Why is abortion the way of the world?

[Chuz Life]

Before we go further down this rabbit hole, there are two points to make about the constitution and the society that created and evolved with it.

First, it recognizes that, even though we are all persons, not all persons are entitled to the same rights. To me that says that, even if we consider a fertilized egg to be a person, we are not required by the constitution to treat it the same as an adult.

You are entitled to be wrong in your opinions.

I'm going to roll with the mindset of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stweart and the pro abort lawyer (Sarah Weddington) and their take on it.

Secondly, the 14th amendment of the constitution seems to imply that until you are born you are not a citizen and don't get the protections of a citizen. What protections you do get before birth, if any, are not mentioned.

The 14th clearly says that "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws." Be they citizens or not.

Your lack of comprehension not withstanding.

 

[Chuz Life]

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is personhood they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be a person and that inevitably leads back to religion​

Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.

And none of that requires a religious precept.

A fertilized egg maybe human but every other cell in my body is also human. Why give one cell more legal rights than any cell?

A fertilised egg (zygote) may only be one cell in size but ulike all the other celks in "your body, " a zygote is a complete organism.

Biology 101 stuff right there.

A zygote is not a "complete organizism". It's only just begun to develop. It's not alive, has no heartbeat, and cannot survive outside its host. It's cells aren't multi-functional, and they aren't maintaining life processes.

Organism dictionary definition | organism defined

If it's a "complete organism" and a "child" then treat it as such.

Remove it from the woman's body so that complete organism is a child all on its own. Like all human life on this planet.

If it can't survive without being attached to a woman's uterus, it's not viable human life.

Period.

I keep asking those anti choice people if a fertilized egg is human life explain an ectopic pregnancy. That fertilized egg will never become a human being. All that fertilized egg will do is kill the woman if an abortion is performed.

I've never gotten a reply from anti choice people about ectopic pregnancies. I guess they just don't want to admit that a fertilized egg isn't a human being.

Derp.

survived ectopic pregnancy - Bing

 

[22lcidw]

The Constitution says ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

That is pretty damn inclusive.

Seemingly inclusive enough to include any human organisms that are (three fifths) viewed by some as less than whole.

Actually it says all "men", quite a bit less inclusive than all "persons". It could have said all men, women, and children regardless of race or religion. But it didn't.

The difference being in a low tax state as compared to a high tax state we are today. You azzes think that documents and rights ideas show up like candy for kids in human history. And then following them. You can throw some things at me but the ones I heard of were the Magna Carta, the Rule of Law which both were from Britain. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. All English speaking or derived. Now tell us all of the other documents written and enacted and followed at a higher percentage even with flaws. You can insult and tear it apart because at least it was written. There is nothing else. No matter how much bull you write and make TV shows and movies about. Its time for another movie from Africa now telling us about empires with no written literature and matriarchal bull. The western hemisphere with two massive continents and islands and only the documented ones more successful.

 

[Dana7360]

Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.

And none of that requires a religious precept.

A fertilized egg maybe human but every other cell in my body is also human. Why give one cell more legal rights than any cell?

A fertilised egg (zygote) may only be one cell in size but ulike all the other celks in "your body, " a zygote is a complete organism.

Biology 101 stuff right there.

A zygote is not a "complete organizism". It's only just begun to develop. It's not alive, has no heartbeat, and cannot survive outside its host. It's cells aren't multi-functional, and they aren't maintaining life processes.

Organism dictionary definition | organism defined

If it's a "complete organism" and a "child" then treat it as such.

Remove it from the woman's body so that complete organism is a child all on its own. Like all human life on this planet.

If it can't survive without being attached to a woman's uterus, it's not viable human life.

Period.

I keep asking those anti choice people if a fertilized egg is human life explain an ectopic pregnancy. That fertilized egg will never become a human being. All that fertilized egg will do is kill the woman if an abortion is performed.

I've never gotten a reply from anti choice people about ectopic pregnancies. I guess they just don't want to admit that a fertilized egg isn't a human being.

Derp.

survived ectopic pregnancy - Bing

I won't read your propaganda.

However, if someone survived that zygote rupturing the only reason they survived is was because they were rushed to a hospital, an abortion was performed, she was put on high doses of antibiotics and her life was saved. The doctors probably did all they could to clean up the mess and damage that zygote caused. Though she was probably left infertile for the rest of her life if she is able to keep any of her reproductive organs.

If you're trying to say that a woman has lived all her life with a zygote left inside her I have to tell you that either you're a liar or her life didn't last much more than a month.

All that zygote will do is grow toxic bacteria that when it ruptures will release that toxic bacteria in the woman's body and if she doesn't get to a hospital quick, she will die. No doctor is going to only treat the infection. They will perform the abortion to remove that zygote that is causing the infection in the first place.

No ectopic pregnancy will ever become a human being and if it's not aborted, the woman will die. If the woman is forced to wait until it ruptures and puts her life in jeopardy she will end up infertile for life. If she's not rushed to a hospital when it ruptures she will die.

I'm the daughter of an OBGYN. The sister of an OB. The aunt of an OB. When I was trying to get pregnant I had to consider the real and great risk I would have an ectopic pregnancy.

My mom has saved the lives of many woman who had an ectopic pregnancy. She lost more than she saved before abortion became legal in my state in 1968. All she women saved were left infertile for life. Most had to have a complete hysterectomy. A few only lost their tubes.

Learn from a medical book. Science is your friend. Bing isn't.

 

[Chuz Life]

A fertilized egg maybe human but every other cell in my body is also human. Why give one cell more legal rights than any cell?

A fertilised egg (zygote) may only be one cell in size but ulike all the other celks in "your body, " a zygote is a complete organism.

Biology 101 stuff right there.

A zygote is not a "complete organizism". It's only just begun to develop. It's not alive, has no heartbeat, and cannot survive outside its host. It's cells aren't multi-functional, and they aren't maintaining life processes.

Organism dictionary definition | organism defined

If it's a "complete organism" and a "child" then treat it as such.

Remove it from the woman's body so that complete organism is a child all on its own. Like all human life on this planet.

If it can't survive without being attached to a woman's uterus, it's not viable human life.

Period.

I keep asking those anti choice people if a fertilized egg is human life explain an ectopic pregnancy. That fertilized egg will never become a human being. All that fertilized egg will do is kill the woman if an abortion is performed.

I've never gotten a reply from anti choice people about ectopic pregnancies. I guess they just don't want to admit that a fertilized egg isn't a human being.

Derp.

survived ectopic pregnancy - Bing

I won't read your propaganda.

However, if someone survived that zygote rupturing the only reason they survived is was because they were rushed to a hospital, an abortion was performed, she was put on high doses of antibiotics and her life was saved. The doctors probably did all they could to clean up the mess and damage that zygote caused. Though she was probably left infertile for the rest of her life if she is able to keep any of her reproductive organs.

If you're trying to say that a woman has lived all her life with a zygote left inside her I have to tell you that either you're a liar or her life didn't last much more than a month.

All that zygote will do is grow toxic bacteria that when it ruptures will release that toxic bacteria in the woman's body and if she doesn't get to a hospital quick, she will die. No doctor is going to only treat the infection. They will perform the abortion to remove that zygote that is causing the infection in the first place.

No ectopic pregnancy will ever become a human being and if it's not aborted, the woman will die. If the woman is forced to wait until it ruptures and puts her life in jeopardy she will end up infertile for life. If she's not rushed to a hospital when it ruptures she will die.

I'm the daughter of an OBGYN. The sister of an OB. The aunt of an OB. When I was trying to get pregnant I had to consider the real and great risk I would have an ectopic pregnancy.

My mom has saved the lives of many woman who had an ectopic pregnancy. She lost more than she saved before abortion became legal in my state in 1968. All she women saved were left infertile for life. Most had to have a complete hysterectomy. A few only lost their tubes.

Learn from a medical book. Science is your friend. Bing isn't.

Bwahahaha.

Those who do click on the link or do their own searches about the survivors of ectopic pregnancies will easily see you for the idiot that you are.

Thanks for being such a great foil!

 

[alang1216]

Before we go further down this rabbit hole, there are two points to make about the constitution and the society that created and evolved with it.

First, it recognizes that, even though we are all persons, not all persons are entitled to the same rights. To me that says that, even if we consider a fertilized egg to be a person, we are not required by the constitution to treat it the same as an adult.

You are entitled to be wrong in your opinions.

I'm going to roll with the mindset of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stweart and the pro abort lawyer (Sarah Weddington) and their take on it.

Secondly, the 14th amendment of the constitution seems to imply that until you are born you are not a citizen and don't get the protections of a citizen. What protections you do get before birth, if any, are not mentioned.

The 14th clearly says that "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws." Be they citizens or not.

Your lack of comprehension not withstanding.

Yet it was decided that the fetus is not protected by the 14th if it is not viable. I seem to be more in the mindset of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stweart and the pro abort lawyer (Sarah Weddington) and their take on it than you are. You do comprehend that don't you?

 

[Chuz Life]

Before we go further down this rabbit hole, there are two points to make about the constitution and the society that created and evolved with it.

First, it recognizes that, even though we are all persons, not all persons are entitled to the same rights. To me that says that, even if we consider a fertilized egg to be a person, we are not required by the constitution to treat it the same as an adult.

You are entitled to be wrong in your opinions.

I'm going to roll with the mindset of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stweart and the pro abort lawyer (Sarah Weddington) and their take on it.

Secondly, the 14th amendment of the constitution seems to imply that until you are born you are not a citizen and don't get the protections of a citizen. What protections you do get before birth, if any, are not mentioned.

The 14th clearly says that "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws." Be they citizens or not.

Your lack of comprehension not withstanding.

Yet it was decided that the fetus is not protected by the 14th if it is not viable. I seem to be more in the mindset of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stweart and the pro abort lawyer (Sarah Weddington) and their take on it than you are. You do comprehend that don't you?

Three words.

Fetal

HOMICIDE

Laws.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The left's vision of "community" control and education of children has a noble past...
"In his autobiography, Frederick Douglass claimed that in the part of Maryland where he was born: "to part children from their mothers at a very early age. Frequently, before the child has reached its twelfth month, its mother is taken from it, and hired out on some farm a considerable distance off, and the child is placed under the care of an old woman, too old for field labor."


Slave Childhood

How is this the left's vision? Do you really think slave owners were progressive?

I think progressives are today's slavers.

And this is the exact vision they have for today's children. I could swear I was discussing this with you just the other day..wasn't it you who thought that children should be removed from their homes if their parents taught them to *hate and murder* (or, in other words, if the folks take them to Sunday school..or voted Trump)... But then couldn't figure out how they were supposed to confirm that the kids were being taught to hate and murder without of course violating every constitutionally protected right a human has....

Maybe it was another leftist imbecile.

They do all tend to blur together after a while.

 

[basquebromance]

there is no genocide, war, ethnic group out there who is more oppressed and suffering, more unjust slaughter today than the unborn

 

[Cecilie1200]

Except, we Human beings do not morph.

At least not in the biological sense, we don't.

Human beings grow, mature and develop continually through a cell division. Not metamorphosis.

Maybe you need to expand you thinking beyond just the biological? Into the social maybe? I'd say the difference between an egg and an adult is a major metamorphosis.

After all, Chuz, as Alexandria Occasional Cortex says, “I think there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.” And clearly, she's the intellectual leader for leftists.

As a conservative lead by Trump you should be a bit less sanctimonious. He gave the right 'alternative facts' and 'truth is not truth'.

Because TTTTTRRRRRUUUUUUMMMMMPPPPP!!!! I win, because I said TTTTTRRRUUUUMMMPPP!!!"

Too bad for you I didn't support Trump, so he's even less relevant to this thread than he normally would be, which is not at all.

You're just going to have to deal with me and what I actually say, instead of applying your mindless templates. Which means you're screwed.

So what do you have to say that relates to my posts, rather than your assumptions?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

The same constitution that allowed slavery.

The same Constitution that didn't address slavery one way or the other.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

The same constitution that allowed slavery.

How did the Constitution "allow" slavery?

Explain.

Prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, the United States Constitution did not expressly use the words slave or slavery but included several provisions about unfree persons. The Three-Fifths Compromise, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, allocated Congressional representation based "on the whole Number of free Persons" and "three fifths of all other Persons".

Ahhhh, yes. The ever-popular "I know ****-all about American history, so I filter everything through a modern lens and make myself look foolish without even knowing it" argument.

Tell me, oh grand high moral arbiter, if the 3/5 Compromise is the damning evidence of anti-black bigotry that you have ignorantly believed it to be, how would it have benefited blacks for slaves to be counted "fully" in the Census?

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, the Constitution does address slavery..it is there to protect the rights of all men, and once people realized slaves were men, they were protected. The same thing will happen with babies. It's just a matter of our forefathers never dreaming that people would become so incredibly stupid as to think we would engage the federal government to authorise killing babies at birth.

That's why we couldnt' have a Holocaust here. That's totally a pagan thing.

As is baby killing.

 

[danielpalos]

advances in prevention could eliminate any need for abortion.

 

[alang1216]

You're just going to have to deal with me and what I actually say, instead of applying your mindless templates.

If you apply mindless templates ("clearly, [AOC]'s the intellectual leader for leftists") to others you should expect them to be used against you.

 

[alang1216]

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

The same constitution that allowed slavery.

The same Constitution that didn't address slavery one way or the other.

I guess I should have been clearer, I was referring to the US Constitution:

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.​

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're just going to have to deal with me and what I actually say, instead of applying your mindless templates.

If you apply mindless templates ("clearly, [AOC]'s the intellectual leader for leftists") to others you should expect them to be used against you.

Yeah, sorry, not comparable (assuming that's actually a quote from me, which is questionable, since you didn't use the quote function). Your example isn't a template; it's a personal observation.

Learn the difference. Engage your brain. Think before you spew.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

The same constitution that allowed slavery.

The same Constitution that didn't address slavery one way or the other.

I guess I should have been clearer, I was referring to the US Constitution:

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.​

I guess I should have been clearer. I didn't ask you to cite what you're talking about, nor did I in any way indicate that I didn't recognize the quote, so thank you for wasting time trying to pretend your "knowledge" was too advanced.

The question you're trying to dodge is "Using your dubious thinking abilities, please explain in what way slaves would have been better off had the Constitution said what you, in your limitless ignorance and naivete, believe it should have said."

See if you can produce a post that even remotely relates to what I said, rather than what you really, REALLY wish I had said. I know it forces you to answer without reference to your talking points memo, but you'll just have to deal.

You've gotten two strikes so far. Try not to get a third and prove yourself to be the utter waste of time and intelligent conversation that I strongly suspect you are.

 

[Chuz Life]

advances in prevention could eliminate any need for abortion.

What percentage of abortions are truly a need verses a want?

 

[alang1216]

You're just going to have to deal with me and what I actually say, instead of applying your mindless templates.

If you apply mindless templates ("clearly, [AOC]'s the intellectual leader for leftists") to others you should expect them to be used against you.

Yeah, sorry, not comparable (assuming that's actually a quote from me, which is questionable, since you didn't use the quote function). Your example isn't a template; it's a personal observation.

Learn the difference. Engage your brain. Think before you spew.

Your spew:

After all, Chuz, as Alexandria Occasional Cortex says, “I think there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.” And clearly, she's the intellectual leader for leftists.

Please explain how your saying she's the intellectual leader for leftists is anything other than a personal observation.