Biden: Life begins at conception, abortion always wrong.

[ivwshane]

Why would you take issue with him not imposing his opinion/beliefs on others?

Do support Kim Davis and what she's doing? Do klan members who don't kill to preserve their race disgust you? Do you see what ISIS is doing and says, "I don't agree with what they are doing but I respect them and their follow through"?

What you have to do is understand that he has a belief that's not based on science and is a personal one to him and he understands, having taken an oath to uphold the constitution, that he shouldn't impose his beliefs on other people.

To me his position deserves the utmost respect precisely because he is using refrain and he understands that his position may not be correct or jive with reality.

If you go back to my original post:



My comment was specifically about the question posed - if I am in an emergency situation and have to choose between a baby or frozen fetus, I am quite sure an enormous legacy of evolutionary selection will bias me to select the option that is my own offspring.

At no point did this have anything to do with enslaving any women with anything, except in your own brain damaged thoughts.

-edit-

Perhaps I should expand on my personal beliefs since somehow they have become more important than that of the VP. I believe that cortical activity is the primary indicator of being a living human - if a man gets hit by a car and the hospital can keep the body alive, but no brain activity is there, then the part that was a sentient human has died, the body is just so much meat. Similarly, until a fetus develops sufficiently to have brain activity it is effectively brain dead and thus not a living human with the right to life associated. Hence I am against late-term abortion where babies with brain activity are killed, at that point I believe it is wrong, have voted as such, and will clearly say as much to anyone. At the same time it is only in a rare cases that a pregnancy is not clear well before this point, allowing a woman time to consider and choose the option best for her life, including an abortion.

Mr. Biden made statements that reasonable interpretation suggest that he believes conception is the point at which a human life begins and is subject to human rights protections. I can respect that position, even if I disagree with it, it is based on his beliefs on what constitutes life and humanity.

Where I take issue is when he then goes on to say that he won't impose those beliefs on anyone. That statement is fundamentally saying "I believe there is a class of human beings deserving of protection from arbitrary death, however, since other people believe they should die, I will let the rights of this class of humans be trampled so as not to inconvenience or offend those who wish to kill them." This is a truly despicable position, the same position that would allow the euthanasia of handicapped children, or smothering female infants because males are preferred. It is completely at odds with a progressive humane civilization.

 

[Belegost]

Why would you take issue with him not imposing his opinion/beliefs on others?

Do support Kim Davis and what she's doing? Do klan members who don't kill to preserve their race disgust you? Do you see what ISIS is doing and says, "I don't agree with what they are doing but I respect them and their follow through"?

What you have to do is understand that he has a belief that's not based on science and is a personal one to him and he understands, having taken an oath to uphold the constitution, that he shouldn't impose his beliefs on other people.

To me his position deserves the utmost respect precisely because he is using refrain and he understands that his position may not be correct or jive with reality.

Those two things are basically the opposite case. In the position of homosexual marriage, people have a right to equitable treatment under the law, and no one has a right to not see other people they don't want married getting married. So Kim Davis' position then would infringe the rights of homosexual couples to receive equitable treatment under the law, and protect no one's rights.

Biden's beliefs indicate that there is a class of people, let's call them prenatal persons, who are routinely having their right to be safe from being arbitrarily killed infringed, which is perhaps the most basic right. Hence, by not making efforts to change the laws he is implicitly allowing the class of prenatal people to be murdered. Here imposing his beliefs would be doing so in an effort to safeguard fundamental human rights for a class of people.

So in fact, the situations are the opposite, and Biden's position is more akin to someone who says "I don't agree with Kim Davis, but I'm not going to impose my belief on her to stop oppressing homosexuals." Or perhaps replace "prenatal persons" with "african american persons" and the statement becomes: "Black people are humans with a right to not be killed, but I don't want to impose my beliefs on people who are murdering them."

As for science - science says nothing about what constitutes a human being that has rights, to science humans are just another animal, and nature certainly has no concept of a right to not be killed.

 

[Greenman]

How about a little quiz to maybe shed some light on the abortion and life starts at conception issue:

1) How many babies is this:

Spoiler

1

2) How many babies is this:

Spoiler

0-4 (no implantation to identical quadruplets

3) How effective is RU486 at causing an abortion?

Spoiler

92-95%

4) How effective is natural pregnancy at causing a miscarriage/failed implantation?

Spoiler

~66% of fertilized eggs will not make it to birth

5) What is the mortality rate for a born child between the ages of 1-4 in the US?

Spoiler

0.026% in 2013

6) T or F The sperm is alive before conception.

Spoiler

T

7) T or F The egg is alive before conception.

Spoiler

T

8) T or F The fertilized egg is alive after conception.

Spoiler

T

How about some answers to your questions?

1. 1
2 - 6 have no bearing on the issue what so ever. Though I've always thought the "miscarriage makes it ok" argument was particularly stupid.
We're talking about killing an inconvenient human. It's sad, but it's not like it's something we haven't done throughout human history. Trying to sanitize the act by denying the humanity of the victim is also an old and well used practice. It's our "out". It allows us to perpetrate any number of atrocity's by convincing ourselves that we're not hurting "people".
So lets be honest, some lives don't matter, some lives are disposable, some people are little more than cattle to be used or culled as we see fit.
I've come to accept the brutal necessity of abortion, but I certainly won't lie to myself about it, nor will I pander to the needs of those that refuse to accept the reality of their actions.

 

[HomerJS]

This is how it should be. Have religious convictions but don't impose them on others.

I fail to understand why people can't see that.

 

[fskimospy]

Although it may upset some left leaning people, there are more people in the US right now who say abortion should be illegal in most cases than those who say it should be legal in most cases.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/cnn-poll-guns-immigration-abortion-2016/

Biden's problem is not his view, but his total hypocrisy; although he thinks abortion is murder, he somehow manages to willfully ignore his morals once he leaves the church.

Still, it's better than Clinton, who doesn't think the federal government should have any limits on abortion, and thus appears okay with aborting a fetus up to the moments before its regular birth.

Those polls are HIGHLY dependent on how the question is asked, as saying 'most' circumstances or 'a few' circumstances means very little. For example here in a Gallup poll 80% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in 'all' or 'certain' circumstances. That doesn't necessarily tell us much more either.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

You really have to go situation by situation, but that's messy.

 

[nakedfrog]

Q: Is it my uterus?
A: No.
Therefore, it's none of my concern, nor my business.
The humans seem to be doing exceedingly well at propagation currently, if that changes, then perhaps we can revisit the subject.

 

[IronWing]

Lust is the Holy Spirit quickening the soul within each sperm cell. Life begins at puberty. Masturbation is abortion on a genocidal scale.

 

[dank69]

"life begins at conception"

Are the eggs not already alive? are the sperm not already alive? that is part of a continuous process. If we are talking about a "human life" then a new fertilized zygote is also not a human life, that takes place later in development.

Edit: well damn, number 4,6,7,8 of Paratus quiz hit on this already.

What? No. A fertilized zygote is human and is alive. An egg is alive but is not a human. A sperm is alive but is not a human. Human life begins at conception. This is a fact.

The debate is whether the zygote's right to life overrides the female's rights. If a full grown adult could somehow climb inside a woman and form a parasitic relationship with her, and the only way to stop that relationship would be to kill that adult, I guarantee it would be legal to kill that adult.

 

[Paratus]

How about some answers to your questions?

1. 1
2 - 6 have no bearing on the issue what so ever. Though I've always thought the "miscarriage makes it ok" argument was particularly stupid.
We're talking about killing an inconvenient human. It's sad, but it's not like it's something we haven't done throughout human history. Trying to sanitize the act by denying the humanity of the victim is also an old and well used practice. It's our "out". It allows us to perpetrate any number of atrocity's by convincing ourselves that we're not hurting "people".
So lets be honest, some lives don't matter, some lives are disposable, some people are little more than cattle to be used or culled as we see fit.
I've come to accept the brutal necessity of abortion, but I certainly won't lie to myself about it, nor will I pander to the needs of those that refuse to accept the reality of their actions.

Exactly, which is why pro-lifers are hypocrites. They believe that zygote is a child yet will gladly, obliviously allow as many of these children to die without the slightest circumspection or responsibility as long as one makes it to birth. Why? Because they want one.

They treat them as you said, as disposable.

 

[HomerJS]

How about some answers to your questions?

1. 1
2 - 6 have no bearing on the issue what so ever. Though I've always thought the "miscarriage makes it ok" argument was particularly stupid.
We're talking about killing an inconvenient human. It's sad, but it's not like it's something we haven't done throughout human history. Trying to sanitize the act by denying the humanity of the victim is also an old and well used practice. It's our "out". It allows us to perpetrate any number of atrocity's by convincing ourselves that we're not hurting "people".
So lets be honest, some lives don't matter, some lives are disposable, some people are little more than cattle to be used or culled as we see fit.
I've come to accept the brutal necessity of abortion, but I certainly won't lie to myself about it, nor will I pander to the needs of those that refuse to accept the reality of their actions.

Do you remember biology class? A woman is not considered pregnant until a fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall.

 

[LegendKiller]

Do you remember biology class? A woman is not considered pregnant until a fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall.

A woman can be considered pregnant without implantation in the uterine wall. It's called an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[nakedfrog]

Exactly, which is why pro-lifers are hypocrites. They believe that zygote is a child yet will gladly, obliviously allow as many of these children to die without the slightest circumspection or responsibility as long as one makes it to birth. Why? Because they want one.

They treat them as you said, as disposable.

Pro-birth, not pro-life.

A woman can be considered pregnant without implantation in the uterine wall. It's called an ectopic pregnancy.

"Rare
20,000 to 200,000 US cases per year"
Fairly pointless to even mention it in the context of this discussion.

 

[OutHouse]

 

[bshole]

How about some answers to your questions?

1. 1
2 - 6 have no bearing on the issue what so ever. Though I've always thought the "miscarriage makes it ok" argument was particularly stupid.
We're talking about killing an inconvenient human. It's sad, but it's not like it's something we haven't done throughout human history. Trying to sanitize the act by denying the humanity of the victim is also an old and well used practice. It's our "out". It allows us to perpetrate any number of atrocity's by convincing ourselves that we're not hurting "people".
So lets be honest, some lives don't matter, some lives are disposable, some people are little more than cattle to be used or culled as we see fit.
I've come to accept the brutal necessity of abortion, but I certainly won't lie to myself about it, nor will I pander to the needs of those that refuse to accept the reality of their actions.

Um right, equating a few cells to humans is funny. No brain, no brain stem, no brain function.....

I am sorry, I haven't the faintest qualms with a "person" with no brain function being killed. None whatsoever. Shit we let brain dead adults die all the fucking time. If you want, we could pull the 1 gram or less cellular mass out of the woman's body and let it die a "natural" death. I suspect that wouldn't satisfy you. If not, all I can say is don't have an abortion AND leave women alone who do.

 

[fskimospy]

You can be declared dead while still having heart function. (brain death)

 

[dank69]

You can be declared dead while still having heart function. (brain death)

And the zygote is alive before it has a heartbeat. Double fail for that meme.

 

[nakedfrog]

Whoever heard of being pronounced alive, anyway?
Last I checked, you get a birth certificate when you're born, not a "life certificate".

 

[jonks]

Exactly, which is why pro-lifers are hypocrites.

The majority are at the very least intellectually inconsistent. The majority of pro-lifers believe in rape and incest exceptions for abortion. Why? If it's a baby deserving of protection, how can they permit killing it just because it would inconvenience the mother or make her uncomfortable? We also know, despite the refusal to admit it, that a pro-lifer would sooner save a 3 year old in a burning building rather than a test tube containing thousands of fertilized eggs, even though, ostensibly to them, both meet the definition of human life.

 

[michal1980]

So Joe thinks abortion is murder but would allow people to do it. hmmm seems fairly inconsistent.

 

[pcgeek11]

Q: Is it my uterus?
A: No.
Therefore, it's none of my concern, nor my business.
The humans seem to be doing exceedingly well at propagation currently, if that changes, then perhaps we can revisit the subject.

I can play this game too:

I want to get rid of my two year old, because I cannot afford to feed him/her.

Is it your child?
No.
Therefore, it's none of your concern, nor your business.

 

[pcgeek11]

What? No. A fertilized zygote is human and is alive. An egg is alive but is not a human. A sperm is alive but is not a human. Human life begins at conception. This is a fact.

The debate is whether the zygote's right to life overrides the female's rights. If a full grown adult could somehow climb inside a woman and form a parasitic relationship with her, and the only way to stop that relationship would be to kill that adult, I guarantee it would be legal to kill that adult.

How can you guarantee that?

Be specific.

 

[sandorski]

I can play this game too:

I want to get rid of my two year old, because I cannot afford to feed him/her.

Is it your child?
No.
Therefore, it's none of your concern, nor your business.

Not in your Uterus, so.....

 

[mrjminer]

Don't really see the controversy. So, Biden is against abortion, but agrees that people should be free to have their own choice in the matter. Seems like that is the approach you would want a politician that is against abortion to take, unless you're some kind of asshole in favor of removing people's free will because of your opinion on the matter

 

[shira]

“I’m prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there’s human life and being,”

Are the eggs not already alive? are the sperm not already alive? that is part of a continuous process. If we are talking about a "human being" then a new fertilized zygote is also not a human being (individual) in my opinion that takes place later on, of course this like you said is when the argument starts.

Edit: corrected my post to reflect human being as an individual instead of human life which starts at conception, sorry for my poor choice in terms. I will not be posting again past midnight like that when it's well past my bedtime.

Yes, the question of "beingness" is the essence of the issue. But I would use the term "personhood," or simply "person." So the question is, is every human life a person?

The answer is obviously no.

If a scrape of cells is taken from your inner cheek, each cell is alive and has a full complement of human DNA. Each cell could in theory be cloned to become a walking, talking person. But a living cell from your inner-cheek is clearly not a person, and not even anti-abortion extremists would claim otherwise.

But what about a fertilized human egg; is it a person? In almost all of the ways we can judge, the answer is no. (I mean, most people - shown a photograph of a just-fertilized egg - wouldn't even be able to tell whether it was a HUMAN egg.)

Even more tellingly, no one forced to choose between saving a fertilized human egg and an actual born-baby sleeping in their arms would choose the egg. To me, that's a slam-dunk argument that EVERYONE in reality thinks that a fertilized human egg is something less than a person. Abortion laws should (and DO) reflect that fact.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How can you guarantee that?

Be specific.

The right to bodily integrity is fundamental, meaning waivers to it must be explicit, and individuals are entitled to protect it with deadly force whenever necessary.

If I come running at you with a syringe filled with ebola, clearly intent on injecting you with it, you have every right to use any and all necessary force to prevent me from doing that, including lethal force.

These are pretty well-established legal principles that nobody on the pro-turn-women-into-involuntary-incubators side seems to acknowledge.