My Stances On Abortion: An Epic Monologue from A to Z

[alan1]

Um.......maybe the "unborn" part has something to do with it.

"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.."
Just saying.

Yep. Once born....you are a citizen with said rights. Excellent point.

No where does it state that one must be born before the right to life exists.
See my other posts about when I think life exists.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Courts, liberals, conservatives and medical science all agree that the cessation of brainwaves in a living human being signify the end of life (a small minority may disagree with that).
So how come courts, liberals, conservatives and medical science can't agree that the existence of brainwaves in an unborn signify the existence of life?

Because the courts have wisely left such determinations to each individual, in accordance with his religious beliefs and own good conscience – absent interference by the state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Courts, liberals, conservatives and medical science all agree that the cessation of brainwaves in a living human being signify the end of life (a small minority may disagree with that).
So how come courts, liberals, conservatives and medical science can't agree that the existence of brainwaves in an unborn signify the existence of life?

Um.......maybe the "unborn" part has something to do with it.

"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.."
Just saying.

Prior to birth, there is no ‘right to life”:

After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.."
Just saying.

Yep. Once born....you are a citizen with said rights. Excellent point.

No where does it state that one must be born before the right to life exists.
See my other posts about when I think life exists.

Exactly.

When you believe.

And the Constitution protects your right to have that belief; it also prohibits you from seeking to codify that belief compelling other to believe as you do.

 

[alan1]

Because it's not the point, Alan. The point is, you can't force a woman to stay pregnant against her will.

My point is, the definition of life.
For the most part, almost all agree what the end of life is, why can't we use the same standard for the other end (beginning of life)? My intent isn't to force anybody to do anything, instead, it is to come to an agreement on what constitutes life and educate people accordingly so that they are better equipped to make such a decision. The vast preponderance of our society is opposed to the taking of an innocent human life.
For me, I accept that the lack of brainwaves means life doesn't exist (it's scientific). I also am consistent in that I accept that the existence of brainwaves means life does exist. Therefore, aborting a fetus with brainwaves is the taking of a life. It's a simple concept in my mind.

BDBoop,
my position on abortion has changed over the years. I used to fully support it. Today, I am opposed to all abortion but I am willing to accept abortion in the absence of fetal brainwaves. Just like my willingness to agree to the removal of breathing tubes and intravenous feeding for people that lack brainwaves.
We have a definition of life, let's use it to the best of our ability.

No, let's not.

I don't do chats about taking away women's rights. If she's pregnant and wants to stay pregnant, that's her call. Doesn't want to stay pregnant, that's her call. Nobody else's. This is her life, not Big Brother. It's not even once-removed, where at least you are watching out for someone you know and/or love. This is you talking like you have a say in the life of a complete stranger.

You don't.

Do you disagree with using medical science as a definition for life?
Your intense focus on the life of one removes your ability to notice the life of the other. I'm talking about the scientific definition of life. You can use terms like "Big Brother", but that is not my angle and I think you know that. I don't see anything wrong with me looking out for the life a complete stranger, there is nothing evil or wrong with doing that. In this case, it just happens to be an unborn fetus with brainwaves that signify life, no different to me than if it was a one day old with brainwaves. I hold the same standard. Do you?

 

[BDBoop]

My point is, the definition of life.
For the most part, almost all agree what the end of life is, why can't we use the same standard for the other end (beginning of life)? My intent isn't to force anybody to do anything, instead, it is to come to an agreement on what constitutes life and educate people accordingly so that they are better equipped to make such a decision. The vast preponderance of our society is opposed to the taking of an innocent human life.
For me, I accept that the lack of brainwaves means life doesn't exist (it's scientific). I also am consistent in that I accept that the existence of brainwaves means life does exist. Therefore, aborting a fetus with brainwaves is the taking of a life. It's a simple concept in my mind.

BDBoop,
my position on abortion has changed over the years. I used to fully support it. Today, I am opposed to all abortion but I am willing to accept abortion in the absence of fetal brainwaves. Just like my willingness to agree to the removal of breathing tubes and intravenous feeding for people that lack brainwaves.
We have a definition of life, let's use it to the best of our ability.

No, let's not.

I don't do chats about taking away women's rights. If she's pregnant and wants to stay pregnant, that's her call. Doesn't want to stay pregnant, that's her call. Nobody else's. This is her life, not Big Brother. It's not even once-removed, where at least you are watching out for someone you know and/or love. This is you talking like you have a say in the life of a complete stranger.

You don't.

Do you disagree with using medical science as a definition for life?
Your intense focus on the life of one removes your ability to notice the life of the other. I'm talking about the scientific definition of life. You can use terms like "Big Brother", but that is not my angle and I think you know that. I don't see anything wrong with me looking out for the life a complete stranger, there is nothing evil or wrong with doing that. In this case, it just happens to be an unborn fetus with brainwaves that signify life, no different to me than if it was a one day old with brainwaves. I hold the same standard. Do you?

I don't do chats about taking away women's rights.

 

[alan1]

Um.......maybe the "unborn" part has something to do with it.

"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.."
Just saying.

Prior to birth, there is no ‘right to life”:

After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."

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

I guess I sort of stand corrected.
If the unborn hold no status as a person, how come so many states allow prosecution for the murder of a fetus? Fetal Homicide State Laws

 

[alan1]

Yep. Once born....you are a citizen with said rights. Excellent point.

No where does it state that one must be born before the right to life exists.
See my other posts about when I think life exists.

Exactly.

When you believe.

And the Constitution protects your right to have that belief; it also prohibits you from seeking to codify that belief compelling other to believe as you do.

And when medical science and courts believe life exists and passed law about it.
I'm not alone, I have courts and science on my side.

 

[alan1]

No, let's not.

I don't do chats about taking away women's rights. If she's pregnant and wants to stay pregnant, that's her call. Doesn't want to stay pregnant, that's her call. Nobody else's. This is her life, not Big Brother. It's not even once-removed, where at least you are watching out for someone you know and/or love. This is you talking like you have a say in the life of a complete stranger.

You don't.

Do you disagree with using medical science as a definition for life?
Your intense focus on the life of one removes your ability to notice the life of the other. I'm talking about the scientific definition of life. You can use terms like "Big Brother", but that is not my angle and I think you know that. I don't see anything wrong with me looking out for the life a complete stranger, there is nothing evil or wrong with doing that. In this case, it just happens to be an unborn fetus with brainwaves that signify life, no different to me than if it was a one day old with brainwaves. I hold the same standard. Do you?

I don't do chats about taking away women's rights.

In other words, your mind is closed to discussing ideas.
Carry on.

 

[tinydancer]

Nope. Neonatal 'life' does not trump the host's rights.

Oh here we go. The host. Come on. I know this game well.

The child inside you is actually a "parasite". ?

Give me a break darling.

You know truly when you learn about life? It's that first kick and you go what the hell was that?

And you know there is someone inside you. Really truly there is a baby inside you. You can feel it move and stretch and reach out to you. It's not something called a fetus. It's your child.

All I'm asking for, because I do with all my heart understand we have rape, we have pedophilia, we have incest we have women who are being beaten up and cannot bear another child, is that we have the decency as a society to have a service where we can help women but with a cut off date?

I think a cut off date is reasonable as long as there are always exceptions for life and health of the mother.

Late term abortions are highly restricted in every state. I support that.

I truly would give out bc pills freely. I take a lot of flak over this but I don't care because I would give out a million pills to prevent one abortion. This hurts my heart so.

One cannot legislate morality. And I sure as heck cannot judge. But I'd rather give out a quizillion free pills or condoms to prevent one abortion.

 

[BDBoop]

Do you disagree with using medical science as a definition for life?
Your intense focus on the life of one removes your ability to notice the life of the other. I'm talking about the scientific definition of life. You can use terms like "Big Brother", but that is not my angle and I think you know that. I don't see anything wrong with me looking out for the life a complete stranger, there is nothing evil or wrong with doing that. In this case, it just happens to be an unborn fetus with brainwaves that signify life, no different to me than if it was a one day old with brainwaves. I hold the same standard. Do you?

I don't do chats about taking away women's rights.

In other words, your mind is closed to discussing ideas.
Carry on.

And yours is open?



Carry on, indeed.

 

[JoeB131]

What happened to the author of this epic thread?

Probably playing Diablo.

Maybe he realized it was Epic Fail....

 

[TemplarKormac]

Even the law recognizes the unborn fetus as life, what of all of your contentions now?

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JoeB131]

Even the law recognizes the unborn fetus as life, what of all of your contentions now?

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1) It's a really stupid law.

2) Again, I have yet to have you explain to me why Rape Fetus needs to die but One Night Stand Fetus needs government protection.

3) I also have yet to hear you or any other misogynistic nutter tell me how you are going to enforce your anti-choice laws.

 

[chikenwing]

Even the law recognizes the unborn fetus as life, what of all of your contentions now?

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1) It's a really stupid law.

2) Again, I have yet to have you explain to me why Rape Fetus needs to die but One Night Stand Fetus needs government protection.

3) I also have yet to hear you or any other misogynistic nutter tell me how you are going to enforce your anti-choice laws.

Why is it a stupid law,it undermines your crazy notion that an unborn human isn't human??

There is never a legitimate excuse to kill an innocent person,no matter how they are conceived.

You even go as far as rationalizing terms,like anti choice,when its all about life,not choices,but then the willfully ignorant do things like this.

 

[JoeB131]

Even the law recognizes the unborn fetus as life, what of all of your contentions now?

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1) It's a really stupid law.

2) Again, I have yet to have you explain to me why Rape Fetus needs to die but One Night Stand Fetus needs government protection.

3) I also have yet to hear you or any other misogynistic nutter tell me how you are going to enforce your anti-choice laws.

Why is it a stupid law,it undermines your crazy notion that an unborn human isn't human??

There is never a legitimate excuse to kill an innocent person,no matter how they are conceived.

You even go as far as rationalizing terms,like anti choice,when its all about life,not choices,but then the willfully ignorant do things like this.

Stupid law because it makes up people.

This isn't about babies, it's about your screaming terror of women controlling their lady parts.

 

[Noomi]

Even the law recognizes the unborn fetus as life, what of all of your contentions now?

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That law doesn't have anything to do with abortion.

 

[koshergrl]

Abortion is a human rights violation...against the women who are abused, exploited and killed in order to feed the abortion machine, and against their children.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Even the law recognizes the unborn fetus as life, what of all of your contentions now?

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorrect.

You’re confusing criminal law with civil law.

Privacy rights with regard to abortion concern civil law in the context of substantive due process, where the state may not violate a woman’s right to privacy and dictate to her whether she may have a child or not.

Unborn victim laws concern criminal law in the context of procedural due process, where a criminal commits a violent act against a pregnant woman that results in the death of the fetus. These laws do not recognize the fetus to be a ‘person,’ and as we have seen in Justice Stevens’ concurrence in Casey, prior to birth the developing organism does not possess a 'right to life.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion is a human rights violation...against the women who are abused, exploited and killed in order to feed the abortion machine, and against their children.

Nonsense.

The right to privacy recognizes the woman as a free and independent individual, competent to make decisions in her own best interest – free from interference by the state.