Open minded pro-choicer does a nice thing for pro-lifers.

[dahunan]

This from a person who obsesses over the fact that someone, somewhere, might have said a prayer! Oh, the outrage!

I pray your people leave others alone.. and let them live their own life.

I pray your people learn love for all and not just those who follow their bound paperback

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If it is your contention that you do realize that right-wing politicians flog this dead horse to reign in the votes of single-issue voters, you've certainly given no indication that this is the case. Feel free to clarify.

Holy shit...the reason I gave no indication on what I thought on this issue was because I wasn't discussing it! You're the one who brought it up and made dumbass assumptions about what I thought based on pure bullshit speculation! Is that enough clarification for you?

It is interesting that you would hone in on the parting shots of my post and not even so much as acknowledge the substantive portion of it that clearly refuted your suggestion that "human life" was a meaningful term in the context of the abortion debate. One can only presume it is because you realize you cannot dispute those facts, and would instead like to dismiss the entirety of my post as "partisan" in order to avoid confronting them.

If that isn't revealing, I don't know what is.

Again, I see that you like to 'presume' and make more bullshit conclusions. But now you go one step further and consider your fantasies "revealing". Seriously...WTF is with you?

Look...the above and the last paragraph of your original post totally rub me the wrong way. I have no interest discussing anything with someone who 'presumes' to know what I think and judges me accordingly.

 

[JSt0rm]

Holy shit...the reason I gave no indication on what I thought on this issue was because I wasn't discussing it! You're the one who brought it up and made dumbass assumptions about what I thought based on pure bullshit speculation! Is that enough clarification for you?

Again, I see that you like to 'presume' and make more bullshit conclusions. But now you go one step further and consider your fantasies "revealing". Seriously...WTF is that?

Look...the above and the last paragraph of your original post totally rub me the wrong way. I have no interest discussing anything with someone who already 'knows' what I think and has judged me accordingly....let's just leave it at that.

deflect! deflect!

 

[werepossum]

You should try reading what I wrote, I said nothing about giving up your kidney to save a baby, why shouldn't it be mandatory for you to give up a kidney to save ANY life ?

That's the foundation of your reasoning for why the governemnt should have the power to force a woman to give birth.

You think that although I specifically rule out forcing a woman to give up a kidney to save her own child, I should somehow be in favor of forcing her to give up a kidney to save a stranger? M'kay . . .

I doubt you can follow this, but I'll try again.
1. Government should not be able to force you to give up body parts to save ANYONE else.
2. Government should not be able to force you to carry a baby if that baby is not viable outside the womb.
3. If your baby IS viable outside the womb, then others besides yourself can care for the baby. You should not then have the right to tear its little limbs off and cut up its little skull simply because of your closer proximity. If you wish to be rid of an unborn but viable baby, induced labor (a simple medical procedure) is far better for society than a partial birth abortion (another simple medical procedure.)
4. A total lack of rights for a viable but unborn baby cannot help but cause a similar lack of respect for a born but helpless baby - or a born but helpless adult.

 

[werepossum]

It may not be meaningless per se, but it isn't sufficiently precise. It isn't rigorous enough.

Lots of things are "human life" -- tissue samples, cancerous tumors, cell cultures. None of those things are persons, however. They do not enjoy the protections that persons do. So, while calling an embryo "human life" may be stating the obvious, it is not tantamount to establishing its personhood, so it is not enough to establish that it has the rights that persons do.

Despite even that, however, no person, born or unborn, as it were, has an unqualified right to occupy the body of another person without that person's consent, nor does any person enjoy an unqualified right to forcibly respirate and extract nutrients from another person's bloodstream, nor to inject another person with hormones and waste. To disallow women to terminate their pregnancies is to endow zygotes, embryos and fetuses with rights that no other class of person enjoys. This is a plain violation of equal protection, and precisely why no abortion ban will withstand tests of Constitutionality.

Of course, The promise of a ban on abortion is incredibly more valuable to conservative politicians than the actual achievement of one, so the right-wing politicians will keep dangling this carrot in front of you to keep you voting against your own interests, and you're not smart enough to realize it. Congrats.

I don't disagree with either of your two points, but I would point out that if an unborn baby is viable then there are ways to extract it from the reluctant mother's womb other than pulling it apart with tongs and shears.

It's not just a semantics game. "Human life" is a meaningless term unless it's given a context. Saying that a zygote is "innocent" and comparing it to a human baby coo-cooing in its crib is patently fraudulent. No one - and I refer even to the most ardent abortion opponents - in their heart of hearts thinks a zygote and a baby in its crib are the same thing.

Referring to a zygote or a fetus as a "baby" or "child" is demgoguery. Nothing more; nothing less.

I am not at all sure of that, as some abortion opponents want all fertilized eggs adopted and birthed. Regardless, even the most avid abortion supporter (e.g. the female reporter who said she would gladly provide Clinton with oral sex for keeping abortion legal) agree that a fetus is a baby as long as the mother wants it. Not even Gloria Allred asks a pregnant woman when her fetus is due or how far along is her zygote. Unborn babies only tend to revert to fetus status when one wants to kill one. At some point this magical transition from fetus to baby must occur, after all. To an avid abortion supporter this is at birth (a position actually supported by Jewish law if I remember correctly), or in the occasional state once the umbilical cord is cut (witness the woman who killed her newborn and got off scot-free because since the cord hadn't been cut, she technically performed an abortion.) For me this transformation is when the baby can be considered viable outside of the womb - in other words, when society rather than just the mother can keep the baby alive. For others it may be at birth, or when it starts government school.

 

[shira]

Sigh...you like to play little word games don't you.

BTW, I think spittledip head the nail on the head. It appears that the core of our differences revolves around when human life has value.

Like spittledip, you've oversimplified. One of your errors is that you think that a human life either has some definite value (the value of a person) or it has a value of 0. In fact, along the continuum from zygote to full-term baby the value of that human life progressively increases.

Another of your errors is that you fail to consider that the value of a gestating human life must be weighed against competing values - the value of the life of the mother, for example. Or the value of the freedom of the woman to NOT have to undergo the physical stress of being the incubator for an unwanted fetus.

For some reason, you have difficulty with nuance.

 

[spittledip]

Like spittledip, you've oversimplified. One of your errors is that you think that a human life either has some definite value (the value of a person) or it has a value of 0. In fact, along the continuum from zygote to full-term baby the value of that human life progressively increases.

Another of your errors is that you fail to consider that the value of a gestating human life must be weighed against competing values - the value of the life of the mother, for example. Or the value of the freedom of the woman to NOT have to undergo the physical stress of being the incubator for an unwanted fetus.

For some reason, you have difficulty with nuance.

No, the problem is that you don't understand what was written and have made assumptions about it. This is the 2nd or 3rd assumption you have made that is erroneous. It might be helpful for you to consider why you feel the need to make assumptions like these.

 

[shira]

I don't disagree with either of your two points, but I would point out that if an unborn baby is viable then there are ways to extract it from the reluctant mother's womb other than pulling it apart with tongs and shears.


I am not at all sure of that, as some abortion opponents want all fertilized eggs adopted and birthed. Regardless, even the most avid abortion supporter (e.g. the female reporter who said she would gladly provide Clinton with oral sex for keeping abortion legal) agree that a fetus is a baby as long as the mother wants it. Not even Gloria Allred asks a pregnant woman when her fetus is due or how far along is her zygote. Unborn babies only tend to revert to fetus status when one wants to kill one. At some point this magical transition from fetus to baby must occur, after all. To an avid abortion supporter this is at birth (a position actually supported by Jewish law if I remember correctly), or in the occasional state once the umbilical cord is cut (witness the woman who killed her newborn and got off scot-free because since the cord hadn't been cut, she technically performed an abortion.) For me this transformation is when the baby can be considered viable outside of the womb - in other words, when society rather than just the mother can keep the baby alive. For others it may be at birth, or when it starts government school.

I agree with you that "baby" is most accurately used at fetal viability.

As to the use of "baby" for pre-viability fetuses: I think of "baby" as a PC term. Using "baby" makes the happy day more real. It reinforces the wish of the woman that the fetus develop normally and healthily. "Fetus" reminds the woman that she still has a ways to go before she becomes a mother. "Fetus" is an impersonal, neutral/cold term whereas "baby" is personal and warm.

But catering to the emotional needs of an expectant mother is not the same thing as debating abortion rights, and equating an un-implanted zygote about to be extinguished by a dose of RU-486 with a cooing baby in its crib is just cheap emotional blackmail.

 

[werepossum]

I agree with you that "baby" is most accurately used at fetal viability.

As to the use of "baby" for pre-viability fetuses: I think of "baby" as a PC term. Using "baby" makes the happy day more real. It reinforces the wish of the woman that the fetus develop normally and healthily. "Fetus" reminds the woman that she still has a ways to go before she becomes a mother. "Fetus" is an impersonal, neutral/cold term whereas "baby" is personal and warm.

But catering to the emotional needs of an expectant mother is not the same thing as debating abortion rights, and equating an un-implanted zygote about to be extinguished by a dose of RU-486 with a cooing baby in its crib is just cheap emotional blackmail.

I don't disagree with any of that, and I would add that those abortion opponents protesting at clinics would be better served banding together and financially supporting women having abortions. I would imagine that some women would be happy to have the baby and give it up for adoption if it didn't mean six weeks or more with no income. All they are doing protesting at abortion clinics is royally pissing off the people they encounter. (Well, they probably do serve another function - human shields for abortion clinic workers against would-be anti-abortion terrorists. LOL)

 

[3chordcharlie]

When it comes to abortion there are very few open minds.. on either side.

Thread title FAIL.

Anyone who is 'open-minded' about abortion, will naturally be pro-choice WRT the decisions of other people, regardless of whether they would be pro-choice WRT themselves.

I think more people are in this boat than most would realize; frankly I'm not sure if I could accept abortion of a fetus that was 'mine'. I don't, however, presume to know what is best, or right, for others.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think more people are in this boat than most would realize; frankly I'm not sure if I could accept abortion of a fetus that was 'mine'. I don't, however, presume to know what is best, or right, for others.

This is how I feel about the issues. Those people that think they are fighting gods war can diaf

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/cops-called-for-abortion-clinic-threat

As in...threatens to put a bullet in their hearts over free speech. That is nice and tolerant for you.

Yeah, i agree death threats are not enough for assault on young women.

Personally, i wouldn't make the treat....

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

When it comes to abortion there are very few open minds.. on either side.

Thread title FAIL.

There is one right here, if you had a grown man with the brain function of a 25 week fetus then he would be clinically dead, there are no ifs or buts about that.

Since you cannot kill a dead being, how could an abortion pre week 25 be seen as anything but a removal of unwanted tissue?

Well, RELIGION, the bane of any civilised society.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Anyone who is 'open-minded' about abortion, will naturally be pro-choice WRT the decisions of other people, regardless of whether they would be pro-choice WRT themselves.

I think more people are in this boat than most would realize; frankly I'm not sure if I could accept abortion of a fetus that was 'mine'. I don't, however, presume to know what is best, or right, for others.

Trust me, if you got any kind of intelligence and balls, you can.

 

[xj0hnx]

Lots of things are "human life" -- tissue samples, cancerous tumors, cell cultures. None of those things are persons, however. They do not enjoy the protections that persons do. So, while calling an embryo "human life" may be stating the obvious, it is not tantamount to establishing its personhood, so it is not enough to establish that it has the rights that persons do.

Do tissue samples, cancerous tumors, and cell cultures grow to be human?

hahahaha excellent post :thumbsup:

Only to you.

gtfo of other lives and make sure yours is proper

So you are all for letting parents beat their children, starving them, and generally neglecting them?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Do tissue samples, cancerous tumors, and cell cultures grow to be human?

They are already human, numbnuts. Please try to keep up.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't disagree with either of your two points, but I would point out that if an unborn baby is viable then there are ways to extract it from the reluctant mother's womb other than pulling it apart with tongs and shears.

You won't get any objection to that from me. There are reasoned arguments to be made restricting late-term abortions on-demand, allowing for the exception of circumstances which threaten the health of the mother, at the discretion of a panel of board-certified physicians, for example.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Holy shit...the reason I gave no indication on what I thought on this issue was because I wasn't discussing it! You're the one who brought it up and made dumbass assumptions about what I thought based on pure bullshit speculation! Is that enough clarification for you?

No, it is still unclear whether or not you agree that right-wing politicians beat the drum of abortion bans, despite its clear unconstitutionality, to reign in the votes of the people that do not understand the facts.

Do you agree that they do? If it is your intention to make your position clear, you've done a shithouse job of it so far.

Again, I see that you like to 'presume' and make more bullshit conclusions. But now you go one step further and consider your fantasies "revealing". Seriously...WTF is with you?

If you think that I am wrong, you are invited to actually acknowledge the facts I presented which explcitly demolish your suggestion that the fact a fetus is a "human life" has any bearing on the legality of abortion at all.

Look...the above and the last paragraph of your original post totally rub me the wrong way. I have no interest discussing anything with someone who 'presumes' to know what I think and judges me accordingly.

I understand you do not like to be embarrassed. If you would like to avoid embarassment in the future, I suggest you come to terms with the facts that I presented, and which heretofore remain undisputed.

 

[dahunan]

Originally Posted by dahunan
gtfo of other lives and make sure yours is proper

So you are all for letting parents beat their children, starving them, and generally neglecting them?

Did you think that through in any way?

You just said that religious people are the only ones to call when parents:

beat their children
starve them
neglect them

^^^ sorry you feel that they were the only ones who could have saved you. Nobody helped me when *my religious parents

beat me
abandoned me
let me be abused
starved me at times
violently fought in front of me while drinking their alcohol

Maybe you need to think a little more before you start with your generalities

 

[kinev]

We don't have to tolerate people like that.. EVER.. THEY were INTOLERANT OF THAT FAMILY'S DECISION.. NOW WHAT????

GTFO of strangers faces..

If it is.....[Bania] that's gold, Jerry! Gold! [/Bania]

 

[3chordcharlie]

Trust me, if you got any kind of intelligence and balls, you can.

I can what?

 

[fallout man]

Big brother doesn't need to be involved with people's vaginas.

If there's no need, there's a will!

 

[xj0hnx]

Did you think that through in any way?

You just said that religious people are the only ones to call when parents:

beat their children
starve them
neglect them

No I didn't say that at all. You said, and I quote ..."gtfo of other lives and make sure yours is proper" Which means you don't think it's right to get involved when children are being abused.

 

[xj0hnx]

They are already human, numbnuts. Please try to keep up.

We aren't talking about particles from a scrapped knee, or a blood sample, and to compare them to a fetus is just stupid. Coming from a human, and becoming a human are not the same thing, not even close.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

We aren't talking about particles from a scrapped knee, or a blood sample, and to compare them to a fetus is just stupid. Coming from a human, and becoming a human are not the same thing, not even close.

You didn't ask if a tissue sample was a human. You simply asked if it would someday become human, but it already is. You're the one being sloppy with your language.

And for what it's worth, "a human" is a person. Tissue samples are human and alive, but they are not born, so they are not persons. Likewise, embryos are human and alive but not born, so they are not persons. An embryo or fetus will become a person when it is born.

That still doesn't change the fact that no person, born or unborn, has a right to occupy the body of another person without that person's explicit consent.