming what was to be proved.

As I am sure you know, current abortion law, founded on Roe v. Wade, is based on "privacy" not "life." You are, of course, free to define the question as you wish and to make whatever assumptions seem important to you, but those with different views are unlikely to be swayed by a list of cute trick questions.

Does "privacy" justify rape?
Does "privacy" justify spousal abuse?
Does "privacy" justify killing people after birth?
Does "privacy" justify child molestation or child porn?

None of the above is germaine to the question of abortion. The most private and person decisions a family can make is whether or not they are in a position to add to their family. For poor families, there are the additional considerations of whether the mother will lose her job, and whether the family can physically survive such a job loss. Poor women already have fewer children than other members of society, and this is why.

The right continues to want to make the abortion issue about morality, but in reality, the abortion issue is one of poverty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

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

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

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


None of the above is germaine to the question of abortion. The most private and person decisions a family can make is whether or not they are in a position to add to their family. For poor families, there are the additional considerations of whether the mother will lose her job, and whether the family can physically survive such a job loss. Poor women already have fewer children than other members of society, and this is why.

The right continues to want to make the abortion issue about morality, but in reality, the abortion issue is one of poverty.

What about killing grandpa when he becomes a burden? That's a pretty private and personal decision too. Caring for the elderly is a financial burden that can be solved by snuffing the elderly. He can't remember his own name or how to use the toilet, so he isn't a person anymore...

The logic is identical.

 

[JoeMoma]

[

[


None of the above is germaine to the question of abortion. The most private and person decisions a family can make is whether or not they are in a position to add to their family. For poor families, there are the additional considerations of whether the mother will lose her job, and whether the family can physically survive such a job loss. Poor women already have fewer children than other members of society, and this is why.

The right continues to want to make the abortion issue about morality, but in reality, the abortion issue is one of poverty.

What about killing grandpa when he becomes a burden? That's a pretty private and personal decision too. Caring for the elderly is a financial burden that can be solved by snuffing the elderly. He can't remember his own name or how to use the toilet, so he isn't a person anymore...

The logic is identical.

Privacy only trumps life only if the life can be declared to be a non-person. Thus, those that are pro-abortions do mental contortions to rationalize that a new born infant is a person but a baby 1 second prior to birth is not.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Do they have the Constitutional authority to create law?

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

They disagree that they should be constrained by the Constitution?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Fenton Lum]

[

[


None of the above is germaine to the question of abortion. The most private and person decisions a family can make is whether or not they are in a position to add to their family. For poor families, there are the additional considerations of whether the mother will lose her job, and whether the family can physically survive such a job loss. Poor women already have fewer children than other members of society, and this is why.

The right continues to want to make the abortion issue about morality, but in reality, the abortion issue is one of poverty.

What about killing grandpa when he becomes a burden? That's a pretty private and personal decision too. Caring for the elderly is a financial burden that can be solved by snuffing the elderly. He can't remember his own name or how to use the toilet, so he isn't a person anymore...

The logic is identical.

Privacy only trumps life only if the life can be declared to be a non-person. Thus, those that are pro-abortions do mental contortions to rationalize that a new born infant is a person but a baby 1 second prior to birth is not.

I've never seen any of you who are hung up on this "issue" that don't endlessly engage in mental contortionist rationalizations.

 

[Fenton Lum]

[

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

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

"Both" your sides hon.

 

[Dragonlady]

[


None of the above is germaine to the question of abortion. The most private and person decisions a family can make is whether or not they are in a position to add to their family. For poor families, there are the additional considerations of whether the mother will lose her job, and whether the family can physically survive such a job loss. Poor women already have fewer children than other members of society, and this is why.

The right continues to want to make the abortion issue about morality, but in reality, the abortion issue is one of poverty.

What about killing grandpa when he becomes a burden? That's a pretty private and personal decision too. Caring for the elderly is a financial burden that can be solved by snuffing the elderly. He can't remember his own name or how to use the toilet, so he isn't a person anymore...

The logic is identical.

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

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

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

 

[jillian]

I forget, what's the law on this again?

The radical religious right don't care about the settled law or about what a majority of Americans want on this issue.

I'm just not sure why anyone thinks, in a secular country, that their religious views should be enacted into law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

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

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

"Both" your sides hon.

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

 

[Fenton Lum]

I forget, what's the law on this again?

The radical religious right don't care about the settled law or about what a majority of Americans want on this issue.

I'm just not sure why anyone thinks, in a secular country, that their religious views should be enacted into law.

Christians aren't all that opposed the Sharia, they rather insist upon their own version.