The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[Derideo_Te]

A fetus is not a child. It would be called a child if it were. They're two different fucking things. Grow up, learn science, and stop trying to control women's bodies. The only body you have any right to is your own. You don't get to decide whether or not to force anyone to become or remain pregnant. You have no say in whether or when someone spawns. The only rights you have are to your own fucking self. Do you understand this? Do you understand that this is why nothing you said is even valid? They're not even real fucking opinions. You know they're wrong. You know why they're wrong. Now grow the fuck up and stop pretending to believe shit you have no right to believe.

You can call them Martians or Daisies if you like, that's the crux of the matter. One side calls them babies, the other calls them anything but. That's how you can allow their murders without conscience.

I call BS on that bogus allegation. Woman who undergo abortions understand the consequences of their decisions and it is utterly fallacious to call it "murder". Yes, it is the termination of a potential life but that is not the same thing as killing a

Legislating morality is never a good idea.

Legislating immorality is even worse.

Such as?

The first part of your post got cut off, but to address what's there: MANY times women do not understand the consequences of their decision until they are older and realize that they did, indeed, kill their child. A certain Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe), for example, did exactly that.

2nd part of your post: Legislating legal abortions.

The first part of your post got cut off, but to address what's there: MANY times women do not understand the consequences of their decision until they are older and realize that they did, indeed, kill their child. A certain Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe), for example, did exactly that.

Trumped up nonsense by the religious anti-rights fundamentalists. Millions of women have had abortions and there are not millions of women who believe that.

2nd part of your post: Legislating legal abortions.

In other words you have nothing.

Millions of women have abused their live children, as well. Doesn't make is acceptable. Well, not to me, anyway.

2. You asked, I answered.

Thank you for confirming that you have nothing but your emoting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is there ANYONE here who thinks that all abortion should be made a crime of homicide?

Are you stating that that is your position?
No one else said that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Once again Don PoliticalSpice Quixote is on her futile crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.

There is no such "wall, " you uneducated dunce.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was not anathema to the view of the Founders.

1. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Once again PoliticalSpice exposes her woeful ignorance of American history.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was no anathema to the view of the Founders.

Try reading Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson s Letter to the Danbury Baptists June 1998 - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson​

Jan. 1. 1802.

It was Jefferson himself who first used the phrase to describe the intent of the 1st Amendment.

Once again you have made a fool of yourself!

Jefferson recognized America as a Christian nation but didn't believe that any particular denomination should be dominant over the others. That was one of the reasons why he broke from England. He was wholly opposed to any government regulating a person's right to religion:

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3]

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]

[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Separation of Church and State

By the same token, Jefferson was responsible for using the halls of Congress for church services:

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Religion and the Federal Government Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of Congress

The first Congress sponsored the first Bible printed in the USA:

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of Congress

Are you joining PoliticalSpice in her crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state?

Yes or no?

 

[TSJohnson]

But I do say.

The woman carrying a totally separate human being has no right to end its life.

Fortunately the overwhelming majority of doctors and biologists disagree with you. It's not a separate human until that cord is separated. Life Begins At Conception. That s Not the Point

 

[Carib Gyal]

You can call them Martians or Daisies if you like, that's the crux of the matter. One side calls them babies, the other calls them anything but. That's how you can allow their murders without conscience.

I call BS on that bogus allegation. Woman who undergo abortions understand the consequences of their decisions and it is utterly fallacious to call it "murder". Yes, it is the termination of a potential life but that is not the same thing as killing a

Legislating immorality is even worse.

Such as?

The first part of your post got cut off, but to address what's there: MANY times women do not understand the consequences of their decision until they are older and realize that they did, indeed, kill their child. A certain Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe), for example, did exactly that.

2nd part of your post: Legislating legal abortions.

The first part of your post got cut off, but to address what's there: MANY times women do not understand the consequences of their decision until they are older and realize that they did, indeed, kill their child. A certain Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe), for example, did exactly that.

Trumped up nonsense by the religious anti-rights fundamentalists. Millions of women have had abortions and there are not millions of women who believe that.

2nd part of your post: Legislating legal abortions.

In other words you have nothing.

Millions of women have abused their live children, as well. Doesn't make is acceptable. Well, not to me, anyway.

2. You asked, I answered.

Thank you for confirming that you have nothing but your emoting.

Thank you for conceding you have nothing but comments on my emoticons.

You have ceased commenting on your position, and merely comment on cartoons.

Win

 

[Carib Gyal]

But I do say.

The woman carrying a totally separate human being has no right to end its life.

Fortunately the overwhelming majority of doctors and biologists disagree with you. It's not a separate human until that cord is separated. Life Begins At Conception. That s Not the Point

No more than the newborn requires feeding and care after its birth. For quite some time.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Who forced her to have sex?

Do you understand the connection?

Her rapist? Her father? You don't know. That's why you don't get a say.

But I do say.

The woman carrying a totally separate human being has no right to end its life.

The woman carrying a totally separate human being has no right to end its life

Is that what you mean, PolitcalSpice?

 

[PoliticalChic]

But I do say.

The woman carrying a totally separate human being has no right to end its life.

Fortunately the overwhelming majority of doctors and biologists disagree with you. It's not a separate human until that cord is separated. Life Begins At Conception. That s Not the Point

The umbilical cord simply provides nourishment.
Other than that, the child is a totally separate and different human being from its mother.

And, said mother still provides nourishment to the child even after the cord is cut.

Abortion, infanticide, murder: variations on a theme.

 

[Bfgrn]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

Only Liberals/Progressives/Democrats have abortions.

Hey PC, is an IUD and the pill "infanticide"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Is there ANYONE here who thinks that all abortion should be made a crime of homicide?

Are you stating that that is your position?
No one else said that.

Actually you just did say exactly that, PoliticalSpice.

The woman carrying a totally separate human being has no right to end its life.

 

[HenryBHough]

That liberals tend more to abort...
And that whether liberals qualify as entirely human is unresolved....
Does that make the whole proposition moot?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once again Don PoliticalSpice Quixote is on her futile crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.

There is no such "wall, " you uneducated dunce.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was not anathema to the view of the Founders.

1. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Once again PoliticalSpice exposes her woeful ignorance of American history.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was no anathema to the view of the Founders.

Try reading Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson s Letter to the Danbury Baptists June 1998 - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson​

Jan. 1. 1802.

It was Jefferson himself who first used the phrase to describe the intent of the 1st Amendment.

Once again you have made a fool of yourself!

Jefferson recognized America as a Christian nation but didn't believe that any particular denomination should be dominant over the others. That was one of the reasons why he broke from England. He was wholly opposed to any government regulating a person's right to religion:

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3]

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]

[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Separation of Church and State

By the same token, Jefferson was responsible for using the halls of Congress for church services:

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Religion and the Federal Government Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of Congress

The first Congress sponsored the first Bible printed in the USA:

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of Congress

Are you joining PolitcalSpice in her crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state?

Yes or no?

As you learned earlier, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that the Jefferson quote has been misinterpreted.

You, being an imbecile, require remediation:

Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:

"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]

Jefferson’s wall in actuality had federal government on one side of the wall and the state government and religion on the other side. The barrier was impervious in only one direction — meaning federal government was to have no control over the religious activities inside the individual states. This was in line with Jefferson’s strict interpretation of the non-establishment clause.

 

[TSJohnson]

Only Liberals/Progressives/Democrats have abortions.

Hey PC, is an IUD and the pill "infanticide"?

I've heard most abortions are actually chosen by conservative women. I don't know if it's true or not but it would be just like them. "Do as I say, not as I do."

 

[TSJohnson]

That liberals tend more to abort...
And that whether liberals qualify as entirely human is unresolved....
Does that make the whole proposition moot?

You clearly don't even know what human means. Maybe you should take my orders to PoliticalChic to heart: sit down and shut up. Adults are talking.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I call BS on that bogus allegation. Woman who undergo abortions understand the consequences of their decisions and it is utterly fallacious to call it "murder". Yes, it is the termination of a potential life but that is not the same thing as killing a
Such as?

The first part of your post got cut off, but to address what's there: MANY times women do not understand the consequences of their decision until they are older and realize that they did, indeed, kill their child. A certain Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe), for example, did exactly that.

2nd part of your post: Legislating legal abortions.

The first part of your post got cut off, but to address what's there: MANY times women do not understand the consequences of their decision until they are older and realize that they did, indeed, kill their child. A certain Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe), for example, did exactly that.

Trumped up nonsense by the religious anti-rights fundamentalists. Millions of women have had abortions and there are not millions of women who believe that.

2nd part of your post: Legislating legal abortions.

In other words you have nothing.

Millions of women have abused their live children, as well. Doesn't make is acceptable. Well, not to me, anyway.

2. You asked, I answered.

Thank you for confirming that you have nothing but your emoting.

Thank you for conceding you have nothing but comments on my emoticons.

You have ceased commenting on your position, and merely comment on cartoons.

Win

You don't have a "position".

All you have is an emotion. That is not a valid position at all.

Get back to me when you can take a factual position on this issue and defend it with reason and logic instead of just regurgitating your emotion.

 

[Valerie]

the law does not consider humans who are not yet born as protected 'persons' under the constitution.

simple.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Only Liberals/Progressives/Democrats have abortions.

Hey PC, is an IUD and the pill "infanticide"?

I've heard most abortions are actually chosen by conservative women. I don't know if it's true or not but it would be just like them. "Do as I say, not as I do."

I've heard most abortions are actually chosen by liberal women. I don't know if it's true or not but it would be just like them. "Murder unborn babies."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is there ANYONE here who thinks that all abortion should be made a crime of homicide?

Are you stating that that is your position?
No one else said that.

Actually you just did say exactly that, PoliticalSpice.

The woman carrying a totally separate human being has no right to end its life.

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

Only Liberals/Progressives/Democrats have abortions.

Hey PC, is an IUD and the pill "infanticide"?

"Only Liberals/Progressives/Democrats have abortions."

You just aborted yourself....as no one in the thread claimed what you just did.

 

[Bfgrn]

Only Liberals/Progressives/Democrats have abortions.

Hey PC, is an IUD and the pill "infanticide"?

I've heard most abortions are actually chosen by conservative women. I don't know if it's true or not but it would be just like them. "Do as I say, not as I do."

Well we know a "law" is not going to end abortions. Just SAFE ones. Before Roe v. Wade only the elite could afford to send Sally off to "camp", or "vacationing in Europe"...

 

[PoliticalChic]

the law does not consider humans who are not yet born as protected 'persons' under the constitution.

simple.

That was so very kind of you, signing your name to the post.