Unique From Day One: Pro-life Is Pro-Science
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Each year the March for Life board and staff choose a theme that will best contribute to building a culture of life; and as they do so, they take into account cultural norms and current events to help make their message resonate with Americans. This year, March for Life leadership wanted to draw attention to the fact that science and technology continue to reveal the humanity and life of an unborn person even in its very earliest stages. That’s why the 2019 March for Life theme is “Unique From Day One: Pro-life Is Pro-Science.”
In 2008, President Obama was famously asked, “When does life begin?” He dodged the question by joking that was “above my pay grade.” While this response conveniently gives cover when advocating policies that are destructive of life in its earliest stages, the answer isn’t difficult. An organism is alive when it meets four criteria: metabolism, reaction to stimuli, growth and reproduction.
The zygote, the first cell formed at the moment of conception, is the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo. It is undeniably human in that it is composed of human DNA and totally different from any other human that has ever existed. DNA is present, whether it’s 23 pairs of chromosomes or 22. The fingerprint that each of us has – distinguishing us from any other human on the planet -- is determined by that DNA on day one.
Fetal development in its simplicity and depth is astonishing. Only three weeks after fertilization, a little one’s heart starts beating. At eight weeks of pregnancy the baby has started moving around (even though Mom can’t feel this quite yet). By the 10 th week of pregnancy, a baby’s fingers and toes are forming. By 13 weeks, right at the end of the first trimester, the baby has fingerprints. If the baby is female, she already has more than 2 million eggs!
During the second trimester, organs including kidneys begin to work, and expectant parents might even see their little one sucking his thumb on an ultrasound. At 19 weeks of development a baby’s senses are developing and she or he can likely recognize Mom’s voice at this stage.
One hundred years ago our understanding of embryonic development was very different from what it is now. Medical advancements continue to reaffirm the science behind the pro-life cause – that life begins when egg meets sperm and a new, unique, human embryo is created. Moreover, breakthroughs in science and ultrasound technology have provided a window into the womb allowing us to witness firsthand the development of life.
Pro-life is pro-science, and science should always be at the service of life. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Recently you might have read that the Department of Health and Human Services cancelled a contract related to acquisition of aborted fetal tissue between the Food and Drug Administration and an organization called Advanced Biosciences Research. ABR is a major supplier of aborted fetal tissue; the Trump administration’s ending of the contract was a very good thing. Unfortunately, millions of taxpayer dollars still flow to similar experimentations using human fetal tissue or human embryonic stem cells -- both of which rely on the destruction of human life.
To help counter this, Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and his co-sponsor Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) introduced the Patients First Act – HR 2918 – which would prohibit tax dollars from going toward such needless destruction in the name of research. Instead, it would redirect federal support to alternative stem cell research, including the use of adult stem cells, which has proven to be much more successful in saving lives.
Science makes clear that human life -- and our uniqueness as individuals -- begins on day one, at fertilization. Life, in its most vulnerable form, should be protected, and we are grateful for HR 2918 and call on members of Congress to pass this and similar legislation preserving the dignity of the human person from its earliest moments.
It is for such reason that each January we march. We march to protect life in its earliest and most vulnerable stages, and we march to restore a vision of a world where the beauty, dignity, and uniqueness of every human life are valued and protected – from day one.
Tags
Who is online
406 visitors
“One hundred years ago our understanding of embryonic development was very different from what it is now. Medical advancements continue to reaffirm the science behind the pro-life cause – that life begins when egg meets sperm and a new, unique, human embryo is created. Moreover, breakthroughs in science and ultrasound technology have provided a window into the womb allowing us to witness firsthand the development of life.
Pro-life is pro-science, and science should always be at the service of life. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Recently you might have read that the Department of Health and Human Services cancelled a contract related to acquisition of aborted fetal tissue between the Food and Drug Administration and an organization called Advanced Biosciences Research. ABR is a major supplier of aborted fetal tissue; the Trump administration’s ending of the contract was a very good thing. Unfortunately, millions of taxpayer dollars still flow to similar experimentations using human fetal tissue or human embryonic stem cells -- both of which rely on the destruction of human life.
To help counter this, Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and his co-sponsor Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) introduced the Patients First Act – HR 2918 – which would prohibit tax dollars from going toward such needless destruction in the name of research. Instead, it would redirect federal support to alternative stem cell research, including the use of adult stem cells, which has proven to be much more successful in saving lives.
Science makes clear that human life -- and our uniqueness as individuals -- begins on day one, at fertilization.”
This is emotional hogwash from a very biased source. If you don't like abortion then don't have one but keep your fantasies out of my body and I won't think in your church. I'll believe your lies about supporting human dignity when you care about the child's health and welfare after the end of the 3rd trimester by mandating new parent leave, better schools, and universal healthcare. Until then your claims are just partisan noise.
Saying who someone is doesn’t deny the science behind what is being said. It has long been believed that increases in scientific knowledge about life would eventually make the excuses for elective abortion seem like witchcraft.
Besides, Real Clear Politics is not a biased source according to fair minded rational observers.
RCP printed an opinion. Look it up. She has no scientific training. She is a religious loon. This is her bio.
That she once worked for the Family Research Council was good enough for me.
The family research council is a hate group
Why is that group's religious opinions something to be proud of? They are not much different than the Klan in my eyes.
That’s beyond ridiculous. [deleted]
Another brought it up that she once worked there. As for the group, it is a bald faced lie and a deliberate defamation of their character with the willful intent to libel and slander them to say that they are a hate group.
Live your own religious beliefs by keeping your ignorance outside of the bodies of women and LGBT people because they are not people to be converted or controlled by regressive religious mythology. Rational minds and freedom are not part of the FRC.
It is the detractors of FRC, ADF, LC, CWA, and other like groups who are the mindless ones. The science of life is pro life.
A personal attack.
How does science support a religious belief?
The March for Life unveiled their theme on Capitol Hill Thursday, “Unique From Day One: Pro-Life is Pro-Science.” The organization’s president Jeanne Mancini emphasized the growing body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception.
“Our DNA is present in the moment of fertilization and no fingerprint ever, past, present, future is like yours and that’s what it means to be unique from day one,” she told reporters at the Capitol Hill event.
Mancini referenced former President Barack Obama dodging the question of when life begins, arguing that his response was not backed up by science.
“Consider in 2008 when President Obama was famously asked when does life begin,” she said, “and we can all remember he dodged the question by answering that was above his paygrade, he didn’t know and yet while that conveniently gives cover for someone who advocates for the destruction of human life in its earliest stages, scientifically it’s not factual.”
Mancini pointed out that just three weeks after conception, the fetal heart begins to beat and at eight weeks of pregnancy, “the baby’s moving around even though mom can’t quite feel that yet, by the tenth week of pregnancy, the little fingers and toes are forming.”
Dr. David Prentice, the Vice President and Research Director for the Charlotte Lozier Institute and the Adjunct Professor of Molecular Genetics at the John Paul II Institute, followed Mancini’s announcement by pointing to the consensus in the scientific community that life begins at conception.
“The mammalian body plans start being laid down from the moment of conception, your world is shaped in the first 24 hours after conception,” he said. “These are the scientific facts and this is a consensus really in the scientific world. The arguments aren’t about biology. This is accepted science and has been for decades.”
Prentice went on to quote world-renowned Irish embryologist Ronan O’Rahilly, who helped develop the Carnegie stages of human development.
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed,” O’Rahilly wrote.
He also noted that both the National Institute of Health and the National Academy of Science refer to “the developing organism,” not a random collection of cells.
Prentice also cited the story of Micah Pickering, a now six-year-old boy who was born prematurely at 22 weeks gestational age (20 weeks), defying conventional wisdom about viability.
He referenced the 1999 corrective surgery on Samuel Armas for spina bifida at 21 weeks in utero. A photographer captured the amazing moment that Samuel reacted to the doctor’s touch and grabbed the doctor’s finger.......
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2018/10/18/march-for-life-unveils-sciencebased-theme-unique-from-day-one-n2529773
E.A That is the Only Logical and Scientific Conclusion possible, One has a Living Ova unite with a Living Sperm, so how can it possible be anything else but a Living Organism, Now if no one interferes with it, what is the likely outcome, but a Living sentient unique individual with a Right to life! And in a Society with any self respect it is obligated to look after the ones that at any time and for any reason " have No Voice " to speak for their Right to Life liberty and pursuit of happiness!
OK, so, we take this collection of cells and because it's alive, all we need to do is place it in a nutrient petri dish at 98.6 degrees and keep the food a-coming and it'll turn into a baby?
WOMEN, YOU'RE SAVED!!!! No need to go through labor, the Doctors only made you do it because you're female and therefore cursed by god. They coulda petri-dished babies 90 years ago.
In the early stages it's not a entity yet, the cells are alive like the rest of the woman's cells are alive and they contain the blueprint of a baby, but there is no baby. Just the mother's living, changing cells, alive ONLY because the mother is alive.
You're dismissing an argument, not by engaging with its content, but by accusing the author of being "emotional." The truth is the argument is full of factual scientific information and you have made no attempt to refute any of it.
Not that there is anything wrong with an appeal to emotion. You make it sound like a person should be ashamed or is stupid for having feelings.
Which part of the argument was fantasy? And nothing was said about your body or the body of any woman.
I see very little thinking behind your comment and no mention was made of church or religious beliefs.
Off-topic whataboutism. The argument is about abortion. The rightness or wrongness of abortion is not dependent on public policy vis-a-vis parental leave, education, or healthcare.
The science of pre-natal development is not partisan. It's just science.
Frankly, I see no rational argument at all in your comment. It seems entirely "emotional." Perhaps you are projecting when you accuse others of this.
Her entire argument is based on religious belief. I was raised Catholic and Ive seen this nonsense from most of my religious family for the past 40 years. This woman has no scientific training in Obstetrics or gynecology.
Please quote the religious belief cited in the argument.
Oh? Did she claim something that was incorrect?
Her arguments are an emotional spin of science.
This article is a science article and there is nothing in it about religion or any church just for the record. All comments on this seed relating abortion and opposition to it as being for religious reasons will be deemed by the seeder and flagged for off topic.
No, it's not. it's nothing more than an emotional appeal from someone with a clear pro-life bias.
How is a summary of fetal development not scientific? How is emotion connected to that?
Arguments against abortion are generally emotional or emotion based, with statements about "life" being the focus. But life is not the deterministic factor regarding the permissibility of abortion.
You didn't answer my questions.
Oh why not? What is?
Actually, I did.
Fetal viability is. That's why arguments, scientific or otherwise, focusing on "life" fail. Life isn't the issue. Viability is. And that is the point when abortions are generally allowed.
No, you didn't. I asked:
You did not answer.
Again, you did not answer.
Legally, yes. So, why do we care about viability? Viability of what?
Let me propose an answer. We care about viability of living, i.e. of existing life continuing. If there were no life involved in the equation, we would not be struggling with the appropriate limits on abortion.
No one cares when or how a woman goes about getting a root canal, a mammogram, or a face lift. No one is worried about the choices she makes in those contexts. And why not? Because it's 100% her life that's involved. But in abortion, an additional life is also involved.
So viability is the legal line we have drawn, but clearly life is the issue.
Yes, I did. Not my problem if you can't comprehend it.
That will have to be good enough.
I'm not sure. It seems like viability was a compromise to appease both sides of the abortion issue.
Are you trying to be obtuse?
Except some put too much emphasis on "life," to the exclusion of all else, including those already alive or their rights and circumstances.
It's also her life and her choice when she decides on abortion.
Only to those who think it somehow trumps the woman's life and rights.
One more thing. I am a foster and adoptive parent and am in the process of readying my home to be able to take in a sibling group of 2-3 so that they can stay together rather than being sent to separate homes.
So pro life people actually do something to help out with children who for whatever reason can’t be in the home of their bio parents.
E.A Here read this as to what happens and the " Hell " of degradation that comes about when ….
Not your body, not your business, not your uterus, not your business, not your pregnancy, not your business.
When a man can birth a child through their pee hole then it's your business, otherwise go pound salt.
It is a human life we are talking about and a woman who wrote the article. Roe vs Wade was decided on ancient scientific knowledge and will eventually or sooner be revisited when the issue becomes when one human can legally take the life of another one for their own personal convenience or if they can take it all.
A woman will not become a slave to her uterus. Keep dreaming
What ancient scientific knowledge was Roe supposedly decided on?
Roe has been revisited 4 times and yet it stands. Abortion isn't taking a life because a fetus isn't alive until it is living independently of the mother's body.
Not until it's born. A zygote or embryo doesn't equal or even compare to an actual born individual.
Who has a pro-life bias and no scientific training.
Such as? be specific!
Roe has been indirectly revisited many times over the years, and has been reaffirmed each time.
No one is interested in your uterus and no mention was made of it in the seed.
If you're discussing an abortion you're discussing a uterus.
I know that word makes some uncomfortable. Too bad.
And the republican war on women marches on.
Yeah, you know . . . in spite of the actual words used.
I know you think other people are so primitive that they're afraid of your words, but the reality is that we're not. What you seem to be afraid of is discussing the actual words used.
How can you be discussing banning abortion if you aren't seeking to legislate a woman's medical care and her uterus.
That might be the most asinine sentence in this seed, which is about controlling a women's fertility (uterus).
Wow! What a detailed and compelling argument! You have entirely changed my mind with your insightful analysis. /s
Where did I say we should ban abortion?
I'm not interested in women's medical care or anyone's uterus. I'm interested in what's inside the uterus. What's inside the uterus is a life form that is distinct from the woman.
The stated goal of the RtL is to ban abortion. They also want to ban assisted suicide/euthanasia.
Don't be obtuse. You can't possibly accomplish that goal without legislating her medical decisions and controlling a woman's uterus.
Yeah? I'm not the RtL. How about we stick to holding me responsible for the positions I actually express? I want to discuss what our approach should be as a society, not cling religiously to what it currently is.
My concerns about abortion are not - and never have been - based on some religious passage, unless you want to cite scripture that puts a value on human life. However, you certainly don't need to be a religious person to hold that view. Valuing human life is hardly some fringe or fundamentalist religious position.
Furthermore, why is there no requirement for justifying the matter of choice? You like to say that those who question the status quo on abortion are being emotional (as opposed to scientific or factual, I suppose), but this assertion that a woman's choice trumps all is offered, without support, as axiomatic and with no limits allowed.
It is our body and only our choice, until the fetus is viable without heroic medical measures(27+ weeks). Your beliefs do not trump our rights as independent people. Conservatives don't give a damn about that baby once it is born because you oppose mandating ideas such as universal healthcare, parental leave, food subsidies and better schools, among many others. You just blame the mother in your conservative zeal. The typical argument is that the mother wanted the child so it's her fault, while you try to ignore the fact that you want to force her to carry that child to term. You also confuse the idea of having sex and seeking to conceive, because that difference doesn't support your religious stance on abortion.
The question is, why do YOUR beliefs, or the RCC's beliefs, or Mike Pence's beliefs trump MY BELIEFS? I do not believe abortion is any different than other ways pregnancies don't go to term. I don't believe the soul enters the body and its known if a mother is going to continue the pregnancy or not. I don't care if you believe me or not because I don't believe what you do, and its not your damn body or choice! How dare anybody try to force what they believe on women or anybody else. Live your own damn values and let everybody else live theirs.
Sing it, sister. Get these old men out of our business.
Breed them out of the gene pool by saying no to sex with pro-lifers.
no amount of hot-ness overcomes the ugly contained in the words: liberal/progressive.
the left can't deny sex to those who would never "touch that with a ten-foot pole
no conservative worth their salt would have sex with a baby killing progressive liberal.
hell, I won't even let one ride on the back of my motorcycle...
I say, pro murder? or liberal progressive?? call a cab or walk.
I think you've been hit in the head with your surfboard too many times dude. You seem to think you're god's gift to women.
Your magic 8 ball is cracked dude.
Your reply contains multiple personal attacks. When you choose to attack the person and not the argument you have capitulated the debate.
Is this a game with you or are you so very obtuse that you can't see the obvious personal attacks? Liberals are murderers according to his reply.
nah...
but conservative women are gods gift to me.
cheers
and conservatives are nazi"s
sing it sister
To be more accurate, conservatives have merely welcomes Nazis and white supremacists into their fold. And also, virtually every neo-nazi considers themselves "conservative".
As for claiming liberals are "murderers", that's like PETA members calling the leather clothing manufacturers "Murderers!". Killing a cow and using its leather for clothing isn't "murder" and neither is legal abortion.
On the X-Y graph of communist/socialist/capitalist economics and the vertical scale of personal freedom vs. state power, the Nazis and the current GOP both occupy the same top right corner. Trump is farther right than Hitler was.
I'm in the bottom left, if you are wondering. Look for Noam Chomsky.
:puke:
Signs point to yes.
I never said that I was offended.
What personal attack have I invoked?
No one just as my post was obvious to all but one not directed at any individual person.
Wrong. That is not what he or I earlier said and we all know that. Come down off that cross you nailed yourself to.
What cross did I nail myself to, and why did I do it?
This is intended to everyone in this thread:
This thread is all bordering on the personal. Knock it off. Only warning.
This seed isn’t about any religion or churches position on abortion. It is about science and life. Science is putting a human face and human dna pattern on who not what is being killed when an abortion occurs.
Science is not about putting a human face on anything. The goal of science is to add to the knowledge of the human race. Nobody is saying that a fetus is not unique. That is understood because of the effects of DNA.
Science doesn't do any such thing. Science simply provides the facts and knowledge. You're the one "putting a face" on it, as it were. And seemingly sounding emotional about it too.
Good, because we already know their position. Many people simply use a religious stance when arguing about abortion.
The current standards of viability build upon a centuries' old standard of prohibiting abortion once a "quick fetus" is present. Of course, we have learned a lot about pre-natal development in recent decades and we no longer are limited in our knowledge of that development by whether or not a baby is kicking. Therefore, new techniques and knowledge invite a revisiting of public policy that has been based on outdated information. We do this all the time with other issues from highway speed limits to LGBT rights. There is no reason abortion should be immune to this process.
What is "quick fetus"?
I am wondering that myself.
It means that the mother (or anyone who puts her hand on her belly, I suppose) can feel the movement of the developing fetus inside her.
The proper term is quickening. in the 1600's and most of the 1700s, abortion was legal in the British colonies until the baby started kicking,
which somehow was referred to as the quickening.
There can be only one.
Actually either terminology is fine. It means the same thing. Both are in Roe V. Wade. Interesting that so many people with such a strong opinion on the topic don't know the reference.
Why didn't you just say that? It's approximately 15 weeks of development. You cannot feel that movement externally. Trust me on this.
Why didn't you just Google it? (that's rhetorical)
I used the quickening term because that was the legal standard. My point was that the viability standard is based on an extremely primitive assessment of the developing life in the womb. It dates to at least as far back as the 16th century. There's very little else in this world where we make critical public policy based on a 16th century conceptualization.
Now if went with your experience, that would mean no abortions after 15 weeks. That would be pretty controversial.
The age of viability is more than 25 weeks and the current limit of voluntarily abortion is about 22 weeks. Where do you get off trying to make the medical decisions of others? Is this idea part of your Y chromosome, or did you pray about it? Women are not your pets, so keep your opinions to yourself.
Thank you for clarifying.
And you like to accuse me of being emotional. That was so non-sensical, I can't even respond.
This isn’t about religion. It’s about the science of life and when it begins and when we become human beings as opposed to some other random life form until some defined point when someone judges us sufficiently human enough to have the right to exist and survive.
The whole issue of abortion is rapidly becoming a moot point. As pharmaceutical remedies become more and more available we won't be discussing this. The OTC medications currently work for only the first few days but newer versions will work up until 9 weeks after conception and will be available by mail.
And there are ways to reverse the process of that too if a woman wants to change her mind after starting that process. Science and technology will provide ways to counter that form of abortion as well.
You cannot reverse a chemical abortion. This is a BS claim made by religious loons.
Keep your nose and your Bible out of the medical decisions and the private lives of others, unless you want us to take control of your lives and your medical decisions in parity.
deleted
Your reply is a personal attack because you are accusing me of being a baby killer. You have capitulated the argument with that emotional statement.
You cannot kill what isn't alive. If that fetus was removed from the uterus it would die within hours, if not minutes. This lower limit of viability with extreme measures and with a reasonable quality of life is 27 weeks gestation. This current limit of abortion unless there is medical reasons is 24 weeks.
Not even Genesis says that a fetus is alive. Is Genesis wrong?
removed for context An abortion is the murder of a human baby at a stage in his or her development. I made no reference to any one person as an actual baby killer. Your post bringing religion into this science discussion is off topic.
A fetus is not a baby. A fetus becomes a baby when it is born and living independently of the mother's body.
This basis of the right-to-life is based on an emotional religious belief so I can highlight that religious belief in my argument. If I can't mention the religious belief that is the foundation of opposing abortion then you have made it obvious that you do not want a free and open discussion of the subject. You instead want people only to agree with you.
Ad hom attacks only shows how weak your argument really is. Besides, who is "killing babies?" Killing babies is already illegal.
Wrong! Abortion is a medical procedure and is not legally or scientifically defined as "murder." Neither is an embryo or fetus a baby. It's not a baby until it's born. Look it up!
No, you just made a generalized ad hom attack, presumably against anyone who is pro-choice. That's just as bad as a personal attack against a specific person.
Most arguments I've seen against abortion are religiously and emotionally based. Anti-abortionists certainly haven't been able to put forth a valid or rational argument as to why abortion should be prohibited, especially when it doesn't concern them nor is their business!
We are all human beings and we all went through all the steps of humanity from conception to the present point in our human lives. At no point in our personal development from conception on were we ever anything but unique human beings and science has proven that. Science is the ultimate weapon against the pro abortionist and the abortuary industry.
It's a human being....it's alive.....Abortion ends this life....Period.
Not your body, not your business.
Thats an interesting saying repeated over and over....but that's all it is....the fact of the matter is.....it isn't her body that is having it's limbs dismembered and it's skull crushed.
If you decide to hop on a commercial jet and decide part way that you want off.....you can't abort the flight.....because you are effecting others ....and yes it is your body on that flight but by the same token.....you chose to be on that flight.
It resides in HER body, it is HER decision what to do with an unplanned pregnancy, don't like it too bad, not your call.
It's her body being used.
That's not how abortions are typically performed.
Nope, wrong! It's not yet human.
So? Such emotional tripe. "Life" is not the determining factor if abortion is permissible or not. Taking antibiotics to treat an infection also ends "life." So what's your point?
It's also true, and one which bears repeating.
That's quite a poor analogy. Abortion affects no one else but the woman in question.
false equivalency.
Sure and she made the decision to do or not do the things that created the pregnancy.... it is sad that so little consideration is given to a human life.....(I envision washing of hands here). Adoption is a much better option....and unfortunately the abortion industry doesn't focus on that....Make the decision to get on a plane....you can't abort the flight if you don't like the turbulence. Be responsible for your own actions and don't expect someone else to die because you don't like the outcome.
It sure is human.....if a live embryo was found on planet mars....the headline would be .....Human life found on Mars!
So? She also has the decision to continue or end the pregnancy too.
Appeals to emotion does not make a convincing argument.
That is a choice too.
Adoption agencies do.
Fortunately, one can terminate a pregnancy if they wish.
Electing to have an abortion is taking responsibility.
Not until it's born.
Got anything better than conjectural what-ifs?
And the human life that is killed, often painfully.
Life begins at conception....it is alive, it's human, it's a unique human and deserves the same rights as you and me .....Just because they can't defend themselves or speak....shouldn't make it easy to just shrug them off .....kill them barbarically and throw them in the trash.....such little regard for human life is sick.
Gotta go have fun defending the rights for a mother to kill her unborn children.
Embryos/fetuses do not have the capacity to feel pain at the general times abortions are performed.
So? "Life" isn't the issue, or the basis for when abortions are allowed.
A clump of cells is not yet human, and have no rights. There's no way to give rights to the unborn without removing rights from the already born and living woman in question who does have rights!
It's not for you to decide that for anyone else!
Spare me the appeals to emotion. You're convincing no one!
That's right! The woman's rights are paramount!
The woman makes the choice, not you, get it yet.
Doesn't seem to bother evangelicals when it comes to Jamal Khashoggi and his torture and murder, as long as money is to be made. So spare us the hand-wringing about your concern with 'life', when its clear you give zero fucks after birth. From child poverty to ripping children from their parents for punishment, conservatives show NO concern about life whatsoever once its out of the UTERUS.
Clearly you have no idea what the abortion issue is really about. And what makes us so "unique?" There's nothing unique about conception or gestation. It's a common occurrence which many organisms, especially mammals, share.
And it's solely her right to choose too. No one else has any say in that matter.
One last thing.....you are all correct....I'm not convincing anyone.....So why bother...everyone has their minds made up.....some put more value on a woman's right to an abortion that her own actions created and some value human life ...no matter how helpless....I think it boils down to that.....Everyone please enjoy their day.
Oh...and don't bitch if the next time you are on a plane someone does something irresponsible.....the plane aborts...and you miss your birthday party.
TAP Out.
What it boils down to is that abortion is a woman's right and personal choice, and it's no one else's business nor does anyone get a say in that right and/or decision, regardless of one's own personal feelings on the matter! Don't like abortion? Then don't have one, plain and simple. But no one gets to dictate that choice to anyone else!
is that supposed to mean anything to me? I don't usually fly anyway.
Wrong again.....Our Legislative/Court System has the legal Authority to have a "say" in that right.....and for now....your position is in enforcement....but that can change.......and yes I hope Kavanaugh is listening....
Choose on your own dime all you want. No skin off my back.
Just Don't claim "YOU, YOU, YOU", and then claim "OTHERS SHOULD PAY" !
"We" ...…. will have a problem then.
When have I ever said anyone else should pay? Elective abortions are paid for out of pocket. So there's no problem.
Not even a little!
The legal system has already had that say and only reaffirmed it over the years.
More like security of established rights.
There is not one instance anywhere of the Court rescinding a right once granted. To do so would set a most troubling precedent.
Many years ago Carl Sagan, the famous popularizer of science for the everyman, who was also likely one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century, took part in a debate over abortion , which I believe initially appeared as a very long article in Time magazine. If you search the internet today, I'm sure you can find a reprint of that debate.
Sagan reaches the conclusion that abortion should be permitted up until the time the fetus becomes viable of surviving on it's own outside the womb.
Although it didnt really take one of the world's great thinkers to reach that conclusion, it does show us that there is a consensus around that principle that can be defended and affirmed by the most intelligent people.
Such a compromise consensus now exists in the US and that will not change.
To outlaw abortion would bring on civil strife. Afterwards the compromise consensus will still be there, because it is based on science and common sense.
Oh.....YOU took that "literally".
Sorry to hear that.
The "Choice Movement" is all about that. Didn't you get the memo from Sandra Fluke ?
Oh, so it okay if only some feel pain.
How monstrous.
You can stab scissors in the brain of a baby up until the moment of delivery, so long as the mom feels it's in her best interest for "mental health".
Your "compromise consensus" has no basis in reality.
She will still have the right to do anything to own body that isn't protected by the Constitution.......but a simple change of when a person is protected by said Constitution...and Poof....No more ending human life at any point of development......
Then why did you even bother directing such a comment to me?
Yes, choice!
That's just it: they don't feel pain. I specifically said they do not feel pain when general abortions are performed.
How droll.
Do you actually believe that's how abortions are performed or permitted?
Neither does your apparent understanding of abortion procedures.
Did YOU Not make the original comment I commented on ?
Were YOU speaking for yourself........ or others.....?
If for others, why take it sooooo personally ?
Seems like it can't "die" within hours or any time if it was never alive.
That includes during pregnancy.
First the unborn would have to be legally deemed a person, something which some states have tried and failed to do.
And poof, there goes individual constitutional rights! Only countries with Draconian laws completely prohibit abortion.
Do you actually have a point to your nonsense, or are you just trying to troll?
A fetus' rights will NEVER supersede the rights of the woman it resides in....Women are NOT slaves to a fetus.
According to many religious persons, we're sinners as soon as we're conceived. So abortions are really just executions of guilty cells...
The careless whispers of a good cell
To the heart and mind
Ignorance is kind
There's no comfort in the truth
Pain is all you'll find
Guilty cells have got no rhythm
Though it's easy to pretend
I know you're not a fool...
I get it now.
When a question can't be answered 'cause it might mess up a specific ideology, go the favored "Troll" accusation argument.
No taxes are being used to fund abortions, so no one else is paying.
What if Lockheed Martin also offered pregnancy terminations at all of their plants and offices. The money they receive from the government to build military planes and weapons is never used to pay for those abortions. Do we stop buying the planes and weapons from them just because a side of the company was helping woman access a legal health service? I think that would be ridiculous to claim we should stop buying their products simply because of that.
The same is true of PP. The government purchases many health services for low income Americans like cancer screenings, women's health checkups, contraceptives and STD education and treatment, but none of the tax dollars go to providing any abortion services. So there shouldn't be any conflict. Sadly, bitter partisans who demand their right to force their religious beliefs or individual opinion about "uniqueness" on every other American are trying their best to strip women of the control over their own bodies.
OUCH !
Nice catch.
Your questions have been answered many many times. Just repeating them over and over doesn't make them a valid argument, it exposes you as a troll.
Sooooo…..EVERYONE ……. and I mean EVERYONE in this country...………..Pays for Insurance and any and all health matters themselves, due to the "#stayawayfrommyuterus" movement, all by their little lonesome ?
Sure ……..
Link ?
Unfortunately, there are those who want to make women slaves to an embryo/fetus. The woman's rights and autonomy are secondary, if they're even a concern at all.
they don't feel pain
Of course they do. It's basic science.
It's why surgeons administer anatheisa during surgeries performed on those unborn babies their mothers don't want to kill.
Why are you so afraid of facts?
you actually believe that's how abortions are performed or permitte
Abortions often involve stabbing or dismembering the baby.
Funny how the abortion cheerleaders can't deal with the reality of what an abortion actually entails.
Sounds like you only look for cartoon faces.
Ya got anything on the written word yet ?
'Sooooo…..EVERYONE ……. and I mean EVERYONE in this country...………..Pays for Insurance and any and all health matters themselves, due to the "#stayawayfrommyuterus" movement, all by their little lonesome ?
Sure …….'
WTF are you talking about? Do you know?
He's famous for the ItIsMe shuffle.
Did you read the comment I responded to, before making a comment ?
This is the Shuffle Dance !
Don't we ALL want to be famous one time or another ?
Here's what science says about that, according to JAMA : "the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks [the 3rd trimester]....Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques."
I just provided you with actual facts, from a credible scientific journal source.
Clearly you don't know how abortions are performed then! Most abortions are usually performed before 12 weeks, which can be accomplished pharmacologically, such as through the use of RU-486 or other like abortifacients. More invasive procedures may be required if gestation is farther along.
Funny how you clearly have no clue about abortions or science in general, but want to parrot pro-life misinformation.
Why not? What's wrong with a little emotion?
So is it your position that it is not sad when consideration is not given to human life? Is it your position that human life has no value? If so, what is your non-emotional argument that that we should value the right to choice over the life of a human being?
That doesn't say anything about whether a law is right or wrong. Once upon a time, most countries legalized slavery. That didn't make it right.
Those three statements can all be true. They are not mutually exclusive. The assertion that most abortions are drug-induced does not eliminate the possibility that many fetuses are stabbed and dismembered. You're arguing in percentage-type language but coming to absolute conclusions not supported by your own facts.
would you rather a mother not have control over her own body and be a slave to a fetus that is 3 weeks old just because she exercised her freedom of choice and decided to commit sexual acts but doesn't want to reproduce ? i was under the impression we had control over our own bodies - are you stating you want the government to dictate everything that is allowed concerning our bodies, like abortion ?
By their logic we should be out protesting the snow plows on our roads... All those unique snowflakes, murdered!
I want the government to protect human life.....life should take precedence over preference.
'would you rather a mother not have control over her own body and be a slave to a fetus that is 3 weeks old just because she exercised her freedom of choice and decided to commit sexual acts but doesn't want to reproduce ? i was under the impression we had control over our own bodies - are you stating you want the government to dictate everything that is allowed concerning our bodies, like abortion ?'
What it's all about Phoenyx13 is punishing those sluts who dared to have sex for pleasure and use birth control and it failed.
'are you stating you want the government to dictate everything that is allowed concerning our bodies, like abortion ?'
Yup
so you wish women to become slaves to a 3 week old fetus, meaning she no longer has any rights to her own body unless government dictates - correct ? with government protecting life in this instance - women lose their freedom. why are you willing to sacrifice women's freedoms over their own bodies ?
it all comes down to control and punishment for women daring to exercise their freedoms and committing sexual acts however they choose - like men currently do.
So you want a Nanny state when it comes to women's reproductive choices. You want to dictate what a woman does, got it......Ain't going to happen.
it's very odd... i'm told by the conservative minded that only the liberals want a Big Brother Government, or Nanny state, where the government decides what's best for you since they think you don't really know what's best for you - yet here are some conservative minded people advocating for the government to say "now that you are pregnant, you are a breeding mare, now be a good incubator and do as we say since we know better than you do what's best for you and will dictate your life just because you exercised your freedoms to commit sexual acts and your precautions against pregnancy failed". I guess the conservative minded are all about smaller government - until they aren't ?
If you give the government control over a woman once she's impregnated, what's to stop them from claiming they have control over the entire birth process? What's to limit their ability to incarcerate and physically restrain a woman against her will, arms and legs strapped to a bed, all because someone said they heard her talking about getting an abortion or taking the morning after pill? How would we be any different than what's depicted in the Handmaids tale?
Roe v Wade wasn't just about abortion, it was primarily about a woman's right to privacy. Strip that away and where does it end? Do we force women we suspect of being pregnant to undergo physical exams so we can "make sure" the rumor we heard about them being pregnant and not telling anyone didn't mean she was trying to terminate? Do we go through her emails and texts to see if she let anyone know she was pregnant or wasn't trying to find a back ally abortion?
What I think most anti-abortion advocates simply refuse to understand is that pushing abortion back into the shadows will only force us to address such privacy issues and it won't actually stop abortions.
If anti-abortion activists want to actually be effective they need to spend their time, money and energy taking care of those who are born and provide more free services for those living in poverty so they might not feel such a financial burden when thinking about starting a family. Imagine how an offer of free or low cost day care might be for a poor family struggling to make ends meet who finds out they're pregnant but can't afford to have the mother stay at home. I think if those people out in front of PP with their ill-informed signs spent their time offering services like that they would "save" far more fetuses than shoving pictures of late term abortions in women's faces when all they're going in there for is a cancer screening or to pick up their contraceptives.
Conservatives are against murder and believe government, even limited government, should protect agianst murder.
I guess liberals love Big Brother, except when it comes to infanticide. Who they kill is none of the government's business.
unny how you clearly have no clue about abortions or science in general,
What's funny is how dishonestly you argue because you can't rebut what I wrote
Surgeons do give anesthetics to unborn babies they don't intend to kill.
.Most abortions are usually performed before 12 weeks
Nice strawman! Did I ever say differently? Either learn to read or argue more honestly.
so you are stating that the conservative minded believe in a Nanny State or Big Brother Government so they can try to eliminate this form of what they consider murder ? how do you envision this Nanny State government for pregnant women ? will you control their sexual freedoms to control the possibility of pregnancies as well ? will you start advocating for controlling nature and human body processes to eliminate miscarriages as well (isn't that murder too ? happens in the same time period of abortions, doesn't it ?) ?
a 3 week old fetus (in my example i gave) is now an infant ? do you know when the majority of abortions take place ? do they take place before or after point of viability of the fetus ?
so far, the only ones advocating for Big Brother on this topic are the conservative minded - why do you suddenly love the government and think they know better than women what women should do with their bodies ? why do you want to sacrifice women's freedoms on controlling their own bodies and making their own medical decisions ?
If you know someone is killing infants, please call 911
i disagree - they actually do know this just like they know that banning all guns won't stop murder. this is simply an issue of control - they just seem to think that women aren't smart enough to know what to do with their bodies concerning medical decisions while they are pregnant.
BINGO!
It is a biological parasite that depends on her body to survive. She gets to make that decision if it continues to develop to full term.
Abortion has never been considered to be murder or infanticide, so drop the emotional hyperbole.
The mothers life and her decisions take priority over that of a fetus that isn't viable. We do not become 2nd class citizens when we get pregnant.
It was never alive. That is why it's called viability.
Absolute agreement. This is about conservative men and the church retaining control over women because they don't give a damn about the child or its quality of life once its born. They will oppose the very same right to privacy of women while they demand that they have the right to privacy from government interference into their lives and decisions.
Justice Scalia stated that we have the right to privacy on what is on our cell phones, and our DNA but he then said that there is no right to privacy on abortion. He was a hypocrite of the highest order because if a cell phone has privacy rights then most certainly our medical decisions do.
Scalia also said that it was permissible to execute an innocent man, as long as they received their full 6th and 7th Amendment rights/appeals but then he claimed that we have the right to life. He was a waste of oxygen wrapped around the cross. It's no surprise that conservatives love him.
Do you check the meanings of words? The definition of the verb "to die" (which you used) is literally to "stop living." To quote you:
Ergo, if it will die, it must have been living.
Unborn offspring are not parasites. They are simply offspring. They perpetuate the species. The are literally keeping the species alive.
Speaking of species:
And another:
It wouldn't even be accurate to describe the relationship adjectively as "parasitic."
Maternal and fetal genomes interplay through phosphoinositol 3-kinase(PI3K)-p110α signaling to modify placental resource allocation
Parasitic relationships do not involve a cooperative interaction to allocate resources.
You think conservative men are in control of the church?? That's hilarious.
If conservatives didn't try to stop everything to do with contraception, insurance and abortions in the first place, women would be able to take care of things before a few cells grew. Just spare us the mansplaining about why your nose has a right to be up our uteri. WE DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU DO SO STOP TRYING TO USURP OUR OWN BELIEFS AND VALUES. Your people think money is more important than life, they say it (Pat Robertson), they legislate it (cut poverty and medical programs) and then try to assume the moral high ground. Just stay the hell out of our business.
What Christian, Jewish, or Islamic sect is matriarchal? Was there a female Pope elected while I was sleeping? The Anglican church leader is a older white guy. Obviously the Southern Baptists and the Mormons are lead by old white men. It is very controversial or even heretical to even have a female Imam.
Biologically a fetus is a parasite that relies on nutrients and blood from the mother's body to survive. If it is removed from the mothers body before the age of independent viability it does not continue to grow. That fact applies to all mammals.
The fact that they are offspring doesn't change that fact.
Emotion does not lend itself to rational discussion or logical argument. People become too easily swayed and ignore or downplay the actual merits of an argument. It's also a desperate play to curry favor towards one's argument when they lack anything of substance to logically support it.
Consideration should be given to the human life that already exists, is born, and has autonomy and rights. Namely, the woman in question.
"Value" is subjective.
Simple: an already born woman with rights and autonomy is a human being. An embryo/fetus is not yet one. There is also no logical way to protect or preserve the rights of a woman if the embryo/fetus were to be given rights. Essentially, to give a fetus right means restricting or removing the already established rights of the woman, including her right to choose.
Yep. And laws banning or severely restricting abortion is wrong too.
Pharmacological abortions are more numerous than invasive ones. Whether a fetus is "stabbed and dismembered" is irrelevant. More invasive abortion procedures are medical procedures and sometimes necessary.
I'm well aware of the facts surrounding abortion procedures. It changes nothing.
You claimed a fetus feels pain. I cited a scientific journal that disagrees with that.
Nope. Simple fact.
And yet you specifically focus on "stabbing and dismembering" the fetus (which you also erroneously called a "baby") while ignoring more common and less invasive abortion procedures. Perhaps you need to be more honest first!
Abortion is not considered murder.
I guess you have nothing but sweeping generalizations.
I don't do anything anything to stop contraception. I'm a fan of contraception. Try again.
Spare me your meaningless posturing and misandry by trying to dismiss my right to express an opinion on the basis of my sex.
Protecting innocent life is everyone's business.
Another person's choices and medical decisions is no one else's business!
Merely your opinion.
You seriously need to get educated about biology. At the very least, you should have the integrity to acknowledge definitions of words that are supplied for you. You eagerly ignore the most basic facts because they thwart your politics. You also ignored recent science demonstrating the cooperative relationship between mother and fetus in the allocation of resources - a process that is contradictory to parasitism.
And you have the nerve to dismiss others' opinions out-of-hand by accusing them of being "emotional."
It doesn't preclude it, though. The whole debate over abortion boils down to what people care about most. I think for many people, the debate of the relative values of choice over life are based on emotion. This can certainly change as we get into the details of policy and arguments may supported or defeated based on more scientific factors. Still, there is nothing wrong with an argument that says, "If you care about X (emotion), then you should support Policy Y because . . . reasons."
You have explained your position, but we already knew that. What you haven't explained is why the choice of the adult should supersede the life of the fetus. I can't really think of another context off the top of my head (outside of defense of self or others) where the choice of one person that causes the death of another is allowed.
How is this statement relevant to the discussion of abortion?
How does the fetus biologically benefit the mother during the 9 months of gestation, if it isn't a parasite during that time period? If the umbilical cord is severed or the placenta detaches, the fetus dies. Medically that is known as a miscarriage.
The entire argument about being pro-life is an emotional argument with conservative religious belief at its core. Politicians love it because its easy to drag religious conservative voters around by the nose when they mention it, despite the fact that it doesn't benefit those same by trying to ban it. The same goes for LGBT bans. The concept that not all Christian sects agree with abortion bans idea seems to be lost on pro-lifers.
I linked you to a study, but I'm not your tutor. Do a little work on your own.
Again you ignore facts in front of you.
This assumes that the mother wants the pregnancy to continue to term. That is not always true.
That's the problem.
That's the problem.
Arguments are best if based on science or rational thinking.
Unless the reasons are sound and logical, then it's probably more irrational, especially if emotion is in play. Emotion doesn't make for a good argument, and probably even less of a good or rational outcome.
I was quite clear as to why. My position as you say is also the reason. Perhaps I should include another caveat: Making a fetus more "valuable" than an already born adult means the woman becomes relegated to essentially a second class citizen, forced to provide her body for the benefit of another. The proverbial "slave to a fetus." her right to choose and her autonomy are essentially and forcibly stripped away. No one is required nor should be forced to provide their body (which would also diminish their autonomy) to benefit another. That is a personal choice, much like having an abortion is.
An embryo/fetus is not considered a person.
I didn't say they were matriarchal. That doesn't mean women don't control them.
"Led". No. "Figureheaded" by old white men, sure. But modern church is all about the women.
55% of protestants are women. 73% of women attend church once a month, and 40% attend weekly. Nothing happens in church without their endorsement.
All those chastity rules? Simply to protect the economic interests of married women from other women. Or do you imagine men actually want a world with less sex in it?
Prohibitions on drinking? There wasn't a "Men's Temperance Movement".
Prohibitions on homosexuality? Hell yes. Threat to married women too horrific to imagine. It's bad enough when your husband leaves you for a 25 year old hot blonde. It's worse when the blonde's name is Gary. How will you ever face another WMU luncheon again?
I never said you have no right to express your opinion. I said you have no right to interfere with women's rights to act on theirs on something that impacts them. I reject your 'values', but not your right to live what you believe. Just your right to stop others from doing the same. Get the difference?
I'm not interfering with anything. I'm only expressing an opinion and having a discussion. You called it "mansplaining" and told me to stop. So, in your mind, I don't get to opine on a topic because I'm a man.
Again, no one - especially me - is interested in placing their nose anywhere on or in you. (that's a joke). But you are either incapable or unwilling to see the motivation of the other side. If you had a baby in your house and you were about to kill it, no one would care about your privacy or property rights. They would bust down the door to save the child.
Similarly, people see an unborn fetus as a live person. You don't have to agree with that, and we can talk about whether or not it's valid. Nevertheless, that is how they see it. Can you at least concede that if they do see it that way, their desire to protect that life is understandable?
Question for you: Do you advocate abortion with no limits? Is abortion ok at 9 months?
I'm not suggesting an emotional argument. I'm talking about goals people are emotional about. There's no science that says a woman's choice should supersede a life in utero. That's an emotional value judgment.
How much power do the women of the Catholic church, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims have? Those churches teach that women are to be subservient baby makers and only speak when spoken to. Even Catholic nuns have very little power in the church. Women in conservative religions have almost no power, despite their numbers in the pews.
You have some very strange ideas. Religions also teach chastity before marriage. Religious belief is about controlling people. Nobody forces you to believe and you can throw off those illogical chains that you have accepted.
Carrie Nation was a religious loon who thought that she knew how to address the problem of alcoholism and alcohol caused violence against women.
This might be the most assinine comment that I have read on this forum in over a month, and you have a lot competition for that ignoble award. If she married a closeted gay guy that is her problem. People are either born LGBT or they aren't. They arent and won't change to switch from being hetero to being gay because of a SCOTUS decision. What threat is there to women by lesbians existing with equal rights?
The fetus isn't a person with rights of its won until it can survive on its own outside the mother. You are desperately trying to use emotional arguments to give a biological parasite rights and take them away from the mother, who is alive. When the fetus is alive then it has equal rights, and not a minute before. I don't care how much you pray about it these are the legal and biological facts.
That's merely the law. That doesn't explain why it's right or wrong, best or worst.
The same BS argument from you for the 500th time. You have no argument so you resort to accusing others of being emotional.
Why?
And I'm saying emotion is more problematic, especially when discussing or making arguments. This is especially true when people want to make or force their "goals" onto others. Ideally, any "goal" is achieved rationally and not emotionally.
In utero contents does not supersede a woman's choice either. If anything, science better supports such a position.
No, it's a woman's personal choice. Some may come to such a choice emotionally. Some can come to it more rationally. Regardless of how emotional one wants to get over it, it's still a woman's choice and no one else's business.
Because why?
I have asked you repeatedly and you cannot give me a scientific reason why a life in the womb is less important than a woman's right to choose to terminate that life. In no other context (other than both lives are on the line) do we ever give a person the choice to end another person's life.
The law says that a fetus isn't a person until it is living separately from the mother's body. I've told you this numerous times and yet you ignore it. Roe v. Wade is still the law in the US when we are discussing abortion and voluntary abortion is still, legal until the 22/24th week. What your bible says or what you believe it irrelevant in US secular courts.
It is illogical to take away civil rights from a mother, that is an independent person, and give rights to a fetus that is wholly dependent on her to survive. She becomes a second class person to a biological parasite when that happens. You might as well give legal rights to a cancer tumor as you do to a fetus because both are dependent on the host to survive.
Because it's not relevant to the discussion. We are discussing what should be, not what is.
So your ability to take of yourself determines your right to live?
I won't continue to debate you if you insist on basing your arguments on lies about science.
A fetus is not alive until it is born. The fact that it will be a person at that time is irrelevant, until it reaches the age of viability at 27 weeks of gestation. religious people tried this same emotional argument with their personhood nonsense and the courts wisely shot it down. A mother is a person with full legal rights that cannot be taken away and given to a parasite that is de[pedant on her to survive when she is pregnant. You are trying to put the logical, legal and biological cart before the horse with this emotional nonsense.
If you give a fetus rights and she miscarries she could be charged with murder because of a genetic abnormality that is no fault if her own. That idea only makes sense to people who have rejected both biological facts and logic. This entire idea is embracing emotional ideas, legislating religious beliefs that are not based in fact and rejecting reality.
If men got pregnant we would not be having this conversation because the idea of fetal personhood would only be mentioned by comics and satirists.
Don't try to be obtuse! A baby is dependent on the care of others to survive, but a healthy child is not a biological parasite of it's mothers body. Once we gain those legal rights we have them until we are dead, even if we are sick and rely on medical machines to survive.
This is a insult. How am I lying about science?
That's like saying women have no power over what appears in Vogue or Cosmopolitan. Watch how fast it changes when they stop buying it.
Why do you have such difficulty expressing yourself without being insulting or abusive?
They teach chastity outside of marriage. Why do you suppose that is? Since when do men want less sex?
Have you not noticed that men don't need religion to control people?
It's not about belief. It's about controlling societal reaction to behavior...specifically behavior that married women find threatening.
And tens of thousands of women followed her.
Only because you don't pay attention once your emotions kick in.
Which makes it less humiliating somehow? Which makes the catty women at church less likely to be hateful? Do you actually know any churchgoing women?
Not proven, and WTF does that have to do with this discussion anyway? Or is angry leftist claptrap just automatic and uncontrollable when certain topics come up?
The fact is that these women have a social hierarchy where their pecking order is established by what kind of wives and mothers they are, developed over the centuries when a woman's economic and physical security was directly dependent upon her husband's ability to provide them for her. Or did you imagine women want to marry doctors because stethoscopes are sexy?
When their husband leaves them, not only is it the ultimate failure of their life's efforts of building a family and a home, but it's the destruction of their economic security. When he leaves them for another man, that's even worse...according to their rules. Whether you approve or not, those are their rules.
Churches are not going to change because women don't approve of them. They have barely changed in the last 2000 years. The best way to control people if with a form of control that people don't see on their wrists or ankles. Most women and men will not stop going to church because they disagree with it. They are brainwashed to believe that not going to church will both make them a social outcast and punch a fast ticket to hell. They usually believe that any problem they have with the church or the minister is because of their own moral failures.
I am sorry that you feel that way. I am not trying to be condescending or verbally abusive.
Religion is about social control beyond political borders. Religious belief doesn't need prisons and police to enforce them when the chains that bind you are psychological. Once religious belief becomes physical is is on the fast road to the end because people can see how they are being held.
Religion is much more effective way to control people because it doesn't involve visual physical restraint or force to rebel against.
When exactly did married women gain power in the Christian religion? Women can complain but that doesn't mean that the church is going to change in any meaningful way. What power do nuns have in the Catholic church??or women in the Mormon chuch? Islam, Eastern Orthadox and Judaism still segregate men from women in many sects.
That is an insult. I am not emotional. I am very sarcastic and cynical but I am not an emotional thinker.
Why should LGBT people have fewer rights because a woman married a closeted gay man? It is her problem and others cannot be forced to suffer because of her mistake. The possibility that he married a closeted lesbian or a bisexual seems to be lost on you.
Another personal attack.
I've dated Drs. They aren't the prize that society seem to automatically think that they are. I told him to hit the road because I wasn't going to be his pet or be at his beck and call.
It sounds like they needed to spend more time finding the proper man rather than to blame others, including LGBT people for their mistake. You should be able to provide for yourself so you aren't at the mercy of others in your life. If as guy is going to cheat the fact that he can or can't marry his lover of either gender is irrelevant. I may be blonde but I'm not stupid.
Am I being too illogical and emotional in my assessment?
They do it all the time. Lose too many women and they can't pay the bills.
Sure. Right. The Church at Corinth looked just like this....
It's been Democratic Party practice for at least 50 years.
Which explains why church attendance has stayed consistent for the past 50 years. Oh....wait....hang on.......
Really? And you know this how, exactly? You obviously don't go to church.
I feel like an idiot for missing this in my previous reply to either of your previous posts, so I'll make up for it now.
Its far more likely that their unfaithful husband is heterosexual so do you also want to require that unmarried women like myself should be forced to wear a Christian burka so their husbands wont be temped to stray? We wouldn't want them to face any social embarrassment or loss of income at Nordstroms or Neiman Marcus if their husband took off with a 40 something homewrecker like myself.
s/.
The Catholic church has closed many churches but they didn't change the message. Pope Frank is not popular with many Catholics and his successor will likely be more in line with Pope Benedict.
.
Has the message changed, despite putting a new image on the wrapper?
Deflection.
Conservative churches have seen little change.
Even you know that I am a secular humanist. I have many religious friends and relatives. I hear what they have to say.
Of course you are.
It's more than that. It's a means for the physically weak to control the strong.
Absolutely. And for some it instills a fear of something more powerful than they are.
Hundreds of years ago.
LOL. The women who control it don't complain. It changes when they want it to. As the movie says..."the man may be the head, but the woman is the neck, and she can turn the man any way she wants."
You have some very strange ideas.
Didn't suggest they did. Reading with your feelings again?
Since when does that matter?
What a silly comparison. The fact that men and women socialize differently seems utterly lost on you.
This might be the most assinine (sic) comment that I have read on this forum in over a month
They're not the prize. Their checkbook is.
Blaming the victim now? Tsk tsk. But you're right, they should have. Try to tell that to one after their husband has left them. Hint....wear protective clothing while doing it.
Sure. But you can't presume fears are rational.
Don't give them any ideas. Seriously. Don't give them any ideas.
You're being eloquently sarcastic, but that's exactly what they're afraid of.
Exactly. And most Catholics are women.
You tell me.
I am the only atheist in my very Catholic family and Im about as popular as Bob Evans in Jerusalem among many people. The Catholic guilt and programming are very hard to overcome, if you bought into it in the first place.
I imagine that makes for some very interesting holiday dinners.
Religious belief isn't rational.
I've already heard similar ideas. I work in a very male field (engineering) and I've had many comments about work discussion their husbands. I heard that I was told to be fired because she didn't want her hubby working with me. I didn't have the heart to that her that he had a GF or the perverted porn that he likes.
I have no interest in attending their back-stabbing holiday festivals. I send them a card and ignore everything else. I prefer it that way.
How can a baby die if he or she is not alive before you say they are alive?
Nobody gets an abortion at 9 months unless something is direly medically wrong. And if men would butt the fuck out of women's health business in the first place, there would be far fewer abortions for any reason. But instead they prefer to treat fertility as something apart from the rest of their physiology, making it about sex/sluttiness/carelessness, making contraception something politicians, employers and religions have a right to interfere in. (Not so with viagra and male physiology) So I say if everybody butts out of our business there is no need for theoretical questions. Because no woman I know would ever have an abortion at 9 months for shits and giggles. It just shows how little you know.
No. But neither is identity politics. Neither is buying lottery tickets, or studying astrology. Neither are probably 40% of the things we do as parents as we raise our children.
They are going to defend their turf any and every way they can. Church is just one tool.
I should have been more precise. The fetus would not continue to grow and develop outside the uterus and would die. It will continue to grow and develop in the uterus but it isn't yet a self-sustaining and independent life form. We don't know that we are alive for approximately or develop self-awareness for 14-16 months after birth but we are developed enough to be self-sustaining in a normal atmosphere, which isn't the situation before 27-30 weeks of gestation.
What are identity politics?
Someone needs to tell them that their husband isn't their property or their pet. This possessiveness is part of their problem.
The baby is able to live outside the womb after 6 months, so there would be no need, except in a medical emergency that would not allow for a birth. My older sister was born at 32 weeks, in the late 1950s.
The current ruling on Roe' limits voluntary abortions at approximately 20-22 weeks. Most are performed before that.
Why not? I keep seeing people say that the life in the womb has no value or rights over the decision making rights of the woman. If that's so, then there should be no limit. I'm just following the position to its logical conclusion.
If you don't agree with that, then what should the limit be? Why?
Brainless support of a political side and ideology, regardless of how stupid their ideas are. Believing a border wall will stop illegal immigration, or believing single payer health insurance won't be a $4trillion cluster fuck, simply because Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow says so. While we're on that topic, believing Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow are different.
Not property. Not pet. Sense of security, which is much more important.
And since when did telling someone a character flaw was part of their problem actually help one iota in changing their view of that problem?
Why are you ignoring the many instances when the "age of viability" has been mentioned in this thread?
Your husbands isn't your security blanket, and if you married him because of his income you deserve to be divorced. Its a relationship and you can't stop working on it and treating others as people, just because you have kids and a career. That is when problems start because people don't feel appreciated. IMO.
Some people seem to be immune to reality. I wouldn't put it that bluntly to her face, but I'm also not a psychologist and I wouldn't want to be one. I like logic and people scare the Hades out of me because so few of them are logical. I'll stop my rant now before I hurt someone's emotions.
Not your decision.
My goodness. And they say church ladies are judgemental...
You're not wrong. But people don't always act the way they should. The fact that 2/3 of Americans are overweight is excellent evidence of the disconnect between what we do and what we know we should do.
No doubt.
We have found what appears to be a long term point of agreement.
It's not the basis of a healthy relationship. I have experience on both sides of it.
I hope that I didn't injure someone's feelings. I might have missed that chapter of Emily Post.
Other than the drawing of and clinging to arbitrary legal lines, why should I pay it any attention at all?
Your arguments are circular. i.e. current abortion law is valid because age of viability is relevant. And the age of viability standard was invented by the law, so it's valid. We learn nothing from such an argument.
Your argument is both a false analogy and a strawman to twist my words into an argument that you can attack with emotion-laden beliefs.
Those lines are drawn by medical science on when the fetus is viable living outside of the mother's body.
BTW, Didn't you claim to be a lawyer a few weeks ago?
There you go again.
How can it be emotional when I rationally explained the multiple logical fallacies contained in your previous reply? Your entire argument is based on emotion but in an attempt to make yourself feel better about your fallacious arguments you are accusing everyone else of being emotional.
You have intentionally misused the terms fetus and baby to appeal to emotion, but they are in no way synonyms. We cannot base our laws and our rights on emotions and religious beliefs without trampling both the religious and secular rights of other people who believe differently as well as the religions they are or are not a member of. Once we codify a religious belief as secular law then everyone who is not a member of that religion has fewer rights and the society is inheranty unequal. That inequalty does not create a stable and free society.
I never said it was. Do you read your own comments? You accuse others of being "emotional" all the time. You do it to dismiss their arguments rather than engaging with the content. All I did was point it out for the umpteenth time.
This argument of yours is circular.
Who do you believe should determine the age of fetal viability that limits voluntary abortions, if you don't want it to be determined by medical science?
Indeed, you are right. [deleted] That we are using science on them instead of religion has pushed some over the emotional edge.
Nobody is pro-abortion, despite your emotional strawman. The argument is that the woman gets to make her own reproductive decisions instead of having them forced on her by the government or religious institutions. A fetus isn't a baby, despite your emotional claims. If you were truly scientific you would know the difference between those two words and would stop using incorrect terminology.
There is nothing scientific about your forced-birth stance.
Because a fetus is not yet an autonomous person with rights. The woman is.
That's a different question than asking my why abortion is a woman's right and no one else's business. Science also doesn't deal with the "value" assigned to a "life." Science simply explains the gestational process. Scientifically, an embryo/fetus is not yet a person. It is simply in the process of becoming one, with no guarantee that it will reach that end either. To use an analogy, a car on the assembly is not yet a car and neither does it have any real value until it's assembled and on the dealership lot.
A fetus isn't a person. Therefor, the actual person (the woman) has actual rights, including the right to an abortion.
Who's to say what "should be?" That's a subjective determination.
And that's fine.
Wrong. Age of viability was determined by medical science. The law used that as the limit where elective abortions are permissible. Abortions after that time depends on medical necessity or circumstances.
What is this? Your version of "I'm rubber, you're glue?"
I didn't say scientists should not determine the age of viability. The question is: why is this line the best line to draw? That's not a medical question.
Why on Earth not? If the fetus has no rights over the woman's choices, then why would there be a problem?
There it is again!
And again!
A fetus isn't a baby, eh? That's a bold claim, so I thought I would look up the word "fetus." Here is the definition (I bolded the important part for you):
Imagine that! A fetus is a baby. It just hasn't been born yet.
Yes. That's the law. Why should that continue to be the law?
I was not aware that there is a scientific definition for "person." What is the definition and how was it arrived at?
Scientifically, when does it become a person? You might think this is not a serious question, but for me, it's the central question. The crucial question.
Actually every part of a car has value. If the people at the factory forgot to put on wheels, it would still be a car. It would just be a car without wheels. In the same way, a person born with no legs is still a person.
Sometimes your mind is working in strange and mysterious ways. I like it.
Is that part of a song or poem somewhere?
I already answered that in my previous post 5.1.105. Making a fetus a person with rights means forcibly removing the rights of the woman in question and relegating her to the proverbial "slave to the fetus". So why should the law be changed?
Here is the scientific definition/description of a fetus:
The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth. Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. The fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development.
In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn.
Note that the term "person" is not used anywhere in that definition or description.
Not quite. See previous statement.
And I just provided an actual scientific definition.
At birth, both legally and scientifically!
I said the care doesn't have the same real value as a fully assembled one. And individual parts does not a car make until it's all assembled.
I'm wondering that too. There shouldn't be a problem. But there's only a problem because some people think a fetus should have more rights or value over the woman in question. So they whine and complain about it and try to make it their business and so here we are.
Because it's the best possible compromise and middle ground between the two opposing sides regarding abortion.
Because in no other context do we allow a person to make a choice for their convenience that causes the end of someone else's life. Religious or secular, every just society holds - and always has held - itself consistently to that standard.
Then you still haven't scientifically defined "person." You implied there was such a definition when you wrote,
You cannot say that scientifically a fetus is not a person if you cannot define "person" scientifically.
Again, you ignore facts given to you. You have the same problem you had with "person." You cannot say a fetus is not a baby if you cannot define "baby." The definition I supplied for you (which I got simply by googling the word) says that a fetus is an unborn baby. You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts.
You have not provided a scientific definition that says a fetus becomes a person at birth.
No, you said,
You're also just restating your analogy while ignoring my rebuttal.
So I'll restate my response: If they forget the seatbelts, it's still a car. It's just a car without seatbelts. We do not measure the worth of a human being based on whether or not he or she has all of their "parts."
I agree with that. It's clearly a compromise. But it's a compromise based on a medieval understanding of pregnancy and fetal development. I believe our modern understanding of reproductive science demands we revisit what the appropriate line of compromise should be.
Many people used to believe African people were subhuman. Now we know better. People believed there were jobs women couldn't do. Now we know better. We used to think homosexuality was a mental disorder. Now we know better.
Education has radically changed public policy and the law on a variety of issues. We should at least be open to the idea of adjusting our abortion laws for the same reason.
There is no "someone" yet. Convenience is just as valid a reason as medical or something else. The actual someone gets to make that determination, as it is their life, their body, and their choice. Society generally holds that to be the case, even if some dissent.
Spare me the semantics. I provided a scientific definition which does not state a fetus is a person. Neither have you provided any scientific (or legal) definition which states a fetus is a person.
A fetus is not scientifically defined as a baby. Scientifically, a fetus is the stage of gestation from 8 weeks to birth. After birth, it's a baby. Specifically a neonate. Your definition is just a general definition at best.
I specifically provided a definition of a fetus in my previous post. I even put it in italics for you. Perhaps you should educated yourself as to the actual scientific terms of fetus and newborn.
Again you misinterpret what I said. I said it doesn't have any real value. I didn't say it doesn't have ANY value whatsoever. So my analogy stands. And what "rebuttal?"
Then it's a defective car that should not have come off the assembly line. Your previous response was about missing wheels, not missing seatbelts.
Since there is no human being yet, that statement is emotional irrelevance.
The abortion issue and its laws have already been revisited numerous times over the years. So there's nothing to revisit. Medical science currently states the gestational age of viability is approximately 24 weeks. That has not significantly changed, and is not likely to. So the compromise stands.
That has no bearing on our understanding of embryology, gestation, or viability. So what's your point?
Sure, just as soon as new information is discovered. Our current knowledge supports current abortion laws. Those who can't accept that or take an emotional approach to are the ones who want abortion laws changed.
How do you know?
You mean stop quoting you? Stop responding to your actual words?
You're the one who made a claim based on science that a person did or did not exist, so the burden is on you.
Uh, what? A "general" definition is still a definition. You just don't like the definition because it messes with your politics and things you thought were true. We call that cognitive dissonance.
People made cars for decades without seatbelts. They were still cars and not considered defective.
Once again you ran out of thoughts so you just decided to accuse me of being emotional. You really really don't want to face facts, do you? Have you considered that that might be an emotion? Look in the mirror a little.
You have been asked multiple times to stop simply repeating this fact and explain why this is the best place to draw the line between permissible and impermissible abortions. It's pretty clear you can't or are unwilling to do so, so we may have to stop. I hope some day you become open-minded enough to reexamine your beliefs based on new evidence.
I already explained this. We learn new things and we change the law based on that new knowledge. We do it all the time, but you don't even want to consider it for abortion. Why? Not facts. Not science. I hate to do this to you, but I think it has to be emotion.
Good quality, real-time ultrasound wasn't used much on pregnant women until the 1980s, and really not routinely until the 90s - well after Roe v. Wade. This technology reveals signs of life for expectant mother well before the age of viability. That's information a person might want before making the decision to abort, but the Left has consistently resisted efforts to require ultrasounds for that very reason.
Fiber optic technology allowing for color photography is even more recent.
The old standard was based on the mother's ability to feel the fetus moving. That doesn't happen for several weeks after heart and brain activity begin. That is new information.
In your opinion. The fact is that the law (which is 45 years old at this point) is not and cannot be based on current knowledge.
You're the only one taking an "emotional approach." Your arguments in favor of abortion are circular at best, i.e. it's right because it's the law and it's the law because it's right. When presented with facts, you deliberately reject them, but not on substance. And when I hold you accountable for your own words by quoting you, you accuse me of quibbling over semantics.
Why do you assume there's a "someone?"
more like stop misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I'm actually saying.
And I already explained it to you.
But it is not specific to the situation. That's why I provided an actual scientific definition.
You must be projecting, especially since my definition contradicts yours.
And now they are. Go figure.
No accusation. Just simple assessment.
Speak for yourself. I already provided facts.
I already explained that too.
It's also clear you're just trying to be obtuse and argue for argument's sake.
I have made no mention of my beliefs. And I already explained what the current evidence/facts say. When you have new evidence, then present it and I will take it into consideration.
What new knowledge regarding abortion or abortion laws are you referring to?
HAHAHAHAHAHA [deep breath] HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Wow, that's a good one.
Abortion arguments have been made well after Roe, even into the 80's and 90's. That's about 30 years ago too.
"Life" isn't the issue here. Viability is also unchanged. It doesn't matter if "life" is detected or not. That doesn't change the age of viability, and by extension, abortion laws.
Are you suggesting a woman doesn't? Or doesn't know they are pregnant with a "life" when contemplating an ultrasound?
Because it's unnecessary. It's also a transparent attempt to appeal to a woman's emotions and try to influence her judgement in that regard. Ultrasounds are good for monitoring gestational progress and development. Why would it be needed if a woman chooses to abort? Seems rather pointless.
That also doesn't change the point of viability or abortion laws.
Nope. Just fact!
Abortion rights have been heard and reaffirmed since Roe. Current knowledge supports that, especially where viability is concerned. That has not changed.
Not even a little. I have presented facts regarding abortion and abortion laws.
That's good enough for my arguments. The law is also based on science. I haven't seen you present any compelling argument as to why abortion laws should be changed to limit or restrict current abortion limits, other than placing some subjective value on "life."
What "facts" would those be? So far, you've been factually bankrupt and have been corrected numerous times now.
More like misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I say. It certainly doesn't change anything, much less current law and scientific knowledge.
Imagine you were going to build a kit car and you ordered the drivers seat first and it was delivered to your driveway in a box. Your wife pulls into the driveway not knowing the seat was there and runs it over. Did she just total your new kit car? Would an insurance company pay you for the actual cash value of a fully assembled kit car? No. Of course not, all you lost was the seat. A zygote isn't a "human being", a fetus isn't a "human being". They are stages of "human development" but they are not equal to the value of what rolls off the production line after 9 months.
92% of all abortions occur at or before 12 weeks, like barely a single axle set on the production line. Hitting the red "stop" button now and allowing the customer to cancel their order helps keep that family from being forced to buy whatever rolls off the line when they realize they simply can't afford it, forcing more people into poverty, forcing more cars onto the already overcrowded roads, all to appease PETPBC "People for the Ethical Treatment of Partially Built Cars". That family will likely want to buy a car someday, and I hope they do, but I think not giving them the choice of when to buy it, especially the woman through whom the car is painfully delivered, is beyond cruel, PETPBC be damned.
A fetus is not a person and it does not become one until it is born and living independently from the mother. The idea of fetal personhood idea was roundly destroyed by the courts. Everything else in your argument is emotional pleading.
Why would any woman choose to get pregnant and have an abortion on purpose? Are you this dense or is this a plan to play devil's advocate as a way to oppose abortion when I reply that woman do not want to have an abortion? Either way your game isn't working. There is nothing about your argument isn't emotional but you think that you can call others emotional as a way to deflect attention from your own emotional ideas.
Try to focus on the critical concept in that definition The fetus becomes a baby once it is born, and not a minute sooner. If the act of being born wasn't the critical difference between a fetus and baby we would use the same word, but obviously we do not. Don't try to ignore that concept if /when you reply to me.
If a fetus becomes a baby there is a Pandora's box of hellish ideas that could happen to the mother. If she has a miscarriage does she get charged with manslaughter, despite the fact that a miscarriage is no fault of her own? We are not second-class citizens because of your religious idiocy and the fact that we have a uterus. My secular rights do not come from the approval of your beliefs.
Yes it does, because the medieval standard of quickening was not about viability. In the 16th century, there was no way a fetus was viable at 23 or 24 weeks. The standard they used was about detecting life.
Sometimes people don't appreciate the truth of a situation or the potential consequence of their actions until they are actually faced with the physical reality of it. For many expectant parents, the notion that they will be responsible for a person really hits home for the first time when they see that ultrasound.
Yeah, imagine that! Actually having to consider the moral consequences of your actions! What a concept! It's much easier to kill an unborn baby (or anyone for that matter) if you don't have to face the fact that they're a living person. If you can dehumanize the unborn (or anyone for that matter) the way you do, it's not even a problem. It's just the same as getting a cavity filled at the dentist. No biggie.
And rejected out of hand facts that don't support your position.
Wow, that's just a lie. Sorry, but it is.
That's fine. When is it a human being? How do you know? It's a thing you'd want to get right, wouldn't you say?
When it is born. This question has been answered multiple times and still you ask.
That is not the standard of determining viability. Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities. Viability is also determined by fetal weight, crown-to-heel length, and gestational age. Quickening was not used as a measure in abortion cases. Even abortions permissible under Roe was limited to trimester age. Subsequent abortion cases have only reaffirmed Roe and associated medical science as a measuring stick.
That just proves my point that an ultrasound is just an attempt to emotionally sway one's judgement. But many people also know what is entailed with a pregnancy and abortion, and it changes nothing for them.
Morality is subjective. And it's not always a factor when one decided to abort or not. Any "consequences" is for the woman to bear. But she still has the choice to abort or not.
No such thing as an unborn baby. That's an oxymoron. Neither is it yet a person. Attempting to anthropomorphize a fetus is both disingenuous and an emotional appeal.
More emotional tripe.
That's right, it's not a biggie! Someone having an abortion might think it is or they might not. But that's up to them to make that determination, not for you!
Because my position is stronger with better, more current, and more scientifically accurate "facts" than yours! Your claim of quickening being the measure for viability when abortion cases were heard is just one such "fact" that you are wrong about!
Not even a little. A review of our dialogue shows that too.
Birth! What's so hard to understand about that?
You're only support for abortion is consistently "that's the law." That's a crappy argument and since it's all you have, I'm not interested in further debate with you on the topic. It's intellectually dull.
I have asked you several times to refrain from this disrespectful tactic and you persist. Just another reason to ignore you.
The question was not directed to you so you have no business complaining about me asking it of another person. Mind your own business.
Isn't that enough?
The only argument you seem to have is "why" and something about "life."
Much like your posts!
It seems you have persisted in emotional appeals. Your claims about dehumanizing a fetus is evidence of that, among other things.
Then don't post on a public forum if you don't want others to reply to you!
The same can be said to you or anyone else who thinks one's abortion choice is somehow their business.
Look who is talking Mr. Buttinski!
Well it is the law. I'd rather a dead zygote/fetus than a dead woman if abortion were to go back under ground.
What is the problem and why is it anyone else's business what a woman does with her own body and what may reside in it.
It wasn't just coat hangers used pre-Roe. Bicycle pumps, knitting needles, syringes, bleach, lye, other chemicals, throwing themselves down stairs, having someone punch them in the stomach, etc, etc, etc,.
I do not want to see women so desperate to rid themselves of an unwanted pregnancy to have to resort to these methods ever again.
I know people don't care and want to PUNISH a woman for having a abortion.
Women can make their own reproductive choices.
until I see a long list of anti-choicers willing to have unwanted fetuses implanted in them, they can go piss up a rope
I do try to be patient with you Gordy, but you either don't understand the discussion or . . . well, I don't know what your deal is, frankly. I never said Quickening was the standard of viability. I said it was the reason that viability is the standard.
Yes, I have said that. I don't know why you keep on about it. I see it as a good thing. You are afraid of it.
That's fine. That's not a reason to avoid doing it.
Murder is pretty universally considered to be both illegal and immoral.
Again you ignore facts that have been presented to you.
Then logically, you endorse abortion in the 9th month. I think that's sick, but at least it's consistent.
I have asked you several times not to engage in this disrespectful tactic. It's not intellectually honest. It's just an attack on the other person. It doesn't promote debate or learning. It's just an attempt to claim intellectual superiority and shame others into not speaking their minds. You seem unable or unwilling to engage in a respectful conversation, so we are done.
And I proved you wrong!
How is emotional manipulation a good thing? Not to mention it's an unnecessary procedure, not guaranteed to change someone's mind, and only adds to expenses. Those are not good things.
The reason to have an abortion or not rests with the woman in question. There is no legitimate reason to perform an ultrasound prior to an abortion.
Abortion isn't murder. That's a fact!
Speak for yourself. You ignore actual scientific terminology.
Sure, why not?
Sounds emotional.
And yet, you keep doing it, as epistte and I already pointed out.
Not at all. It's an assessment of the quality of one's argument.
We don't need to claim "intellectual superiority." Our posts already makes it abundantly obvious.
I accept your surrender then.
Is that how sexual intercourse works?
As I have said to others, I don't dispute that. Why should that be the end of the discussion? People are more than happy to insist that marijuana should be legal even though it's not the law.
I am in favor of preserving women's lives, too. I wouldn't simply ban abortion and call it a day. I believe we need a more comprehensive response both legally and as a society that does more to prevent unwanted pregnancies and does more to support women who are pregnant but aren't ready to be mothers.
You know the answer. It's not because of what resides there, but who.
Not a whom when a zygote/fetus.
Why not?
Nobody is forced to use or not use marijuana. But pro-lifers want to force pregnant women to remain pregnant, even if they do not want to.
That's why Planned Parenthood and comprehensive sex education are so important. But there are those who also want to defund PP or ban sex ed in schools. Not to mention abortion itself.
There is no who there! And regardless, it's still no one else's business what a woman does with her body, including abortion or not!
Since 1973, being a preborn baby is like being in the lottery of life or death. Whether the person lives or dies depends on the kind of person that they begin their development and growth within. It’s been said that other than natural causes at old age the greatest death risk a person has is the time spent in their own mothers womb.
Spare me the emotional rhetoric. One could also say before 1973, being a pregnant woman who didn't want to be was also like a lottery of life and death. And many women did die from unsafe abortions too.
There is no "person." Whether a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy or not is entirely their choice.
Pregnancy also carries many risks for the woman too. Funny how you fail to acknowledge that. So, do you have anything better to offer other than appeals to emotion and disingenuous terms?
The idea that she has sex does not mean that she wants to conceive. The fact that birth control is not 100% effective is also lost on you, but you want to take rights away from women when you don't agree with their choices, so you can force your emotional beliefs on women because you think that you have the right to do so.
Fetal personhood lost in the courts so stop trying to paint a fetus as a independent person. That tactic is also emotional.
Abortion didn't begin with Roe, so drop the emotional arguments. There is no such thing as a pre-born baby. It's a fetus.
You don't want people to notice that a your arguments lack logic and substance and reply on emotional pleading such as calling a fetus a baby.
You don't get to decide who replies to you.
And we’re using advances in science to get the court to revisit that personhood issue based on the person terminated by an abortion is just that, another person just like us but younger.
This claim is more emotional thinking because it rejects the reality of biology and the law, unless your god takes away the God-given rights of the mother when she gets pregnant, despite the claims that you made in another thread.
What branch of science gives legal rights to something that cannot exist on its own? Do you plan to charge the mother with murder when 50% of the fertilized zygotes don't implant and die before the end of the 1st week? What crime is an ectopic pregnancy?
Really? What advances would those be and what revisited abortion cases are you referring to? Abortion cases have been addressed since Roe and science has only affirmed and reinforced Roe. Neither has any case determined a fetus is a person. Some states have tried to pass legislature before declaring fetus to be a person (Personhood laws) but have always failed. And for good reason too! Just face it: A fetus is not a person, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise!
Emotional thinking or such arguments is all pro-lifers seem able to muster. Certainly nothing rational or logical that would hold up to legal scrutiny. That's why they've lost so many times in the courts. You can tell an argument will be emotion based when they start going on about and emphasizing "life," while completely ignoring the legal rights and life of the woman in question.
Emotional thinking also drives their religious beliefs, which is the basis of their arguments against abortion, women's equality, LGBT rights and any number of other political/social issues.
George Carlin's rant about the illogical nature of God should be engraved on the walls of every public school, city hall, and library.
And notice that it's all irrational, devoid of any logic or reasoning.
Now there was a comically rational individual.
Carlin's years of attending Catholic schools gave him the insight to understand the Catholic church and religion in general.
Text from his views on Prolife, Abortion and the Sanctity of Life:
I saw Carlin in the spring of 1992 and he went on a ad lib 20 minute rant about AIDS and conservatives who refused to do anything about it. I was disappointed that he didn't do his infamous "7 dirty words".
"Science makes clear that human life -- and our uniqueness as individuals -- begins on day one, at fertilization. Life, in its most vulnerable form, should be protected, and we are grateful for HR 2918 and call on members of Congress to pass this and similar legislation preserving the dignity of the human person from its earliest moments."
Is it DNA uniqueness that makes us different then? Does that mean something extra, we're "unique" thus you shouldn't terminate a "unique" mass of cells? Well, did the bacon I ate this morning have "unique" DNA? I bet it did, I'm pretty sure it wasn't cloned. So being "unique" doesn't actually make us "human", animals have "unique" DNA as well.
At the moment the courts set the limit at viability, but 92% of all abortions occur at 12 weeks or earlier, months before viability. Its not my body, its not my decision. Lets focus our time and effort on taking care of the kids who are born instead of trying to incarcerate women and doctors who terminate "unique" DNA carrying kidney bean sized zygotes in their own bodies.
Abortion doesn't do anything to a woman's body. However you want to conceptualize what's developing inside her, it's definitely not part of her body.
Lets focus our time and effort on taking care of the kids who are born
I agree, but I think we are capable of doing more than one thing at a time.
I'm not interested in incarcerating anyone, but I would like a world with zero abortions.
It stops the gestational process within her body.
Actually, it is. it's attached to her body and feeding directly from it.
Good idea. But that doesn't negate the need for abortion.
As long as women get pregnant, abortion should be an option.
I would love a world with zero abortions too. There is no such thing as being "pro-abortion", I wish none ever had to chose that very difficult option. But I am pro-choice which means I understand that it's not up to me, I have no right to take away someone else's choices just because that's not the choice I would make. With our first child my wife and I had a pregnancy scare where the doctor thought it might be a cluster pregnancy. The doctor said within the next few weeks we'd have to decide whether to terminate or carry the clustered mass of cells to term if they didn't start to form properly. We chose to wait and were happy to see the cluster start the change and form a healthy baby, but it could have easily gone the other way and I'm thankful we had that option to terminate if we wished, it would have been torture to force her to carry a dead cluster of baby cells to term just to appease some other random persons religious beliefs.
So while I love a world where every pregnancy was at the right time and to the right stable couple who are ready to raise a child, but I know that world doesn't exist, so taking away a woman's choice would simply punish those who are already suffering extreme hardships, all to coddle someone else's conscience whose never walked a millimeter in the woman's shoes let alone a mile. Until you've gone through every possible scenario that could lead a woman to make such a difficult decision, you have no right to question their choices. You go get raped by a sibling or someone else and find out you're pregnant, you get pregnant and find out you're almost certainly carrying a stillborn fetus, you find out your pregnant right at a critical point in your career or education that would cause your whole life trajectory to come to a halt, to possibly never be resumed.
Once you've experienced every possible reason why a woman might want to terminate a pregnancy, then you can start to council other women on their choices. Until then I recommend simply supporting women and helping them with more options, not taking them away. Offer them day care to take care of that child while they finish school or have to work, that's a choice you can offer that might actually save some babies, just banning abortions not going to save babies, it's just going to put more women at risk.
The hair on his face is dirty, dread-locked, and full of mange
He asks a man for what he could spare, with shame in his eyes
"Get a job you fucking slob, " is all he replies
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in his shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to sing the blues
Then you really might know what it's like
He said, "don't worry about a thing, baby doll I'm the man you've been dreaming of."
But three months later he say he won't date her or return her calls
And she swear, "god damn, if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls"
And then she heads for the clinic and she gets some static walking through the door
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner and they call her a whore
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose
. . . . .
We are all human beings and we all went through all the steps of humanity from conception to the present point in our human lives. At no point in our personal development from conception on were we ever anything but unique human beings and science has proven that. Science is the ultimate weapon against the pro abortionist and the abortuary industry.
There are as many "pro-abortionists" as there are Santa's elves, so you can go blow that lie out a poo filled pixie stick.
Being unique doesn't make us human, all animals have "unique" DNA. All science proves is that we're just another animal on this planet. Thankfully we are an animal that can use it's brain to consider stupid arguments like the one submitted here and reject it as the pointless drivel it is.
There is nobody 'pro abortion', its pro choice for a woman to make her own decisions about her own person and her own body without the input of Donald Trump, Pat Robertson and Hobby Lobby.
You want Hobby Lobby to pay for abortions?
Every one of your replies I imagine coming from Floyd R. Turbo. It just fits, given your claim of being from Nebraska.
WTF are you talking about? Read my sentence again, this time pay attention, and don't insert words that aren't there.
I did live in Nebraska for four years. 1981 to 1985.
The new movie Gosnell is a great message as to where extremism in the abortuary industry leads.
Everyone already knows Dr. Gosnell violated the law with his practice. Of course, that is also what can happen on a larger scale if abortion was prohibited or severely restricted. Historically speaking, we have already seen similar activities in the pre-Roe years.