The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[BlindBoo]

We were discussing human organisms and when they exist, and science is pretty fucking clear on this. Not a single science book or paper will be found to indicate a human organism is determined by choice. Science doesn't leave things up to your discretion to decide, that's not what science does. In fact, that's the entire reason science was invented... to establish things based on our observations and facts rather than emotions and authority.

Science give us choices in areas were we've never had choices before. The scientific method was created to give us a baseline of understanding the physical world around us.

Stop being a dipwad and trying to intentionally misconstrue what I said. Science does not fucking say that you can arbitrarily decide a molecule of oxygen and two molecules of hydrogen is only water if you want it to be... does it???? NO! It says that is what water is! There is no choice to make! It is not up to your discretion!

The scientific method was not created to give us a baseline anything. It was designed as a system of methodology for the evaluation of physical evidence. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with emotional choices based on feelings and intuitions.

To argue that science allows us to define life (or anything else) based on our choices or feelings is patently ignorant of science. It gives us a precise definition of living organisms and what constitutes one, and the human fetus certainly meets that criteria. It's not a question for you to decide, it's not ambiguous, there is no scientific debate about it.

Science can tell us when a fetus becomes a viable human being.

Science cannot tell us that human beings are divine in nature.

Science cannot tell us that we human beings have an immortal soul, or when that little blob of cells is imbued with said soul.

What science tells us is that a fetus and an embryo are genetically complete, individual, and live humans.

When leftist death cultists argue that they aren't *viable* the argument effectively ends, because *viability* is not the way we determine whether or not we get to kill humans. We don't kill off terminally ill cancer patients. We don't kill off people who are paralyzed. We don't kill off mental deficients, despite the fact that they are not "viable" in the strictest sense of the word (without care and protection, they will die).

We don't kill people based on whether or not the person in whose care they are currently placed wants to care for them.

Well, decent humans don't.

Death cultists do.

And that has absolutely zero, nada, nothing to do with *science*.

The single cell of a fertilized egg is genetically complete too, but over half of them never implant which results in the new life ending before the mother is ever aware she is pregnant.
If your body is no longer viable you will die, no one will have to kill you.

You anti-choice folks are so emotional.

 

[koshergrl]

We were discussing human organisms and when they exist, and science is pretty fucking clear on this. Not a single science book or paper will be found to indicate a human organism is determined by choice. Science doesn't leave things up to your discretion to decide, that's not what science does. In fact, that's the entire reason science was invented... to establish things based on our observations and facts rather than emotions and authority.

Science give us choices in areas were we've never had choices before. The scientific method was created to give us a baseline of understanding the physical world around us.

Stop being a dipwad and trying to intentionally misconstrue what I said. Science does not fucking say that you can arbitrarily decide a molecule of oxygen and two molecules of hydrogen is only water if you want it to be... does it???? NO! It says that is what water is! There is no choice to make! It is not up to your discretion!

The scientific method was not created to give us a baseline anything. It was designed as a system of methodology for the evaluation of physical evidence. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with emotional choices based on feelings and intuitions.

To argue that science allows us to define life (or anything else) based on our choices or feelings is patently ignorant of science. It gives us a precise definition of living organisms and what constitutes one, and the human fetus certainly meets that criteria. It's not a question for you to decide, it's not ambiguous, there is no scientific debate about it.

Science can tell us when a fetus becomes a viable human being.

Science cannot tell us that human beings are divine in nature.

Science cannot tell us that we human beings have an immortal soul, or when that little blob of cells is imbued with said soul.

What science tells us is that a fetus and an embryo are genetically complete, individual, and live humans.

When leftist death cultists argue that they aren't *viable* the argument effectively ends, because *viability* is not the way we determine whether or not we get to kill humans. We don't kill off terminally ill cancer patients. We don't kill off people who are paralyzed. We don't kill off mental deficients, despite the fact that they are not "viable" in the strictest sense of the word (without care and protection, they will die).

We don't kill people based on whether or not the person in whose care they are currently placed wants to care for them.

Well, decent humans don't.

Death cultists do.

And that has absolutely zero, nada, nothing to do with *science*.

The single cell of a fertilized egg is genetically complete too, but over half of them never implant which results in the new life ending before the mother is ever aware she is pregnant.
If your body is no longer viable you will die, no one will have to kill you.

You anti-choice folks are so emotional.

Completely irrelevant, as is most of the garbage that is spewed by the death cultists (well, the garbage that isn't outright lies, that is).

I'm 100 percent aware that there are a lot of people who can't live without assistance. Which was rather my point. Just because the person in whose care they happen to have landed doesn't want to care for them doesn't give that person the right to kill them.

Regardless of how much of a nuisance they find them.

And yes, we're all aware that sometimes people just die and it's not because someone killed them. Did you have a point?

 

[Boss]

The single cell of a fertilized egg is genetically complete too, but over half of them never implant which results in the new life ending before the mother is ever aware she is pregnant.
If your body is no longer viable you will die, no one will have to kill you.

You anti-choice folks are so emotional.

How did this new life end if it didn't yet exist? If you die, didn't you have to be alive?
Viability doesn't determine what you are... Let's take you out of your natural environment and test whether you can remain viable to determine if you are a real human? Kind of reminds me of how we used to test for witches. Throw you in the river, if you float it means you are a witch, if you sink it means you're not.

Let's walk through this real slow again... Science has established a reliable way to test whether something is a living organism. There are several criteria which must be met, none of which involve JoeB's woman "deciding" (....which is ironically a faith based methodology.)

So the fetus has already met the scientific criteria of a living organism. This happened the moment the fused cells reproduced new cells. The living organism may not survive, it may fail to attach to the uterus and cease to be a living organism. In that event, it does not change what the fetus already was.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We were discussing human organisms and when they exist, and science is pretty fucking clear on this. Not a single science book or paper will be found to indicate a human organism is determined by choice. Science doesn't leave things up to your discretion to decide, that's not what science does. In fact, that's the entire reason science was invented... to establish things based on our observations and facts rather than emotions and authority.

Science give us choices in areas were we've never had choices before. The scientific method was created to give us a baseline of understanding the physical world around us.

Stop being a dipwad and trying to intentionally misconstrue what I said. Science does not fucking say that you can arbitrarily decide a molecule of oxygen and two molecules of hydrogen is only water if you want it to be... does it???? NO! It says that is what water is! There is no choice to make! It is not up to your discretion!

The scientific method was not created to give us a baseline anything. It was designed as a system of methodology for the evaluation of physical evidence. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with emotional choices based on feelings and intuitions.

To argue that science allows us to define life (or anything else) based on our choices or feelings is patently ignorant of science. It gives us a precise definition of living organisms and what constitutes one, and the human fetus certainly meets that criteria. It's not a question for you to decide, it's not ambiguous, there is no scientific debate about it.

Science can tell us when a fetus becomes a viable human being.

Science cannot tell us that human beings are divine in nature.

Science cannot tell us that we human beings have an immortal soul, or when that little blob of cells is imbued with said soul.

What science tells us is that a fetus and an embryo are genetically complete, individual, and live humans.

When leftist death cultists argue that they aren't *viable* the argument effectively ends, because *viability* is not the way we determine whether or not we get to kill humans. We don't kill off terminally ill cancer patients. We don't kill off people who are paralyzed. We don't kill off mental deficients, despite the fact that they are not "viable" in the strictest sense of the word (without care and protection, they will die).

We don't kill people based on whether or not the person in whose care they are currently placed wants to care for them.

Well, decent humans don't.

Death cultists do.

And that has absolutely zero, nada, nothing to do with *science*.

The single cell of a fertilized egg is genetically complete too, but over half of them never implant which results in the new life ending before the mother is ever aware she is pregnant.
If your body is no longer viable you will die, no one will have to kill you.

You anti-choice folks are so emotional.

And you pro choice folks are so anecdotal. Human beings are genetically complete, so are ahem, fetuses, and the fertilized ovum. You really need to read a biology textbook my friend.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We were discussing human organisms and when they exist, and science is pretty fucking clear on this. Not a single science book or paper will be found to indicate a human organism is determined by choice. Science doesn't leave things up to your discretion to decide, that's not what science does. In fact, that's the entire reason science was invented... to establish things based on our observations and facts rather than emotions and authority.

Science give us choices in areas were we've never had choices before. The scientific method was created to give us a baseline of understanding the physical world around us.

Stop being a dipwad and trying to intentionally misconstrue what I said. Science does not fucking say that you can arbitrarily decide a molecule of oxygen and two molecules of hydrogen is only water if you want it to be... does it???? NO! It says that is what water is! There is no choice to make! It is not up to your discretion!

The scientific method was not created to give us a baseline anything. It was designed as a system of methodology for the evaluation of physical evidence. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with emotional choices based on feelings and intuitions.

To argue that science allows us to define life (or anything else) based on our choices or feelings is patently ignorant of science. It gives us a precise definition of living organisms and what constitutes one, and the human fetus certainly meets that criteria. It's not a question for you to decide, it's not ambiguous, there is no scientific debate about it.

Science can tell us when a fetus becomes a viable human being.

Science cannot tell us that human beings are divine in nature.

Science cannot tell us that we human beings have an immortal soul, or when that little blob of cells is imbued with said soul.

What science tells us is that a fetus and an embryo are genetically complete, individual, and live humans.

When leftist death cultists argue that they aren't *viable* the argument effectively ends, because *viability* is not the way we determine whether or not we get to kill humans. We don't kill off terminally ill cancer patients. We don't kill off people who are paralyzed. We don't kill off mental deficients, despite the fact that they are not "viable" in the strictest sense of the word (without care and protection, they will die).

We don't kill people based on whether or not the person in whose care they are currently placed wants to care for them.

Well, decent humans don't.

Death cultists do.

And that has absolutely zero, nada, nothing to do with *science*.

The single cell of a fertilized egg is genetically complete too, but over half of them never implant which results in the new life ending before the mother is ever aware she is pregnant.
If your body is no longer viable you will die, no one will have to kill you.

You anti-choice folks are so emotional.

Demagoguery is all they have – their failed arguments are devoid of logic and merit.

Rather than respecting the protected liberty of women and working to find a way to end abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law, they seek instead to undermine the right to privacy for some perceived partisan gain, while affording government greater control over our personal lives.

 

[Boss]

Demagoguery is all they have – their failed arguments are devoid of logic and merit.

Rather than respecting the protected liberty of women and working to find a way to end abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law, they seek instead to undermine the right to privacy for some perceived partisan gain, while affording government greater control over our personal lives.

Where does the Constitution say the right to privacy trumps the right to life of another?

And I realize my arguments are not as profoundly astute as JoeB's argument that human life begins "when momma says" but I don't see where you've refuted me on anything here.

 

[Boss]

The single cell of a fertilized egg is genetically complete too...

This is known as an oxymoron, moron.

Let's begin again... First you have the egg cell and sperm cell. 1+1=2.
When fused, you now have two cells within a single membrane.
Still, not an organism... two cells, one membrane.
Within a matter of moments, chemical reactions take place to prevent any other sperm cells from penetrating the fused cell membrane and 'fertilization' is happening.
The completion of fertilization occurs when the fused cells reproduce.
This is a very important biological event.
This marks the very beginning of a unique genetic living human organism in state of being.
It is never again a fertilized egg or fused egg cells in one membrane, it is human life.

 

[JoeB131]

What science tells us is that a fetus and an embryo are genetically complete, individual, and live humans.

That can't survive outside the womb.

When leftist death cultists argue that they aren't *viable* the argument effectively ends, because *viability* is not the way we determine whether or not we get to kill humans. We don't kill off terminally ill cancer patients. We don't kill off people who are paralyzed. We don't kill off mental deficients, despite the fact that they are not "viable" in the strictest sense of the word (without care and protection, they will die).

We also don't put a mental deficient in someone's home and say, "You have to take care of this person whether you want him or not!" This is the point you guys don't ever answer. HOw are you going to force women to have babies they don't want.

 

[JoeB131]

Where does the Constitution say the right to privacy trumps the right to life of another?

And I realize my arguments are not as profoundly astute as JoeB's argument that human life begins "when momma says" but I don't see where you've refuted me on anything here.

The point is, my argument is the only one that counts.

Unless you are willing to make women property of the State, Comrade!

Oh, wait, Communist Romania tried exactly that in the 1960's.

On abortion we should study Romanian history Ann Furedi Comment is free The Guardian

 

[JoeB131]

And you pro choice folks are so anecdotal. Human beings are genetically complete, so are ahem, fetuses, and the fertilized ovum. You really need to read a biology textbook my friend.

And you can totally keep any that show up in your uterus, Runs-With-Scissors.

oh, wait, you don't have one of those.

 

[Boss]

Where does the Constitution say the right to privacy trumps the right to life of another?

And I realize my arguments are not as profoundly astute as JoeB's argument that human life begins "when momma says" but I don't see where you've refuted me on anything here.

The point is, my argument is the only one that counts.

Unless you are willing to make women property of the State, Comrade!

Oh, wait, Communist Romania tried exactly that in the 1960's.

On abortion we should study Romanian history Ann Furedi Comment is free The Guardian

I don't think you have to make women property of the state in order to prevent them from killing someone. Romanian history has nothing to do with us.

 

[Boss]

That can't survive outside the womb.

That doesn't change what it already is!

 

[Boss]

We also don't put a mental deficient in someone's home and say, "You have to take care of this person whether you want him or not!" This is the point you guys don't ever answer. HOw are you going to force women to have babies they don't want.

In a way we do, you just actually help to pay for people to care for that person outside your home. Providing you are a taxpayer and not one of the 'mental deficients' (sic) being provided for.

For the record, I am not in favor of forcing women to have babies they don't want. Many couples want babies but can't have them, so maybe we can work out something for everyone? If not, I will personally volunteer to work at the Unwanted Baby Center for the rest of my days.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't think you have to make women property of the state in order to prevent them from killing someone. Romanian history has nothing to do with us.

The problem is, you don't think.

You see, the thing is, to make a law work, you have to have general agreement that it's right. Otherwise, you get a law like prohibition, which everyone pretty much ignored.

In Romania, women who didn't want to be pregnant STILL found ways to not be pregnant. Ceausescu did manage to raise the birth rate- for about a year. Then people figured out how to do abortions illegally, despite living in a communist dictatorship. An underground system of abortion providers emerged despite his best efforts.

 

[JoeB131]

In a way we do, you just actually help to pay for people to care for that person outside your home. Providing you are a taxpayer and not one of the 'mental deficients' (sic) being provided for.

For the record, I am not in favor of forcing women to have babies they don't want. Many couples want babies but can't have them, so maybe we can work out something for everyone? If not, I will personally volunteer to work at the Unwanted Baby Center for the rest of my days.

Or you can just fucking pound sand up your ass and mind your own fucking business. That's a novel approach.

Obviously, paying taxes to take care of people is NOT the same as forcing someone to keep an unwanted fetus in her body for nine months.

 

[Boss]

I don't think you have to make women property of the state in order to prevent them from killing someone. Romanian history has nothing to do with us.

The problem is, you don't think.

You see, the thing is, to make a law work, you have to have general agreement that it's right. Otherwise, you get a law like prohibition, which everyone pretty much ignored.

...you have to have general agreement that it's right.

Exactly, and right now, we don't have anything approaching that.

I have no problem with a debate over when the fetus has developed enough sentience to have constitutional rights. I'm all in favor of finding a "happy middle" that we can all live with, maybe that lies in making it a state-by-state issue. Seem to me the best way to reach "general agreement" is through the ballot initiative process.

You see, I don't favor an all-out ban on abortions like you keep screeching. If this were coming down to me supporting a constitutional amendment to completely outlaw all abortion in the US, I would not be able to support it. Many pro-life people might disagree with me on that. However, I think I speak for the majority on this, that there are at least some justifiable reasons for women to be able to have the option of abortion.

But you're tuning that out because it's not what you want to hear. Your mind is set on having society accept what you want and you don't believe you need to compromise at all. You want us to have "general agreement" but you want us to all agree with you. That won't happen in this reality, sweetie.

 

[Boss]

Or you can just fucking pound sand up your ass and mind your own fucking business. That's a novel approach.

Obviously, paying taxes to take care of people is NOT the same as forcing someone to keep an unwanted fetus in her body for nine months.

Well I guess the next time she has unprotected sexual intercourse she'll remember this! It's not fun to carry a fetus for 9 months, your actions have consequences. Of course, this would completely dry up your source of pussy because no woman in her right mind would want to risk spawning your stupid gene.

 

[koshergrl]

Science give us choices in areas were we've never had choices before. The scientific method was created to give us a baseline of understanding the physical world around us.

Stop being a dipwad and trying to intentionally misconstrue what I said. Science does not fucking say that you can arbitrarily decide a molecule of oxygen and two molecules of hydrogen is only water if you want it to be... does it???? NO! It says that is what water is! There is no choice to make! It is not up to your discretion!

The scientific method was not created to give us a baseline anything. It was designed as a system of methodology for the evaluation of physical evidence. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with emotional choices based on feelings and intuitions.

To argue that science allows us to define life (or anything else) based on our choices or feelings is patently ignorant of science. It gives us a precise definition of living organisms and what constitutes one, and the human fetus certainly meets that criteria. It's not a question for you to decide, it's not ambiguous, there is no scientific debate about it.

Science can tell us when a fetus becomes a viable human being.

Science cannot tell us that human beings are divine in nature.

Science cannot tell us that we human beings have an immortal soul, or when that little blob of cells is imbued with said soul.

What science tells us is that a fetus and an embryo are genetically complete, individual, and live humans.

When leftist death cultists argue that they aren't *viable* the argument effectively ends, because *viability* is not the way we determine whether or not we get to kill humans. We don't kill off terminally ill cancer patients. We don't kill off people who are paralyzed. We don't kill off mental deficients, despite the fact that they are not "viable" in the strictest sense of the word (without care and protection, they will die).

We don't kill people based on whether or not the person in whose care they are currently placed wants to care for them.

Well, decent humans don't.

Death cultists do.

And that has absolutely zero, nada, nothing to do with *science*.

The single cell of a fertilized egg is genetically complete too, but over half of them never implant which results in the new life ending before the mother is ever aware she is pregnant.
If your body is no longer viable you will die, no one will have to kill you.

You anti-choice folks are so emotional.

Demagoguery is all they have – their failed arguments are devoid of logic and merit.

Rather than respecting the protected liberty of women and working to find a way to end abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law, they seek instead to undermine the right to privacy for some perceived partisan gain, while affording government greater control over our personal lives.

If you were honest, or intelligent, you would see that my post was the factual one, and boob's and yours are the "demogoguery" garbage you claim to despise.

 

[JoeB131]

...you have to have general agreement that it's right.

Exactly, and right now, we don't have anything approaching that.

Actually, the majority is pro-Choice.

Well I guess the next time she has unprotected sexual intercourse she'll remember this! It's not fun to carry a fetus for 9 months, your actions have consequences. Of course, this would completely dry up your source of pussy because no woman in her right mind would want to risk spawning your stupid gene.

Guy, the only person who probably has a problem getting pussy is someone who spouts misogynistic shit like you spew here every day.

 

[JoeB131]

But you're tuning that out because it's not what you want to hear. Your mind is set on having society accept what you want and you don't believe you need to compromise at all. You want us to have "general agreement" but you want us to all agree with you. That won't happen in this reality, sweetie.

No, I'm tuning it out for the same reason gun advocates are against bans on assault weapons. Once you get the camel's nose into the tent, the rest of the camel follows.

Not giving you fools an INCH on this issue.