Liberals now calling fetus an "organ of her own body"

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution says nothing about a woman's right to murder her child, nor does it impose an obligation on someone else to help her. In Roe, the Justices did not find a right to abortion or even a right to privacy. They made it up. They made it up on the spot, and called it a penumbra right. Relying on the Constitution is misplaced and meaningless.

The Constitution says nothing about a right to self-defense, or the right of an individual to own a handgun.

But it’s there nonetheless.

Since before Marbury, and per the original intent of the Framers, the courts determine what the Constitution means, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, which predates the Constitution; and where the Founding Generation fully expected the courts to interpret the law and determine its meaning.

The Constitution and its case law is not a cafeteria plan, if you reject the right to privacy then you must also reject the right of the individual to own a handgun, as the latter is just as ‘made up.’

Last, abortion is not ‘murder,’ ignorance of the difference between civil law and criminal law seems to be epidemic among conservatives.

Clayton, again who cares about the law, that can change...what we want to know, is you stated you were against abortion, but pro choice. So why are you against abortion personally? I dont think you are and you say that to sound reasonable.....am I correct?

Many people can support your right to have guns in your house for self-defense but personally not want them in their own houses. What's the difference?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your question makes no sense in relation to the quoted statement. IF you worded it as thus:

Is it currently constitutional for an individual state to ban abortion at any time before birth if that state so chose?
Then that would make sense as that is what I was talking about. Nowhere did I state that abortion was unconstitutional. What I DID state is that banning abortion in the late stage of a pregnancy IS constitutional and therefore, at some point, the woman’s right to privacy is OVERRIDDEN. This is cold hard fact as band have been upheld.


Person was a bad word to use. I meant HUMAN. Most pro-choice people refuse to call it a HUMAN. They want to lessen the gravity of the decision of killing someone, another human, in the developmental stage by referring to it as an embryo. That is a correct term, but it is still human, a HUMAN embryo.

Science uses the terms zygote, embryo, fetus, etc., etc., for all sorts of species, and yet you think it is some grand sociological conspiracy to promote abortion?

Stay here inside with the rest of us normal people. The ledge is very narrow, and very high up.

Good job. You managed to completely ignore the content of my post, make claims that I never stated AND prove my point all in one.

My post reflects exactly what you were saying. Everyone knows the embryo is human.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because they haven't reached a developmental stage where they can survive outside the womb.

And why it that the woman's fault? Why should she be forced to carry it inside her until it can survive??

Noomi, I know you aren't a horrid soul. I know we've talked abortion before. I've told you I can understand the sad but true stories out there.

What should we do if we were to come together? How could we at least make the world work under horrid circumstances?

I'm not being flippant here. My solution truly would be absolutely free birth control.

Yes I'm conservative in my old age well maybe not over cougar years

Free birth control as to avoid any unwanted pregnancies. I guarantee you Planned Parenthood would lobby against it.

There's great money to be made at the abortion clinics.

See what you and I would come up against?

The healthcare industry makes a helluva lot more money when a woman has a baby than it does if a woman has an abortion.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You think so? In the history of America you have brought ONE case forward that shows that. ONE. And she was near term, meaning the fetus could be separated and survive. Can you offer a single example of the same thing occurring when a woman was 2 weeks pregnant? Nope. Even law shows you to be wrong, and biology makes you look like a fool for trying.

But again, this entire topic of why charge someone with two deaths for killing a near term pregnant woman continues to miss the basic fundamentals of ethics. You can't even comprehend the basics of why things are right or wrong, let alone the biology behind them. How can I or others expect you to understand something advanced like this?

January, 2012:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also called "Ethen's Law," went into effect December first. Under the law, anyone causing the death of an unborn child, except in the case of abortion, can be charged with murder.

Someone who murders a pregnant woman can charged with two counts of murder. The law covers a woman in any stage of pregnancy, from conception, and an attacker doesn't need to know the woman was pregnant in order to be charged.

Danielle Watson was two months pregnant when she was murdered while closing the Flying Biscuit Café at StoneCrest shopping center Friday night in Ballantyne.

She had just heard her baby's heartbeat for the first time Monday, said her boyfriend Keith Smith, and they planned to get married next Sunday.

Two days after the murder, Smith said he's glad the new law is in place.

"Thank God for it," said Smith. "I hoped from the beginning when I found out it would be two counts. It should be."

Suspect could face 2 murder charges under new law | WCNC.com Charlotte

Two counts. Why? Because two human beings were killed. Abortion kills one human being, the fetus.

And?

What does this have to with privacy rights concerning abortion, where the state is prohibited from interfering with a woman’s right to decide to have a child or not?

For perhaps the third or fourth time: you’re confusing civil law (privacy rights, abortion) with criminal law (murder).

This is the primary reason why abortion is indeed not ‘murder.’

And you're hung up on civil vs criminal and 'murder'. You miss my point entirely. Not surprising.

 

[Zoom-boing]

If the fetus is part of a woman's body, and if the fetus has no standing or rights as a person,

then a woman has every right to remove it or have it removed from her body.

A fetus is not part of a woman's body, it is a separate living human being that resides within and develops in the woman's body. Yes, the law says she can abort (terminate, end the life of) that human being residing within her body.

Then offer to adopt some of the babies, maybe even give the mom a few grand to boot if she has the baby.

Ah yes, let the person responsible for creating a new life shoulder zero responsibility for their actions and have someone else take care of the problem.

Typical. Leftist.

 

[buckeye45_73]

And why it that the woman's fault? Why should she be forced to carry it inside her until it can survive??

Noomi, I know you aren't a horrid soul. I know we've talked abortion before. I've told you I can understand the sad but true stories out there.

What should we do if we were to come together? How could we at least make the world work under horrid circumstances?

I'm not being flippant here. My solution truly would be absolutely free birth control.

Yes I'm conservative in my old age well maybe not over cougar years

Free birth control as to avoid any unwanted pregnancies. I guarantee you Planned Parenthood would lobby against it.

There's great money to be made at the abortion clinics.

See what you and I would come up against?

The healthcare industry makes a helluva lot more money when a woman has a baby than it does if a woman has an abortion.

She was talking about abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood, not hospitals and such......try and keep up.

 

[buckeye45_73]

A fetus is not part of a woman's body, it is a separate living human being that resides within and develops in the woman's body. Yes, the law says she can abort (terminate, end the life of) that human being residing within her body.

Then offer to adopt some of the babies, maybe even give the mom a few grand to boot if she has the baby.

Ah yes, let the person responsible for creating a new life shoulder zero responsibility for their actions and have someone else take care of the problem.

Typical. Leftist.

It's the livberal way....two blacks have sex and create a baby...blame a republican...another trick of theirs.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Then offer to adopt some of the babies, maybe even give the mom a few grand to boot if she has the baby.

Ah yes, let the person responsible for creating a new life shoulder zero responsibility for their actions and have someone else take care of the problem.

Typical. Leftist.

It's the livberal way....two blacks have sex and create a baby...blame a republican...another trick of theirs.

wtf does black have to do with anything? Shut up.

 

[FA_Q2]

No worries on the siamese thing. Even in your mistake you still make a coherent argument. Haha.

Now, as to the morality of the subject, I think you hit a correct concept but that it is somewhat unfinished. There is a clear decision in that because the idea of the one that is ‘loved’ where the other has none and we do regularly ‘euthanize’ animals that have no one that cares about them. The only thing I would add though is that we are programmed through biology to care for a child even when they are not ours. I do agree with your point though that the abortion debate does center on that ‘love’ aspect for children as well as the potential development into fully away and cute babies and is a core reason that we tend to argue vehemently for protections of children. I can say for my part, there is nothing on this planet, nothing, that is more valuable than my two children and looking at them it is hard to accept the death of other children. Taken outside of the abortion debate, Sandy Hook is a good example where I would barely bat an eye at the death of 30 adults (hundreds die every day and there is nothing that I can do about it) but the death of so many children was heart wrenching.

I completely agree. There is a group mindset of caring for children, and sociology shows us that historically and currently it takes a village to raise a child. We're used to wanting to care for others' children. But that is quite different than turning it to action and actually raising all of those children. And that's one of the other problems that pro-life crowd can't quite grasp: they're not actually caring for the children they want to ensure come into this world. They think somehow, magically, these children are always well cared for. But the fact remains that the number of children waiting for adoption always far exceeds those actually adopted every single year without fail.

I think you are mischaracterizing the pro-life position here. What level of care the child id going to receive is meaningless in this context as that is another problem altogether. Even if that level of care is bad, that cannot and does not justify an abortion. You can claim the moral equivalent to killing an unborn child because you were not going to be able to feed it well. I can tell you that I certainly would rather go hungry, be beaten or have a thousand other terrible things happen to me than be killed.

I believe that the think the care for these children is another problem to be addressed in another way. It is folly to declare that you deal with the future bad care of these children by ensuring that they cease to exist. I refuse to go to that moral depravity.

That might be the ultimate example but it is irrelevant what example is used. Either way, that organism is its own organism and distinctly not human. I will admit that I am at the end of my understanding of biology here as I am no biologist but, as I understand it, mitochondria ARE separate autonomous organisms that have simply lost the ability to survive without the host:
Endosymbiont - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In that respect, that is exactly what a fetus is and neither is different than a bacterium.

I think this is where our beliefs differ. I see the mitochondria as NOT separate, nor distinct. But without it, no humans. OK my brain is hurting now too. Let's move away? haha

To each their own but that is why I provided the link. IT states the current theory (if you didn’t get a chance to look at it) is that mitochondria started out as a completely separate bacteria and later evolved the symbiotic relationship that it has today. You seem to believe that it has merged with us but I will hold that it is still autonomous even if we require each other to survive. I think that that it is simply a matter of fundamentally seeing life differently though, between me and you.

Nor do I but if you have just one cell then that is a person (at least to me) as any other definition speaks to me as a philosophical matter and NOT a scientific one. If we were to define human then, what would your definition be?

Well, that's the problem. I couldn't provide one. And keep in mind that inability to provide one doesn't negate my ability to disagree with yours.

I think one of the things that gets my hung up, and probably many others, is that the word human is both a noun and adjective. Which is why I say an early fetus is human but not a human. haha

At the end of the day, i care about person above human, if that makes sense.

I agree that you need to care for the person and that is one reason why I can hold my views and still condone abortion as a legal action.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I would be a strong supporter of free birth control, and anyone who rallied against that would be an idiot - including PP, if they showed opposition to it.
I cannot believe that anyone would care more about making money from abortions than about preventing them.

One day for true, I'd like to have a serious discussion on this. Women only.And only women willing to discuss all options. Just one thread for us.

I think you already know that although heartbreaking as it is, I do understand why women who are being tormented physically day in and day out and on the move to try to leave their husbands will abort for example.

I'm not a fool. Nor am I heartless. I understand. I don't condemn. Maybe we could get that thread together and we could really talk about true issues that confront women.

It'd have to be a thread in which only respectful debate was offered - free from trolls and people saying that women should just keep their legs closed, because that doesn't further any debate.

I would be willing to have a discussion with you, though.

"women should just keep their legs closed"..
Who said anything about THAT?
The issue here is practicing self control and responsible behavior.. Should one forego those responsibilities they cannot expect to be freed of the consequences..
Who speaks for the life of a child developing in the womb? Sensible people do that.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Because they haven't reached a developmental stage where they can survive outside the womb.

And why it that the woman's fault? Why should she be forced to carry it inside her until it can survive??

So the fetus is responsible for its existence, not the man and woman who had sex which resulted in pregnancy (talking the rule here, rather than the exceptions)?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Noomi, I know you aren't a horrid soul. I know we've talked abortion before. I've told you I can understand the sad but true stories out there.

What should we do if we were to come together? How could we at least make the world work under horrid circumstances?

I'm not being flippant here. My solution truly would be absolutely free birth control.

Yes I'm conservative in my old age well maybe not over cougar years

Free birth control as to avoid any unwanted pregnancies. I guarantee you Planned Parenthood would lobby against it.

There's great money to be made at the abortion clinics.

See what you and I would come up against?

The healthcare industry makes a helluva lot more money when a woman has a baby than it does if a woman has an abortion.

She was talking about abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood, not hospitals and such......try and keep up.

Are you denying that the financial interest in healthcare is more for women having babies than getting abortions?

 

[Noomi]

Because they haven't reached a developmental stage where they can survive outside the womb.

And why it that the woman's fault? Why should she be forced to carry it inside her until it can survive??

So the fetus is responsible for its existence, not the man and woman who had sex which resulted in pregnancy (talking the rule here, rather than the exceptions)?

Often, failure of birth control is responsible for the existence of the fetus.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because they haven't reached a developmental stage where they can survive outside the womb.

And why it that the woman's fault? Why should she be forced to carry it inside her until it can survive??

Gee. How about we return from LA LA land..
That's the way we as human beings are constructed. Women become pregnant. Women are the bearer of children. Case closed.
Stop whining.

 

[Zoom-boing]

And why it that the woman's fault? Why should she be forced to carry it inside her until it can survive??

So the fetus is responsible for its existence, not the man and woman who had sex which resulted in pregnancy (talking the rule here, rather than the exceptions)?

Often, failure of birth control is responsible for the existence of the fetus.

Uh, no. A broken condom can no more create a new life than drive a car.

A man and a woman having sex/sperm fertilizing egg is what creates new life. Always has, always will.

 

[Noomi]

Because they haven't reached a developmental stage where they can survive outside the womb.

And why it that the woman's fault? Why should she be forced to carry it inside her until it can survive??

Gee. How about we return from LA LA land..
That's the way we as human beings are constructed. Women become pregnant. Women are the bearer of children. Case closed.
Stop whining.

We are arguing as to whether a fetus a separate being. Try to keep up.

 

[Noomi]

So the fetus is responsible for its existence, not the man and woman who had sex which resulted in pregnancy (talking the rule here, rather than the exceptions)?

Often, failure of birth control is responsible for the existence of the fetus.

Uh, no. A broken condom can no more create a new life than drive a car.

A man and a woman having sex/sperm fertilizing egg is what creates new life. Always has, always will.

A broken condom is more often responsible for a pregnancy than a condom that doesn't break.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Often, failure of birth control is responsible for the existence of the fetus.

Uh, no. A broken condom can no more create a new life than drive a car.

A man and a woman having sex/sperm fertilizing egg is what creates new life. Always has, always will.

A broken condom is more often responsible for a pregnancy than a condom that doesn't break.

Or, you just didn't friggun use one.

 

[Noomi]

^if the woman does, it shows she is taking responsibility in trying to prevent a pregnancy.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Often, failure of birth control is responsible for the existence of the fetus.

Uh, no. A broken condom can no more create a new life than drive a car.

A man and a woman having sex/sperm fertilizing egg is what creates new life. Always has, always will.

A broken condom is more often responsible for a pregnancy than a condom that doesn't break.

The man and woman who have sex are always responsible for the pregnancy.