Not the view you were looking for: A conservative woman's view on abortion

[Coyote]

Too bad the unborn child in the womb can't pull a Bruce Jenner and identify itself as a human being.

I have a proposition for you. Why don't you go to an abortion clinic and talk a woman out of her abortion by offering to house her blastocyst until it's viable?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're kind of mashing things together and claiming things I've neither said nor suggested.

Funny you use that reasoning to define what is or isn't a human being.

 

[Coyote]

They call it being pregnant. A pregnancy. That is what it is.

Pregnant with what? A dog?

So you are saying it's not a pregnancy? Seriously? We are not to call it a pregnancy?

 

[Coyote]

You're kind of mashing things together and claiming things I've neither said nor suggested.

Funny you use that reasoning to define what is or isn't a human being.

I have not defined what is or isn't a human being.

 

[Ernie S.]

How many innocent people have been executed in the last 50 years?
Probably a few, but since '79, with mandatory appeals, the odds are maybe 1 in 5,000 that an innocent will be executed.
Yes, even one is too many, but I'll live with that if we amend the law to make prosecutorial misconduct resulting in a capital conviction attempted murder. carrying a mandatory 20 to life.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Ahhh by your logic, what you say is irrelevant.

Your opinion is just that.
Opinions are like assholes everyone's got one and most stink.

The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.

Science will prove that wrong eventually. Then you will be known as a murderer.

Science doesn't determine the concept of personhood.

Science determines everything in the world other than life? Are you serious?

You were talking about personhood - not life. Two completely different things.

Personhood - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.[1]

So when does one become a person in your mind?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have a proposition for you. Why don't you go to an abortion clinic and talk a woman out of her abortion by offering to house her blastocyst until it's viable?

I have a proposition for you. Could you perhaps avoid committing ad baculum, or reductio ad absurdum fallacies by asking "why don't you house her blastocyst?"

Moreover, how about you walk into the LDR room of a hospital and try to talk a mother into aborting the child. Go ahead, try it.

 

[Coyote]

We play God all the time when we decide what creations will live or die for often the most frivolous reasons. Likewise, the people demanding that women must carry out an unwanted pregnancy from conception to birth falter when it comes to inacting the death penalty. Choosing life or death.

What are you trying to say....? The death of a violent criminal is not the same as sparing the life of an unborn baby. I am for the death penalty and against abortion...the thing that sets them apart is innocence. The baby has done nothing wrong, the killer has murdered someone else...is that so hard to see?

I'm saying either human life has a consistent value or it has an arbritrary value. It's clear in your mind that human life has an arbritrary value.

Human life has consistent value from conception through death.That value only becomes arbitrary as a result of its own actions.
No fetus, to my knowledge, has ever been convicted of a capitol offense.

Human life is either valued or it is not irregardless of actions. Most of that value comes out of religion and, at least in Catholic theology there is no difference between ending the life of a fetus or ending the life of a murderer - it's equally wrong. There's no subjective "innocence" interjected into it - it's human life. And considering that more and more we find innocent people have been convicted under the death penalty - the whole innocence thing is a mess.

So by your own admission we can't have the death penalty for a grown person that killed someone because that is against God's will. So how do you square that same concept with an unborn child and arrive at that is an acceptable murder?

I don't. I'm as inconsistent as you are.

My feeling - for me - is abortion is wrong. I have NO right however to make that choice for another woman. That is pro-choice.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You're kind of mashing things together and claiming things I've neither said nor suggested.

Funny you use that reasoning to define what is or isn't a human being.

I have not defined what is or isn't a human being.

It would help us all if you would just stop with the bullshit word parsings and tell us what you actually believe. Or do you need these excuses in order to support murder of the innocent?

 

[Coyote]

The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.

Science will prove that wrong eventually. Then you will be known as a murderer.

Science doesn't determine the concept of personhood.

Science determines everything in the world other than life? Are you serious?

You were talking about personhood - not life. Two completely different things.

Personhood - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.[1]

So when does one become a person in your mind?

Once a fetus is viable, but legally speaking not until it's born.

 

[Noomi]

The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.

Science will prove that wrong eventually. Then you will be known as a murderer.

Science doesn't determine the concept of personhood.

Science determines everything in the world other than life? Are you serious?

You were talking about personhood - not life. Two completely different things.

Personhood - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.[1]

So when does one become a person in your mind?

IMO its when you are born and take a breath.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

What are you trying to say....? The death of a violent criminal is not the same as sparing the life of an unborn baby. I am for the death penalty and against abortion...the thing that sets them apart is innocence. The baby has done nothing wrong, the killer has murdered someone else...is that so hard to see?

I'm saying either human life has a consistent value or it has an arbritrary value. It's clear in your mind that human life has an arbritrary value.

Human life has consistent value from conception through death.That value only becomes arbitrary as a result of its own actions.
No fetus, to my knowledge, has ever been convicted of a capitol offense.

Human life is either valued or it is not irregardless of actions. Most of that value comes out of religion and, at least in Catholic theology there is no difference between ending the life of a fetus or ending the life of a murderer - it's equally wrong. There's no subjective "innocence" interjected into it - it's human life. And considering that more and more we find innocent people have been convicted under the death penalty - the whole innocence thing is a mess.

So by your own admission we can't have the death penalty for a grown person that killed someone because that is against God's will. So how do you square that same concept with an unborn child and arrive at that is an acceptable murder?

I don't. I'm as inconsistent as you are.

My feeling - for me - is abortion is wrong. I have NO right however to make that choice for another woman. That is pro-choice.

Abortion is wrong but you won't stand up against it. Murder is wrong, dealing drugs is wrong, prostitution is wrong and drunk driving is wrong. You don't seem to have a problem with making those offenses your right to involve yourself in. Why turn a blind eye to the obvious here? Every criminal act is a choice. Murdering your child should be right up there don't you think?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one ever said that clump of cells (which it is, by the way) didn't have DNA.

Hey Noomi, long time no see! How've you been? Nice to see you again.

Now if you could read her statement again, Fiorina never says anything about the the "clump of cells" not having any DNA. And I quote

"I happen to believe that science is proving us right. The DNA in a zygote is the same as the DNA the day you die, we do have common ground on this issue now."

She knows there's already DNA inside the zygote. The zygote cannot exist without it. You have the same DNA at development that you do when you die. Meaning, the zygote is just as much a human life as the person is before they die, Noomi.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Science will prove that wrong eventually. Then you will be known as a murderer.

Science doesn't determine the concept of personhood.

Science determines everything in the world other than life? Are you serious?

You were talking about personhood - not life. Two completely different things.

Personhood - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.[1]

So when does one become a person in your mind?

Once a fetus is viable, but legally speaking not until it's born.

A fetus is viable the moment an egg is fertilized. It will become a human being. That's what it does. No matter how hard you try to redefine it in law.

 

[Coyote]

You're kind of mashing things together and claiming things I've neither said nor suggested.

Funny you use that reasoning to define what is or isn't a human being.

I have not defined what is or isn't a human being.

It would help us all if you would just stop with the bullshit word parsings and tell us what you actually believe. Or do you need these excuses in order to support murder of the innocent?

I won't stop with the "word parsings" until you (or rather TK) stops assuming I'm saying things I haven't said simply because I'm pro-choice and therefor must be saying it.

I believe that only the woman has the right to make decisions regarding her own body. That right is primary. Secondary comes the right of her fetus. I don't support elective abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy except under certain conditions: the mother's health or life is indangered or severe fetal deformaties. No one argues that it is not a "human being". But whether it is a person to be granted all rights is another argument entirely.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I won't stop with the "word parsings" until you (or rather TK) stops assuming I'm saying things I haven't said simply because I'm pro-choice and therefor must be saying it.

So, state your case plainly.

 

[Noomi]

No one ever said that clump of cells (which it is, by the way) didn't have DNA.

Hey Noomi, long time no see! How've you been? Nice to see you again.

Now if you could read her statement again, Fiorina never says anything about the the "clump of cells" not having any DNA. And I quote

"I happen to believe that science is proving us right. The DNA in a zygote is the same as the DNA the day you die, we do have common ground on this issue now."

She knows there's already DNA inside the zygote. The zygote cannot exist without it. You have the same DNA at development that you do when you die. Meaning, the zygote is just as much a human life as the person is before they die, Noomi.

Nice to see you again, TK! Been okay, getting there.

I agree with the bolded portion. There is no reason for me not to believe it, because its true. However, just because we all have the same DNA from conception to death is not a reason to deny a woman the right to choose what she does with her own body.

We are aware of each others views, TK and neither of us will change our minds.

 

[Ernie S.]

You're kind of mashing things together and claiming things I've neither said nor suggested.

Funny you use that reasoning to define what is or isn't a human being.

I have not defined what is or isn't a human being.

It would help us all if you would just stop with the bullshit word parsings and tell us what you actually believe. Or do you need these excuses in order to support murder of the innocent?

I won't stop with the "word parsings" until you (or rather TK) stops assuming I'm saying things I haven't said simply because I'm pro-choice and therefor must be saying it.

I believe that only the woman has the right to make decisions regarding her own body. That right is primary. Secondary comes the right of her fetus. I don't support elective abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy except under certain conditions: the mother's health or life is indangered or severe fetal deformaties. No one argues that it is not a "human being". But whether it is a person to be granted all rights is another argument entirely.

The pro life argument is that the fetus is a separate life and not part of the woman's body.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I
“Well, look abortion is obviously a very delicate subject, she replied. "I happen to believe that science is proving us right. The DNA in a zygote is the same as the DNA the day you die, we do have common ground on this issue now.”

So identical twins only count as one person?

I don't get the argument. Is Fiorina saying that a human being is nothing more than a strand of DNA?

 

[Ernie S.]

No one ever said that clump of cells (which it is, by the way) didn't have DNA.

Hey Noomi, long time no see! How've you been? Nice to see you again.

Now if you could read her statement again, Fiorina never says anything about the the "clump of cells" not having any DNA. And I quote

"I happen to believe that science is proving us right. The DNA in a zygote is the same as the DNA the day you die, we do have common ground on this issue now."

She knows there's already DNA inside the zygote. The zygote cannot exist without it. You have the same DNA at development that you do when you die. Meaning, the zygote is just as much a human life as the person is before they die, Noomi.

Nice to see you again, TK! Been okay, getting there.

I agree with the bolded portion. There is no reason for me not to believe it, because its true. However, just because we all have the same DNA from conception to death is not a reason to deny a woman the right to choose what she does with her own body.

We are aware of each others views, TK and neither of us will change our minds.

It's NOT just HER body. There is another life to consider.