The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You can talk about viability and science all day, but here's the pragmatic reality.

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to not be pregnant.

Wonderful... if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she can easily achieve that by not allowing a male reproductive organ into her reproductive organ. 100% efficacy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again you are confusing the ability to provide food, water and shelter with viability.

No, I am saying "viability" is an ambiguous term that means nothing. We apply it to the fetus in the context of what the fetus can or can't do outside it's appropriate environment. That standard isn't applied to human life elsewhere, only when it's in the womb. You are arguing that since it can't sustain itself outside the womb it's not 'viable' human life, but no human life can sustain itself outside the environment it is intended to survive in. The fetus certainly can sustain itself inside the womb attached to the uterus, if it couldn't we wouldn't need to abort anything.

Like I said "viability" is not ambiguous.......

The court also recognized that the state has an “important and legitimate interest” in protecting the health of the mother and even “the potentiality of human life” inside her. The court then asked: When does the state’s legitimate concern for maternal and fetal protection rise to the level of compelling interest? To answer this question, Blackmun created a three-tiered legal framework, based on the nine-month period of pregnancy, which gave the state greater interest and regulatory latitude in each successive tier.

The first tier in Blackmun’s framework encompassed the first trimester of pregnancy. Given that during these first three months the risks associated with abortion are actually lower than those associated with childbirth, the state has no real interest in limiting the procedure in order to protect a woman’s health, Blackmun argued. During this period, the state can only impose basic health safeguards – such as requiring that the procedure be performed by a qualified health professional – and can in no way limit access to abortion.

The second tier of Blackmun’s framework encompassed the period from the end of the first trimester to the point of fetal viability – the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, either through natural or artificial means, which typically takes place between about 24 and 28 weeks into a pregnancy. At this point, Blackmun determined, the state has an interest in protecting maternal health and can regulate abortion only to protect the health of the mother. In other words, regulations have to be directed toward ensuring maternal health and cannot be aimed at protecting a fetus or limiting access to abortion services. Thus, a state law requiring a doctor to describe to a woman seeking an abortion the risks associated with the procedure before receiving her informed consent would be constitutional – as long as the requirement aimed to protect maternal health and was not created to dissuade a woman from terminating her pregnancy.

A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

Viability is ambiguous. Because you can cite a legal definition only means that we have created some illusion of non-ambiguity under the law but even the law is ambiguous. You've just posted how the law establishes viability of human life with regard to abortion... BUT... same same woman and fetus gets themselves killed in one of 60 acts of violence, the law says the fetus is a human life worthy of constitutional right to life under the law. So how can one argue it is not ambiguous?

Incorrect.

You're confusing criminal law with that of civil law.

If a fetus is killed during the commission of a crime, the crime is against the woman, not the fetus, as it has no 'rights' whatsoever. It's the woman whose rights have been violated by the criminal who took from that woman her choice to have a child or not.

With regard to civil law concerning a woman's right to privacy, the state also has no authority to violate the protected liberty of a woman by compelling her to give birth against her will.

Whether the woman's right to decide is violated by a criminal act or by the state acting in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, it is the woman alone who has been wronged, her right to decide taken from her.

Nonsense...

There are articles already cited in this thread, where murder charges are brought on behalf of the human being in utero.

And FTR: a woman's right to decide, is limited to where she decided to or not to, engage in vaginal intercourse.

 

[Boss]

Again you are confusing the ability to provide food, water and shelter with viability.

No, I am saying "viability" is an ambiguous term that means nothing. We apply it to the fetus in the context of what the fetus can or can't do outside it's appropriate environment. That standard isn't applied to human life elsewhere, only when it's in the womb. You are arguing that since it can't sustain itself outside the womb it's not 'viable' human life, but no human life can sustain itself outside the environment it is intended to survive in. The fetus certainly can sustain itself inside the womb attached to the uterus, if it couldn't we wouldn't need to abort anything.

Like I said "viability" is not ambiguous.......

The court also recognized that the state has an “important and legitimate interest” in protecting the health of the mother and even “the potentiality of human life” inside her. The court then asked: When does the state’s legitimate concern for maternal and fetal protection rise to the level of compelling interest? To answer this question, Blackmun created a three-tiered legal framework, based on the nine-month period of pregnancy, which gave the state greater interest and regulatory latitude in each successive tier.

The first tier in Blackmun’s framework encompassed the first trimester of pregnancy. Given that during these first three months the risks associated with abortion are actually lower than those associated with childbirth, the state has no real interest in limiting the procedure in order to protect a woman’s health, Blackmun argued. During this period, the state can only impose basic health safeguards – such as requiring that the procedure be performed by a qualified health professional – and can in no way limit access to abortion.

The second tier of Blackmun’s framework encompassed the period from the end of the first trimester to the point of fetal viability – the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, either through natural or artificial means, which typically takes place between about 24 and 28 weeks into a pregnancy. At this point, Blackmun determined, the state has an interest in protecting maternal health and can regulate abortion only to protect the health of the mother. In other words, regulations have to be directed toward ensuring maternal health and cannot be aimed at protecting a fetus or limiting access to abortion services. Thus, a state law requiring a doctor to describe to a woman seeking an abortion the risks associated with the procedure before receiving her informed consent would be constitutional – as long as the requirement aimed to protect maternal health and was not created to dissuade a woman from terminating her pregnancy.

A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

Viability is ambiguous. Because you can cite a legal definition only means that we have created some illusion of non-ambiguity under the law but even the law is ambiguous. You've just posted how the law establishes viability of human life with regard to abortion... BUT... same same woman and fetus gets themselves killed in one of 60 acts of violence, the law says the fetus is a human life worthy of constitutional right to life under the law. So how can one argue it is not ambiguous?

Incorrect.

You're confusing criminal law with that of civil law.

If a fetus is killed during the commission of a crime, the crime is against the woman, not the fetus, as it has no 'rights' whatsoever. It's the woman whose rights have been violated by the criminal who took from that woman her choice to have a child or not.

With regard to civil law concerning a woman's right to privacy, the state also has no authority to violate the protected liberty of a woman by compelling her to give birth against her will.

Whether the woman's right to decide is violated by a criminal act or by the state acting in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, it is the woman alone who has been wronged, her right to decide taken from her.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero (not the mother) as a legal victim, if they (not the mother) are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" (not the mother) as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".

Implicitly, the crime is against the fetus as outlined here. You are flat wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

Not everyone. The human life you discarded as medical waste is not better off.

My sex life has nothing to do with this debate, other than to further illustrate how devoid of a point you have become. In your mind, hurling some remark like that is supposed to degrade and mock me, make fun of me in front of your peers. It only serves to show how utterly immature you are and how selfish your attitude is toward others.

Naw, guy, when you say shit like 'don't have sex", everyone knows that you use your personality as birth control.

Yeah, Abstinence works. Just ask Bristol Palin.

Real world, people are ******* and having abortions when they get a little surprise on the EPT.

 

[JoeB131]

Wonderful... if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she can easily achieve that by not allowing a male reproductive organ into her reproductive organ. 100% efficacy.

I'm sure your male reproductive organ has never gotten anywhere near... oh, wait, too ******* easy.

 

[Boss]

Not everyone. The human life you discarded as medical waste is not better off.

My sex life has nothing to do with this debate, other than to further illustrate how devoid of a point you have become. In your mind, hurling some remark like that is supposed to degrade and mock me, make fun of me in front of your peers. It only serves to show how utterly immature you are and how selfish your attitude is toward others.

Naw, guy, when you say shit like 'don't have sex", everyone knows that you use your personality as birth control.

Yeah, Abstinence works. Just ask Bristol Palin.

Real world, people are ******* and having abortions when they get a little surprise on the EPT.

Bristol Palin didn't. She was mature enough to accept responsibility for the consequences of her actions. We're getting to the real heart of the matter with you, it's all about being able to shuck responsibility and do as you damn well please regardless of human life. But that's why you are getting such blowback on this and it's not going to stop. Ever.

 

[JoeB131]

Bristol Palin didn't. She was mature enough to accept responsibility for the consequences of her actions. We're getting to the real heart of the matter with you, it's all about being able to shuck responsibility and do as you damn well please regardless of human life. But that's why you are getting such blowback on this and it's not going to stop. Ever.

You mean her mother said, "You aren't having that abortion! I have to appeal to the Religious Stupids in my state!!! I have to pop out a retard, you have to pop out the baby of the son of the local Meth Dealer." I did love how they went ahead and tried to clean that kid up for a shotgun wedding that never happened.

 

[Boss]

Bristol Palin didn't. She was mature enough to accept responsibility for the consequences of her actions. We're getting to the real heart of the matter with you, it's all about being able to shuck responsibility and do as you damn well please regardless of human life. But that's why you are getting such blowback on this and it's not going to stop. Ever.

You mean her mother said, "You aren't having that abortion! I have to appeal to the Religious Stupids in my state!!! I have to pop out a retard, you have to pop out the baby of the son of the local Meth Dealer." I did love how they went ahead and tried to clean that kid up for a shotgun wedding that never happened.

Again, displaying your bigoted hate and inconsideration of human life. You're a maggot.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Wonderful... if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she can easily achieve that by not allowing a male reproductive organ into her reproductive organ. 100% efficacy.

I'm sure your male reproductive organ has never gotten anywhere near... oh, wait, too ******* easy.

Lovely deflection... Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

FWIW: the nation is turning from evil, and in terms of popularity, you and the cult are losing.


"WASHINGTON — A massive wave of anti-abortion demonstrators hit the streets of the nation’s capital Thursday for the 42nd annual March for Life.

Hundreds of thousands of people — organizers estimated at least 300,000 marchers — packed the National Mall, listening to political and religious speakers before marching to the steps of the Supreme Court.

“The crowds are massive,” March for Life president Jeanne Monahan-Mancini told TheBlaze. “I’ve never seen anything like it in my entire life.”

As in years past, the rally was dominated by young Catholics, with many Catholic colleges and youth groups bussing in teenagers from all over the U.S.

“It’s a very Catholic event, as a Catholic I’m proud of that,” Monahan-Mancini said, while noting their outreach to other faiths (including having Dr. James Dobson speak at the 2014 March for Life) and the presence of such groups as Secular Pro-Life.

Colorful characters…"

8216 I 8217 ve Never Seen Anything Like It in My Entire Life 8217 See Photos of the Massive Pro-Life March That Rocked D.C. TheBlaze.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have no problem with such laws because they are meant to punish criminal acts of violence against women, not because they bestow constitutional rights to the unborn, they don't.

Oh, but they do! The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes their rights under the law. You can be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman.

The law does not give fetuses rights. It reinforces the principle that the termination of a pregnancy is the woman's choice.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The law does not give fetuses rights.

True, God is who gives rights to humanity.

It reinforces the principle that the termination of a pregnancy is the woman's choice.

False... the law recognizes the human being in utero and it serves justice for crimes against THE PRE-BORN HUMAN CHILD, without regard to the mother.

FYI: Murder is always the result of a choice.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have no problem with such laws because they are meant to punish criminal acts of violence against women, not because they bestow constitutional rights to the unborn, they don't.

Oh, but they do! The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes their rights under the law. You can be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman.

The law does not give fetuses rights. It reinforces the principle that the termination of a pregnancy is the woman's choice.

False... the law recognizes the human being in utero and it serves justice for crimes against THE PRE-BORN HUMAN CHILD, without regard to the mother.

No, because that very same fetus could have been aborted the day before someone killed the mother.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I have no problem with such laws because they are meant to punish criminal acts of violence against women, not because they bestow constitutional rights to the unborn, they don't.

Oh, but they do! The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes their rights under the law. You can be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman.

The law does not give fetuses rights. It reinforces the principle that the termination of a pregnancy is the woman's choice.

False... the law recognizes the human being in utero and it serves justice for crimes against THE PRE-BORN HUMAN CHILD, without regard to the mother.

No, because that very same fetus could have been aborted the day before someone killed the mother.

That the Mother was legally entitled to murder her pre-born baby, does not mean that anyone else can do so.

And this without regard to your irrational feelings to the contrary. That you feel that the Human Child in Utero is without rights, because of a foolish judicial ruling, demonstrates the danger in allowing such decisions to stand. Dr. Carson has recently pointed out that the Legislature should remove jurists who find for immorality as the decision are unconstitutional. And he is right.

 

[Bfgrn]

Not everyone. The human life you discarded as medical waste is not better off.

My sex life has nothing to do with this debate, other than to further illustrate how devoid of a point you have become. In your mind, hurling some remark like that is supposed to degrade and mock me, make fun of me in front of your peers. It only serves to show how utterly immature you are and how selfish your attitude is toward others.

Naw, guy, when you say shit like 'don't have sex", everyone knows that you use your personality as birth control.

Yeah, Abstinence works. Just ask Bristol Palin.

Real world, people are ******* and having abortions when they get a little surprise on the EPT.

Bristol Palin didn't. She was mature enough to accept responsibility for the consequences of her actions. We're getting to the real heart of the matter with you, it's all about being able to shuck responsibility and do as you damn well please regardless of human life. But that's why you are getting such blowback on this and it's not going to stop. Ever.

Blowback, a.k.a. "nuggets"


Anti-Choice Violence and Intimidation

A campaign of violence, vandalism, and intimidation is endangering providers and patients and curtailing the availability of abortion services. Since 1993, eight clinic workers – including four doctors, two clinic employees, a clinic escort, and a security guard – have been murdered in the United States. Seventeen attempted murders have also occurred since 1991. In fact, opponents of choice have directed more than 6,400 reported acts of violence against abortion providers since 1977, including bombings, arsons, death threats, kidnappings, and assaults, as well as more than 175,000 reported acts of disruption, including bomb threats and harassing calls.

 

[JoeB131]

Bristol Palin didn't. She was mature enough to accept responsibility for the consequences of her actions. We're getting to the real heart of the matter with you, it's all about being able to shuck responsibility and do as you damn well please regardless of human life. But that's why you are getting such blowback on this and it's not going to stop. Ever.

You mean her mother said, "You aren't having that abortion! I have to appeal to the Religious Stupids in my state!!! I have to pop out a retard, you have to pop out the baby of the son of the local Meth Dealer." I did love how they went ahead and tried to clean that kid up for a shotgun wedding that never happened.

Again, displaying your bigoted hate and inconsideration of human life. You're a maggot.

Hey, I have no use for religious stupids who use this issue to wreck the country. Abortion has been a boon to America. So many would be criminals ended up at the bottom of medical waste containers and we are better off for it.

 

[JoeB131]

Lovely deflection... Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

FWIW: the nation is turning from evil, and in terms of popularity, you and the cult are losing.


"WASHINGTON — A massive wave of anti-abortion demonstrators hit the streets of the nation’s capital Thursday for the 42nd annual March for Life.

Oh, please. YOu stupids have been marching every year on this day for 42 years now, and Abortion is still legal.

The House GOP ran away from the 20 Week ban yesterday, because they didn't want to get into another discussion about "Legitimate Rape". or was that "Gift From God Rape". Well, one of those.

 

[Agit8r]

Not everyone. The human life you discarded as medical waste is not better off.

My sex life has nothing to do with this debate, other than to further illustrate how devoid of a point you have become. In your mind, hurling some remark like that is supposed to degrade and mock me, make fun of me in front of your peers. It only serves to show how utterly immature you are and how selfish your attitude is toward others.

Naw, guy, when you say shit like 'don't have sex", everyone knows that you use your personality as birth control.

Yeah, Abstinence works. Just ask Bristol Palin.

Real world, people are ******* and having abortions when they get a little surprise on the EPT.

Bristol Palin didn't. She was mature enough to accept responsibility for the consequences of her actions. We're getting to the real heart of the matter with you, it's all about being able to shuck responsibility and do as you damn well please regardless of human life. But that's why you are getting such blowback on this and it's not going to stop. Ever.

Blowback, a.k.a. "nuggets"


Anti-Choice Violence and Intimidation

A campaign of violence, vandalism, and intimidation is endangering providers and patients and curtailing the availability of abortion services. Since 1993, eight clinic workers – including four doctors, two clinic employees, a clinic escort, and a security guard – have been murdered in the United States. Seventeen attempted murders have also occurred since 1991. In fact, opponents of choice have directed more than 6,400 reported acts of violence against abortion providers since 1977, including bombings, arsons, death threats, kidnappings, and assaults, as well as more than 175,000 reported acts of disruption, including bomb threats and harassing calls.

Sounds like a Jihad

 

[JoeB131]

True, God is who gives rights to humanity.

No, there is no God and there are no "rights".

There are privilages that society lets you have. Any fool who thinks he has "Rights" needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942".

The reason why you anti-choice types will ALWAYS lose is that the kind of society that would able to be prevent women from having abortions isn't one anyone would actually want to live it. It would make East Germany look like Disneyland.

 

[Boss]

Hey, I have no use for religious stupids who use this issue to wreck the country. Abortion has been a boon to America. So many would be criminals ended up at the bottom of medical waste containers and we are better off for it.

This might come as a shock to you but I couldn't really give two shits what you have or don't have use for. You have no insight as to the potential of any human so why don't you stop trying to be God with your stupid little insignificant ass?

Like it or not, most of this country is religious and they have just as much right as you have to shape public policy. If you don't like that you are free to move to some country where religion is not practiced.... if you can still find one.

 

[BlindBoo]

I have no problem with such laws because they are meant to punish criminal acts of violence against women, not because they bestow constitutional rights to the unborn, they don't.

Oh, but they do! The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes their rights under the law. You can be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman.

Do tell. What constitutional rights are they granted by the act? Are you sure they're not just legal victims?

What are you, four years old or something? If they are protected under the law as legal victims then they certainly are being given constitutional rights. No one is "granted" constitutional rights. You are endowed with them as a human being and the constitution protects them. The fetus is recognized as a human being in the commission of over 60 federal crimes of violence.

You let your emotion rule you, huh?