Arguments for Abortion Mimic the Arguments for Slavery Before the Civil War

  
Via:  heartland-american  •  2 months ago  •  245 comments

Arguments for Abortion Mimic the Arguments for Slavery Before the Civil War
The dehumanization of black people relied on pseudoscientific claims that they were inferior. The dehumanization of unborn babies relies on claims that they are "just a clump of cells" or part of a woman's body. In both cases, a growing movement of moral clarity demands that the dehumanized be granted a fundamental right long denied them: freedom and life. (Note: I am not saying abortion and slavery are the same, only that the arguments for them are similar.) Yet the dehumanization is not...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Both the arguments for slavery in the 1800s and the arguments for abortion rely on a central claim: that a human being is less than human. The dehumanization of black people relied on pseudoscientific claims that they were inferior. The dehumanization of unborn babies relies on claims that they are "just a clump of cells" or part of a woman's body. In both cases, a growing movement of moral clarity demands that the dehumanized be granted a fundamental right long denied them: freedom and life. (Note: I am not saying abortion and slavery are the same, only that the arguments for them are similar.)

Yet the dehumanization is not the only connection between the pro-slavery arguments in 1800s America and the pro-abortion arguments today. In fact, the two movements also championed a form of "choice" that focused on the will of the master and mother over the fundamental rights of the slave and unborn. They also moved away from claims that slavery and abortion are necessary evils to claims that they are a positive good. Black pro-life activists have also condemned the targeting of black women for abortion, condemning abortion as a form of genocide.

Late last month, The New York Times's Amy Harmon wrote a revealing piece about the language in the abortion debate. She summarized the arguments of "abortion rights advocates" who blamed President Bill Clinton for stigmatizing the term "abortion" in the late 1990s with the "safe, legal, and rare" formulation. "Describing abortion as needing to be rare implied incorrectly, in the eyes of advocates, that there was something inherently wrong with having an abortion," Harmon wrote.

This criticism is quite telling. Indeed, activists today launch movements called "Shout Your Abortion" and a movement telling abortion stories called "You Know Me." Far-left "comedian" Michelle Wolf even performed a stand-up segment calling for abortion to be "on the dollar menu at McDonald's," in an effort to fight "abortion stigma." Increasingly, groups like Planned Parenthood are defining abortion as "health care" or "reproductive health care."






Yet Clinton is not responsible for "abortion stigma." That phenomenon goes back at least 2,000 years. Early Christianity forbade the killing of an unborn baby in the womb. Even Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood — which is America's largest abortion provider — condemned abortion as a "disgrace to civilization."

The "stigma" has something to do with the unavoidable moral fact that abortion kills a living human being. Thanks to modern genetics, we know that from the moment of conception an unborn baby has unique human DNA. Science, not faith, provides the strongest arguments against abortion.

Clinton supported abortion, claiming it should be "safe, legal, and rare." Yet modern abortion advocates celebrate the practice of killing babies. In fact, New York's radical abortion law goes so far as to strike down protectionsfor wanted babies who are killed when a pregnant woman is abused. In order to dehumanize the unborn, New York has ruled that killing an unborn human cannot count as "homicide."

In fact, this dehumanization also has ugly racial roots. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out last month, the abortion movement has its roots in the eugenics movement. Margaret Sanger called for more babies for the fit and fewer for the "unfit." Governments sterilized people who were deemed unworthy to have children, and many eugenics advocates were openly racist. Indeed, just last year billboards promoted abortion specifically for black women or in black communities — most likely not with racist intentions, but with the effect of discouraging the birth of black babies.

Yet another ugly comparison comes in the language of "choice." Indeed, earlier today "Men for Choice" was trending on Twitter. The abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice America noted that "women don't usually get pregnant on their own. We need [Men for Choice] to step up and speak out for safe, legal abortion access because reproductive freedom benefits us all."

This language of "choice" and "freedom" echoes the arguments Northern Democrats used before the Civil War. In the decades before the war, Southern Democrats kept pushing for more and more land to be open to slavery. The Northwest Ordinance, one of the first laws passed under the Constitution in 1789, made slavery illegal in the territories of the United States. The Founders considered slavery a necessary evil, but they wanted to prevent it from spreading into future states.

Yet in the 1800s, Southern Democrats pushed for slavery to be extended into the territories. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 drew a line at the 36°30′ parallel, allowing Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state and allowing any territories below that line to enter as slave states. This was not enough for Southern Democrats, who held a great amount of power in the federal government. In 1854, they pushed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which opened the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to what was called "Popular Sovereignty."

Abraham Lincoln became famous for opposing Popular Sovereignty in his debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas (D-Ill.). Under Popular Sovereignty, settlers in Kansas and Nebraska would decide — by majority vote — whether the states would be "Free States" or "Slave States." Naturally, not a single slave got a vote.

Like the "pro-choice" and "reproductive freedom" rhetoric, this radical position allowed those with a voice to overrule the wishes of the dehumanized. In abortion, only the mother gets a "choice" — and according to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, pregnant women who get abortions aren't even mothers. In Popular Sovereignty, only free settlers and slave-owners got a vote. In both cases, the person with the most to lose is and was disenfranchised — in the name of freedom.

Thanks to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, bands of pro-slave and pro-free settlers engaged in skirmishes and a kind of mini-Civil War called "Bleeding Kansas."

In 1857, the Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford denied citizenship for black people. Like Roe v. Wade (1973), it codified a systemic denial of basic rights to an entire group of people.

Like the antebellum southerners, abortion activists are pushing for a federal acknowledgment of their position in the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which prevents taxpayer money from directly funding elective abortions. Democrats running for the 2020 presidential nomination have endorsed repealing the Hyde Amendment, and just today former Vice President Joe Biden received a great deal of flak from NARAL and Planned Parenthood for supporting the amendment.

The Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise were grand compromises allowing something immoral but restricting it, so that not all Americans were complicit in that evil. Similarly, the Hyde Amendment was designed to protect Americans from being forced to pay for something so many of them consider immoral.

Contrary to popular belief, abolitionists did not drive the Civil War, and Lincoln would have been happy to preserve the Union without ending slavery. The Southern states seceded because Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery, and they could brook no compromise. In fact, the Southern states had been losing their stranglehold on the Federal Government, and Lincoln's victory scared them into rebellion. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 as a war measure. In his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln said the Civil War was God's just judgment on the United States for accepting slavery.

Pro-life advocates fear that the moral horror of abortion merits a similar punishment. The current rancor of abortion politics seems to have reached a fever pitch, but it is not likely to abate any time soon.

Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that will not outlaw abortion in the 50 states. Instead, that will allow the 50 states to make their own laws on abortion, with pro-life states outlawing it and pro-abortion states passing laws similar to New York's law and the Illinois abortion law.

Antebellum southerners defended slavery as essential for their economy. Slavery opened up economic options for the masters and undergirded Southern society, so the argument went. Similarly, abortion advocates claim that the decision to kill an unborn baby is vital for women, to allow them to gain education, prosperity, and care for their existing children. These are real concerns, just as the southerners' economic concerns about slavery were also real. Abolition did indeed roil the South's economy, but later Americans judge that it was a moral victory.

Abortion also undergirds the Sexual Revolution. The unspoken truth about "pro-choice" rhetoric is that abortion activists want people to be able to have sex without consequences, both physical and emotional. Babies do not come out of nowhere. For all the talk of "forced pregnancy," the vast majority of children are conceived through consensual sex. (Pregnancies from rape are of course a sticky issue, and Americans rightly support harsh penalties for rapists.)

The moral scourge of abortion, like the moral scourge of slavery, weighs on America's conscience. As pro-slavery advocates argued for Popular Sovereignty, so pro-abortion advocates argue for "reproductive freedom." As pro-slavery advocates dehumanized black people, so pro-abortion advocates dehumanize the unborn. As pro-slavery advocates became more radical, defending slavery as a positive good and expanding slavery into the territories, so pro-abortion advocates have become more radical, shouting their abortions, demanding an end to the Hyde Amendment, and claiming that any restrictions on abortion make America into a misogynistic theocracy.

In both cases, activists cannot silence the conscience, no matter how loud and radical they become.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Heartland American
1  seeder  Heartland American    2 months ago

“The "stigma" has something to do with the unavoidable moral fact that abortion kills a living human being. Thanks to modern genetics, we know that from the moment of conception an unborn baby has unique human DNA. Science, not faith, provides the strongest arguments against abortion.

Clinton supported abortion, claiming it should be "safe, legal, and rare." Yet modern abortion advocates celebrate the practice of killing babies. In fact, New York's radical abortion law goes so far as to strike down protectionsfor wanted babies who are killed when a pregnant woman is abused. In order to dehumanize the unborn, New York has ruled that killing an unborn human cannot count as "homicide."

In fact, this dehumanization also has ugly racial roots. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out last month, the abortion movement has its roots in the eugenics movement. Margaret Sanger called for more babies for the fit and fewer for the "unfit." Governments sterilized people who were deemed unworthy to have children, and many eugenics advocates were openly racist. Indeed, just last year billboards promoted abortion specifically for black women or in black communities — most likely not with racist intentions, but with the effect of discouraging the birth of black babies.

Yet another ugly comparison comes in the language of "choice." Indeed, earlier today "Men for Choice" was trending on Twitter. The abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice America noted that "women don't usually get pregnant on their own. We need [Men for Choice] to step up and speak out for safe, legal abortion access because reproductive freedom benefits us all."

This language of "choice" and "freedom" echoes the arguments Northern Democrats used before the Civil War.”

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @1    2 months ago
Yet modern abortion advocates celebrate the practice of killing babies

No one is killing babies, if you know of someone that is? I suggest you call the police immediately and report it, (besides, I am sure they could use a good laugh). 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @1.1    2 months ago

Abortion is the termination of the life of a human being. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.1    2 months ago

No, abortion is a medical procedure terminating a pregnancy. There is no human being yet.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.2    2 months ago
a medical procedure terminating a pregnancy

What is a pregnancy?

There is no human being yet

When is there a human being?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.3    2 months ago

1. Gestation.

2. Birth!

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.4    2 months ago
2. Birth!

Then you disagree with our viability standard as a restriction on abortion?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.5    2 months ago

Yes! The viability standard us just a compromise between the abortion sides. But I can accept it as a reasonable compromise. Too bad many anti-choicers cannot.

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.7  Don Overton  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.1    2 months ago

When does life start?  At the whim of you and others like you?

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.6    2 months ago
But I can accept it as a reasonable compromise.

I find that interesting. You seem very passionate about preserving a woman's right to choice, yet you find it "reasonable" to take that right away in spite of your position there is no human being lost in an abortion. What is your reason for that?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.8    2 months ago

You misunderstand. I support a woman's right to choose. But I recognize viability as a compromise between the 2 sides of the debate. Considering there are those who are as anti-choice as I and others are pro-choice, I am not so unreasonable as to not allow a compromise to the other side (even if they cannot say the same). I certainly won't complain if the viability restriction is lengthened or lifted altogether. A woman shouldn't have her rights taken away regardless. But then, I doubt there are many women who want an elective abortion after viability anyway.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.9    2 months ago

That seems like compromise just for the sake of compromise or just for the sake of proclaiming yourself as "reasonable." It makes it hard to see you as principled on the matter of women's rights when you are willing to compromise those rights so easily.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.10    2 months ago

Either you still don't get it or are just being obtuse now. I support women's rights, including their right to choose. I'm not advocating restrictions on that right, unlike some lawmakers and/or anti-choicers. What's so difficult to understand? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.12  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.1    2 months ago
Abortion is the termination of the life of a human being. 

Hehehehehehe, nope. Swing And a Miss! 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.13  MrFrost  replied to  Don Overton @1.1.7    2 months ago
When does life start?

According to their bible, it starts when the child takes it's first breath, at the time of birth. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.14  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.11    2 months ago
I support women's rights, including their right to choose.

Only up to a point, according to your own words. And apparently, that point is when someone else objects and you think a compromise will resolve the conflict.

I'm not advocating restrictions on that right

No, but you will allow them for the sake of compromise, yes?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.14    2 months ago
Only up to a point, according to your own words. And apparently, that point is when someone else objects and you think a compromise will resolve the conflict.

No, that's not what I said. Apparently, you still don't get it.

No, but you will allow them for the sake of compromise, yes?

See previous statement.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2  MrFrost    2 months ago

Don't like abortions, don't get one. Pretty simple. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3  MrFrost    2 months ago

The party of, "more personal freedoms" apparently wants them for men only. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @3    2 months ago

Actually we want the freedom of both male and female to have the right to life, to exist.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @3.1    2 months ago

And to Hel! With the female already existing, right. Let's subjugate someone who already exists for something that doesn't yet exist! That's what anti-choices seem to advocate.

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.1.2  Don Overton  replied to  Heartland American @3.1    2 months ago

Sorry no one believes you.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @3.1    2 months ago
Actually we want the freedom of both male and female to have the right to life, to exist.  

So you think a fetus has more rights that the mother carrying it? That's ridiculous. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.2  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @3    2 months ago
The party of, "more personal freedoms" apparently wants them for men only

Men don't have the right to kill unborn babies, so what are you talking about?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @3.2    2 months ago

That's right, as that would forcibly take away the woman's choice. But some men apparently want to take that choice away from women and force them to carry a pregnancy against their will.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.1    2 months ago
But some men apparently want

Many women feel the same way. Why does it matter what sex someone is that they have an opinion on a topic?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.2    2 months ago

Its mostly men who are trying to pass laws or restrictions on abortion. Who are they to decide for a woman what she can or cannot do with her body and petsonal medical choices? If a woman doesn't want an abortion, she doesn't have to. That's her choice. But the choice regatdless is a right and shouldn't be forcibly removed!

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @3.2    2 months ago
unborn babies

No such thing. Sorry! 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @3.2    2 months ago

There is no such thing as an unborn baby and no one is killing them.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.6  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @3.2.4    2 months ago
No such thing. Sorry! 

No Kidding…..at least to some.

The PC version is called "Reproductive Health". jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

Such "Calming" Words ! jrSmiley_20_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.6    2 months ago

Calming words? No, more like actual and accurate words utilized by a field of medicine.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.8  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.7    2 months ago

#elliminateCodeBlueinsociety !

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.8    2 months ago

Is that supposed to mean anything to me?

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.10  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.9    2 months ago
Is that supposed to mean anything to me?

Logically speaking ?

I can break it down if needed.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.10    2 months ago
Logically speaking ?

Is there any other way?

I can break it down if needed.

By all means....

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.10    2 months ago

Proceed !

This should be a hoot!

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.13  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.12    2 months ago
Proceed !

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.13    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.15  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.11    2 months ago
By all means....

eliminate = REMOVE !

Code Blue = HEART FAILURE !

in = as in NOT OUT !

society = WHERE ONE LIVES and IS INVOLVED !

Did that help ?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.17  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.15    2 months ago
Did that help ?

No. Still not seeing what it has to do with the topic of abortion. It sounds more like a public health promotion slogan. Still not seeing what it has to do with the topic of abortion. BTW, "code blue" is not heart failure. It is cardiac arrest. Heart failure is a different medical condition, which can lead to cardiac arrest if untreated. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.18  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.14    2 months ago

Some folks are so easily amused.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.19  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.17    2 months ago
No. Still not seeing what it has to do with the topic of abortion.

But your "Logical"....just like unfeeling spock ….right ?

Kill the heart.....Kill Life.

It's that simple !

To be fair (if that's what you are)....if one heart pumping is important.....ALL hearts pumping ARE important !

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.18    2 months ago
Some folks are so easily amused.

Some folks have a sense of humor.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.17    2 months ago

I knew what he meant regarding code blue and stopping a beating heart. 

Only there is not a beating heart in a fetus.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.22  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.18    2 months ago
Some folks are so easily amused. 

Were you laughing when you posted that ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.23  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.21    2 months ago
Only there is not a beating heart in a fetus. 

Which month is that ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.21    2 months ago
Only there is not a beating heart in a fetus.

Well, Doctor, many in your profession disagree with you.

https://www.livestrong.com/article/242600-when-does-an-unborn-baby-have-a-heartbeat

hthttps://www.hli.org/resources/when-does-a-fetus-develop-a-heartbeat

https://www.webmd.com/baby/doppler

tps://www.curejoy.com/content/when-does-a-fetus-develop-a-heartbeat

How soon after conception does the heart start beating?
The heart beat begins beating around the 21 - 22 days after conception.
References:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20235196

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_development

embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Cardiovascular_System_Development#Tim…

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.25  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.19    2 months ago

It is hard to converse with some who can't grasp the fundamentals like heartbeat in fetuses.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.26  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.24    2 months ago
ABORTION RIGHTS MAY 24, 2019

Embryos Don’t Have Hearts

23-ultrasound.w700.h700.jpg
Photo: Yiming Chen/Getty Images

Within the last few years, six U.S. states — Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Georgia, Iowa, and North Dakota — have passed so-called “heartbeat bills,” a term that’s become shorthand for a proposed ban on abortions beginning six weeks into a pregnancy, or the point at which a “fetal heartbeat” can be detected. Four more states have similar bills pending. Anti-abortion activists have doubled down on “heartbeat” messaging — in a recent news releaseregarding the ACLU’s legal challenge of the Ohio bill, the state’s leading anti-abortion group, Ohio Right to Life, used the term eight times in 300 words.

But obstetricians say the term “fetal heartbeat” is misleading, and that this scientific misunderstanding, among countless others, may contribute to negative public opinion toward abortion.

To wit: though pulsing cells can be detected in embryos as early as six weeks, this rhythm — detected by a doctor, via ultrasound — cannot be called a “heartbeat,” because embryos don’t have hearts. What is detectable at or around six weeks can more accurately be called “cardiac activity,” says Robyn Schickler, OB/GYN and fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. The difference between “cardiac activity” and “heartbeat” may seem linguistically minimal, but Schickler and others argue otherwise. At this stage, she says, what doctors can detect is essentially communication between a group of what will eventually become cardiac cells.

“From very early on, different cells are programmed to do different things for what is eventually a fully functioning human body,” says Jennifer Kerns, an OB/GYN and professor at the University of California in San Francisco. “These are cells that are programmed with electrical activity, which will eventually control the heart rate — they send a signal telling the heart to contract, once there is a heart.” It is this early activity which ultrasounds detect — not a heartbeat.

In a doctor/patient setting, though, says Shickler, physicians have used the term “heartbeat” or “fetal heartbeat” to convey to patients with wanted pregnancies that fetal development is proceeding as it should. “If I have a patient in front of me who is excited about her pregnancy, and hoping for signs that it’s currently developing properly, that little flicker can tell us that, at that point in the pregnancy, things look good,” says Sarah Horvath, a family planning fellow at The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. That things “look good” is not equivalent to declaring a fetus viable, and patients can and do experience miscarriage, stillbirth, or other developmental problems after seeing that flicker on an ultrasound. To someone who wants to be pregnant, it’s merely a good sign.

Part of the effort behind popularizing “heartbeat bill” as a term is the conservative effort to propose a new, much earlier standard of viability, the term used to describe the  point at which a fetus has a good chance of survival outside the womb with access to maximum medical intervention, says Kerns. It simply isn’t true that a six-week embryo is viable. While there is no unanimous timeline assigned to viability, most doctors use 24 weeks as a general rule.

But what arose as a colloquialism between doctors and patients has, in the case of the fight over abortion rights, done more harm than good, says Schickler. At six weeks, she says, a pregnant person has likely just missed their period two weeks earlier, and at that stage, the fetus is far from viable — so calling any activity detected by ultrasound at that stage a heartbeat “personifies the fetus into something it’s not,” says Schickler. Which, says Kerns, is exactly the point.

“It’s a deliberate use of a word that evokes a very emotional response, and conjures up the idea of an actual heart as we know it,” says Kerns. At six weeks, she says the embryo is about seven millimeters long, such that the flicker made visible by ultrasound technology is about the size of a pencil tip, she adds. “Heartbeat” conjures an organ which expands and contracts, but a six-week embryo has yet to develop that structure, says Horvath.

“The characteristic ‘lub-dub’ of the heart is created by the valves in a four-chambered heart opening and closing,” says Horvath. Even when that structure does develop, it’s not like it works on its own. “In order for a fully formed heart to function properly, it has to communicate with other systems of the body,” says Kerns. “It has to communicate with the neurologic system, so the brain has to be developed enough to send signals to the heart to speed up, slow down, to function.” For that reason (among others), it’s inaccurate and unscientific to define viability by the mere existence of any one organ.

By calling anti-abortion legislation “heartbeat bills,” or insisting that an embryo has a heart that beats at 18 days, anti-abortion activists are vastly, and dangerously, over-simplifying fetal development for political gain. And according to some polls (which, notably, often adhere to anti-abortion activists’ framing), it’s working.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.27  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.26    2 months ago
'Heartbeat' Bills Get the Science of Fetal Heartbeats All Wrong

BILLS GET THE SCIENCE OF FETAL HEARTBEATS ALL WRONG

alabamaabortion_15212511.jpghttps://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_275,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 275w, https://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_314,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 314w, https://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_440,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 440w, https://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_550,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 550w, https://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_582,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 582w, https://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_628,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 628w, https://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_660,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 660w, https://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_799,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 799w, https://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_825,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 825w, https://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_942,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 942w, https://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_1164,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 1164w, https://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_1598,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 1598w, https://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_1746,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 1746w, https://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_2397,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 2397w, https://media.wired.com/photos/5cd5b660c6a1822e416ba493/master/w_2400,c_limit/alabamaabortion_15212511.jpg 2400w" sizes="(max-width: 599px) calc(100vw - (20px * 2)), (max-width: 899px) calc(100vw - (50px * 2)), (max-width: 1231px) calc(100vw - (50px * 2) - 100px - (50px * 2) - 300px), 582px" >
Recent anti-abortion "heartbeat" bills aren't even the most draconian: Alabama is set to vote on a bill that would make performing an abortion a crime punishable by up to 99 years in prison.
AUDRA MELTON/THE NEW YORK TIMES/REDUX

LAST WEEK, GEORGIA governor Brian Kemp—the narrow winner over Stacey Abrams in a contentious, sketchy election last year—signed into law a ban on abortions after more than six weeks of pregnancy. That made Georgia the sixth state to institute such a ban, and the fourth this year (Ohio’s elected officials put theirs in place in April), with seven more states kicking around the idea. It’s not even the most aggressive anti-abortion concept; the Alabama state senate is set to vote today on a bill that, if it became law, would make performing an abortion a crime punishable by up to 99 years in prison. They’re all part of a nationwide push, with more than 300 bills in 2019, to try to make the procedure illegal.

The political aim of so-called heartbeat bills is pretty clear. Some Americans would like to ban abortion altogether, but the Supreme Court says that’s unconstitutional. So they advocate for increasingly draconian laws that walk up to that line. Less straightforward, though, is the science. What the bills call a heartbeat—it's not that.

These bills generally say that a “fetal heartbeat” helps predict whether a pregnancy will result in a living baby; the model legislation many states use refers to that fetal cardiac activity as a marker of “an unborn human individual,” defining a moment where alive-ness starts. And, yes, it’s true that detection of cardiac rhythm is a marker for the health of a pregnancy and a good sign that it’ll continue—that, if everything works out, it’ll result in the birth of a living baby. “Detecting a fetal heartbeat can be a sign that there is a pregnancy developing, and that’s a sign we use to reassure people,” says Sarah Horvath, an ob-gyn with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

But beyond that, the science here needs a lot of unpacking. First, you have to note the use of the phrase “unborn human individual;” this part of the debate over abortion depends on whether you think a 3- to 4-millimeter-long, partially organized blob of cells is a human individual or not. It also depends on whether you think the government or the person in whom those cells reside gets to make that determination.

From there, the issue is what that “heartbeat” actually is. “At six weeks, the embryo is forming what will eventually develop into mature systems. There’s an immature neurological system, and there’s a very immature cardiovascular system,” says Jennifer Kerns, an ob-gyn at UC San Francisco and director of research in obstetrics and gynecology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. The rhythm specified in the six-week abortion bans, she says, “is a group of cells with electrical activity. That’s what the heartbeat is at that stage of gestation … We are in no way talking about any kind of cardiovascular system.”

In part because that rhythm is a sign of the health of the developing embryo, scientists have worked to push backward the moment in pregnancy they can detect it. In 1984 they were pretty psyched to pick up fetal cardiac activity at between 41 and 43 days of gestation—six weeks. The researchers described it as a “tiny blinking, flashing, and/or rocking echo with a regular rhythm,” which is how scientists say something has a good beat and you can dance to it. “What’s really happening at that point is that our ultrasound technology has gotten good enough to be able to detect electrical activity in a rudimentary group of cells,” Horvath says.

But if you’re thinking about this as something that looks roughly like a person with something that looks roughly like a chest, inside which something that looks roughly like a valentine is going pitter-pat (or lubdub-lubdub), you’re picturing the wrong thing. As the ob-gyn Jen Gunter wrotethree years ago, this is, more technically, “fetal pole cardiac activity.” It’s a cluster of pulsing cells. “In the mouse embryo, for example, there is a definite cardiac rhythm in the tiny, little, immature heart at 8.5 days of development, but it is certainly not enough to support viability,” says Janet Rossant, senior scientist and chief of research emeritus at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. “It is just helping to encourage the development of an organized vasculature and circulatory system—a prerequisite for future viability but not sufficient alone.”

That’s the other wobbly term of art here: “viability.” In common parlance, people sometimes use that word to describe a baby far enough along in gestation to survive outside a woman’s womb. In humans, that takes about 24 weeks, give or take (every pregnancy is different, and so are the skill sets of every hospital and every neonatal intensive care unit). But that’s not what clinicians mean. “It means a pregnancy that, at that point in time, looks like it’s normal to continue,” Kerns says.

Science doesn’t seem to be a strong point of many states’ anti-abortion bills. You might have read about an additional bill Ohio is considering that would ban most birth control and require the surgical reimplantation of ectopic pregnancies, a dangerous-to-the-mother condition in which an embryo implants somewhere other than the uterus. That’s not something scientists know how to do. (“No. Just never. I mean, never. Never ever,” Kerns says. “Ectopic pregnancies are medical emergencies.”) And indeed, courts have largely judged six weeks to be unreasonably early for pregnant people to realize they’re pregnant and get an abortion. None of the state laws banning abortion at six weeks are in effect; some are too new, some were overturned by courts, and others are under legal challenge.

To opponents, the six-week bans’ deployment of science—or at least scientific language—sounds like an attempt to challenge those rulings. “Using the word heartbeat here is an intentional obfuscation,” Kerns says. “Hearing the word heartbeat plays upon people’s emotions … when in fact what it does is effectively ban abortions for many people, because many people don’t even know they’re pregnant at six weeks.”

Yet many state bills use a six-week clock and fetal cardiac activity as a basis for policymaking. “I do think there’s a deliberate conflation of terms going on in legislation in order to try to co-opt the science, or at least the scientific language,” Horvath says. “These bans are really just arbitrarily chosen points in time in a pregnancy that are strictly there because they want a complete ban on abortion care.”

This kind of slippery language and shoddy science has consequences. Even if it wasn’t an attempt to put a veneer of scientific finality over a difficult ethical question, it’d still open up the possibility of serious health risks to pregnant women. Some of the legislation under consideration doesn’t acknowledge the possibility of a miscarriage after detection of fetal cardiac activity, meaning women who do miscarry could be subject to prosecution—which could deter them from seeking necessary prenatal medical care. “We absolutely know that when you ban abortion, maternal mortality increases,” Kerns says. “But in addition, it marginalizes poor women and women of color, who are often the ones who can’t then access abortion across state lines, who can’t take days off of work, organize child care, and have the finances. It just exacerbates what’s already an inequitable system.”

But the confirmation of Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court tipped the balance of that court toward the right. Abortion opponents see the possibility that the new lineup would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that legalized abortion in the United States, if the right case came before it. Aggressive bans like heartbeat bills or any of the other 300 anti-abortion laws passed in the first quarter of 2019 could be it. Fetal cardiac activity’s usefulness as a diagnostic marker might turn out to be less important than the powerful noise it could make in Washington.

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.28  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.25    2 months ago
It is hard to converse with some who can't grasp the fundamentals like heartbeat in fetuses

It certainly is.  The six week heartbeat isn't actually a heartbeat.  Please read what Tessylo posted so people can actually converse with you about it from a factual standpoint.  Anti-choice people get so emotional that they often choose to overlook facts.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.29  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.27    2 months ago

Is a 'Fetal Heartbeat' Really a Heartbeat at 6 Weeks?

By Rachael Rettner, Senior Writer | May 17, 2019 11:41am ET

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1h
aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1h
An ultrasound of an embryo at 6 weeks.
Credit: iStock / Getty Images Plus

So far this year, four U.S. states have passed laws banning abortionswhen a fetal heartbeat can be detected, at around six weeks of pregnancy; several additional states are also considering these so-called heartbeat bills.

But what exactly do we mean when we talk about a "fetal heartbeat" at six weeks of pregnancy? Although some people might picture a heart-shaped organ beating inside a fetus, this is not the case.

Rather, at six weeks of pregnancy, an ultrasound can detect "a little flutter in the area that will become the future heart of the baby," said Dr. Saima Aftab, medical director of the Fetal Care Center at Nicklaus Children's Hospital in Miami. This flutter happens because the group of cells that will become the future "pacemaker" of the heart gain the capacity to fire electrical signals, she said. [Are You Pregnant? 12 Early Signs of Pregnancy]

But the heart is far from fully formed at this stage, and the "beat" isn't audible; if doctors put a stethoscope up to a woman's belly this early on in her pregnancy, they would not hear a heartbeat, Aftab told Live Science. (What's more, it isn't until the eighth week of pregnancy that the baby is called a fetus; prior to that, it's still considered an embryo, according to the Cleveland Clinic.)

It's been only in the last few decades that doctors have even been able to detect this flutter at six weeks, thanks to the use of more-sophisticated ultrasound technologies, Aftab said. Previously, the technology wasn't advanced enough to detect the flutter that early on in pregnancy.

Although a lot of weight seems to be put on the detection of this flutter, "by no means does it translate to viability of the heart" or viability of the pregnancy, Aftab said.

The heart still has a lot of development to undergo before it is fully formed. Indeed, the entire first trimester of pregnancy is a time of "organogenesis," or the formation of organs, Aftab said.

After the detection of the flutter at six weeks, the heart muscle continues to develop over the next four to six weeks, undergoing the folding and bending that needs to happen for the heart to take its final shape, Aftab said.

"A lot of the heart development is still ongoing" during the first trimester, she said.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.30  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.25    2 months ago
It is hard to converse with some who can't grasp the fundamentals like heartbeat in fetuses.

It is hard to converse with some fundamentalists who can't grasp the fact that a heartbeat in a zygote makes no difference in regards to the law and the rights of its host. It does not indicate brain activity, it does not somehow grant human rights just because blood is being pumped throughout a kidney bean sized zygote by a tiny sand particle sized heart.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.31  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.30    2 months ago
It is hard to converse with some fundamentalists who can't grasp the fact that a heartbeat in a zygote makes no difference in regards to the law and the rights of its host. It does not indicate brain activity, it does not somehow grant human rights just because blood is being pumped throughout a kidney bean sized zygote by a tiny sand particle sized heart.

Since I haven't claimed what posted, I will assume you meant that for someone else.

Shouldn't we be accurate no matter what side of the issue you are on?

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal...

When Does a Fetus Develop a Heartbeat? - hli.org
https://www.hli.org/resources/when-does-a-fetus-develop-a-heartbeat

When Does a Fetus Develop a Heartbeat? Through the use of ultrasounds, modern science can detect the waves of the baby’s heartbeat as early as three weeks after fertilization. Although the child’s organs have not yet fully formed, soon after this three-week mark the heart beats between 105 to 122 times per minute. A fetal heartbeat can be ...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/19/18412384/abortion-heartbeat-bill...

No fetal heartbeat at 8 weeks - What Does the Doctor Say?
https://www.healthtap.com/topics/no-fetal-heartbeat-at-8-weeks

Helpful, trusted answers from doctors: Dr. Van Dis on no fetal heartbeat at 8 weeks: If you are saying that an ultrasound was done that showed an 8 week size fetus without a heartbeat then this indicates a miscarriage. A heartbeat should be visible around the 6 week mark. Clarify with the treating an obgyn. A very clear plan should have been discussed with you when the sonogram was done.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.32  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.25    2 months ago
It is hard to converse with some who can't grasp the fundamentals like heartbeat

No kidding.

Apparently….only certain "Life" pumpers are worthy to keep on ticking.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.33  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.31    2 months ago

https://www.livestrong.com/article/242600-when-does-an-unborn-baby-have-a-heartbeat/

Warning
"A perfectly healthy embryo may not show a heartbeat at seven weeks if it measures less than 5 mm from crown to rump. Other reasons for inability to detect a heartbeat include tipped uterus, large abdomen and miscalculation of the date of the last menstrual period."

So....what excuse is used when a baby hits ….ooooh ….. say 2 months ?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.34  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.31    2 months ago
Helpful, trusted answers from doctors

I'm not denying any of the links you provide, I'm saying what difference does any of that make? What difference does it make whether the zygote has a heart, heartbeat, ear, toe, toenail, backbone, eyeball, or even brain when it comes to the law and the privacy decision made by the supreme court? None of that makes any difference, the only thing that the law defines is viability and of course a fetus would have to have a heart and brain and everything else to be considered able to live outside the womb without the aid of the mother.

This whole "heartbeat" nonsense is just more anti-choice smokescreen thrown up to get religious conservatives to base their opinion on an emotional appeal. Anyone with any sense can see right through it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.35  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.19    2 months ago
But your "Logical"....just like unfeeling spock

Thank you.

Kill the heart.....Kill Life.

That can also apply to any vital organ too.

It's that simple !

Except "life" isn't really the issue with abortion. That's just an emotional appeal by anti-choicers.

To be fair (if that's what you are)....if one heart pumping is important.....ALL hearts pumping ARE important !

All vital organs are important, as an organism won't live long without them or if they are defective. A fetal heart isn't capable of sustaining a fetal "life" until the point of viability. In early stages of gestation, there isn't even a functioning "heart." The heart first forms from cardiac cells that depolarized and produce the "beat." But individual cells do not an organ make.

So....what excuse is used when a baby hits ….ooooh ….. say 2 months

2 month post birth or 2 months gestation?

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.36  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.32    2 months ago

It would seem according to those supporting abortion, some human heartbeats must be terminated with extreme prejudice.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.37  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.36    2 months ago

It would seem you don't know what you're talking about. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.38  It Is ME  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.36    2 months ago

I wonder if they have a box that can be checked which notes - Reason for Abortion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.39  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.38    2 months ago

Who cares what the reason is? That's only the woman's business.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.40  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.39    2 months ago
That's only the woman's business.

Not if it's tax payer funded !

You want to play…. YOU pay to play. If not, it's not a private matter anymore.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.41  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.40    2 months ago

Fortunately , abortions are not taxpayer funded, with notable exceptions.

 
 
 
lib50
3.2.42  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.40    2 months ago

Why do you get to pick which healthcare is covered and not covered if you ain't  a doctor?  And that would include politicians.  And ABORTIONS AREN'T PAID BY YOUR TAX DOLLARS.  Fuckers don't stay out of our business even if tax $$ aren't part of the damn equation.  Butt the hell out. 

I'm probably set up to get a lot of tickets today it this keeps up.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.43  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @3.2.42    2 months ago
ABORTIONS AREN'T PAID BY YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

I didn't say they all were ….. Did I ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.44  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.41    2 months ago
Fortunately , abortions are not taxpayer funded, with notable exceptions.

The word Exceptions....makes the word NOT …… Null and Void !

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.45  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.41    2 months ago
Fortunately , abortions are not taxpayer funded, with notable exceptions.

But many Democrats wish to change that.

I say have all the abortions you can afford to pay for yourself, or you can beg for money for.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2.46  Sunshine  replied to  lib50 @3.2.42    2 months ago
Why do you get to pick which healthcare is covered and not covered if you ain't  a doctor? 

With most insurance policies doctors do not determine coverage for an insurance policy, and most health insurance policies do not cover elective procedures like an abortion (unless there is a medical issue). You can purchase riders, but they add to the cost so most people don't want them.  Probably cost more than the abortion procedure itself.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.47  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.44    2 months ago

No, it means there are legitimate medical reasons for abortions. Tax money doesn't go towards elective abortions. Big difference. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.48  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.45    2 months ago

I don't care if democrats want to change it. It hasn't happened yet and it's not likely to be changed. So everything is status quo.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.49  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.47    2 months ago
No, it means there are legitimate medical reasons for abortions. Tax money doesn't go towards elective abortions. Big difference. 

They choose not to understand this simple point. That's why the truth never gets through to them.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.50  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.47    2 months ago
No, it means there are legitimate medical reasons for abortions.

Are You in the Country wide "records" keeping department ?

"Tax money doesn't go towards elective abortions."

You would bet everything you have on that ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.51  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.48    2 months ago
I don't care if democrats want to change it. It hasn't happened yet and it's not likely to be changed. So everything is status quo.

It hasn't changed YET--probably because the Democrats don't have the majority in both Houses and the WH.

Doesn't change the fact that many leading Democrats are trying to get the govt. to pay for abortions.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.52  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.50    2 months ago
You would bet everything you have on that ?

Why do you imagine differently? What evidence do you have that taxes are being spent on elective abortions? Or is it that conservative "gut" informing you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.53  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @3.2.42    2 months ago
Why do you get to pick which healthcare is covered and not covered if you ain't a doctor? And that would include politicians. And ABORTIONS AREN'T PAID BY YOUR TAX DOLLARS. Fuckers don't stay out of our business even if tax $$ aren't part of the damn equation. Butt the hell out.
I'm probably set up to get a lot of tickets today it this keeps up.

Then why are Democrats trying to change the Hyde Amendment?

Have all the abortion you want and can afford to pay for yourself.

It isn't society's responsibility to pay for your choice.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.54  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.52    2 months ago

https://thefederalist.com/2015/10/14/4-ways-planned-parenthood-has-billed-taxpayers-for-elective-abortions/

4 Ways Planned Parenthood Has Billed Taxpayers For Elective Abortions

In her testimony before Congress, Planned Parenthood CEP Cecile Richards repeatedly insisted that federal law already prohibits Planned Parenthood from using tax dollars for abortions. The Hyde Amendment does prohibit Planned Parenthood from billing federal taxpayers for any abortion except those for rape or incest, or that are necessary to save the mother’s life. These exceptions are so exceedingly rare that states will report only a handful of those Medicaid-paid abortions annually—if any at all.

But it is also undeniably true that taxpayer dollars have been and are paid to Planned Parenthood for abortions and to subsidize abortions. Since money is fungible, when Planned Parenthood is receiving over a half billion dollars annually—well over $127 million of that “excess revenue”—taxpayers are effectively freeing up other funds to pay for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business. Other than Planned Parenthood pledges, we have no evidence that taxpayer dollars aren’t keeping the lights on and running the water in the abortion room.

https://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/abortion-tax-dollars-paying/2015/04/20/id/639516/

hthttps://www.lifenews.com/2017/12/28/judge-forces-illinois-taxpayers-to-pay-for-abortions/

https://stream.org/fact-check-planned-parenthood-can-use-federal-tax-dollars-abortions/

And so on and so on .

Now I'm SURE ….. You have some type of other evidence that proves otherwise.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2.55  Sunshine  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.51    2 months ago
It hasn't changed YET--probably because the Democrats don't have the majority in both Houses and the WH.

Democrats are pushing for third term abortions on demand and to abolish the Hyde Amendment so taxpayers pay for someone's elective procedure.

Very scary stuff...they have gone bunkers.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.56  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.51    2 months ago

That's right, it hasn't changed. Get back to me when it is changed! Until then, your complaint is meaningless. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.57  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.50    2 months ago

The Hyde Amendment prohibits tax money going towards elective abortions. Plain and simple.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.58  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.56    2 months ago
That's right, it hasn't changed. Get back to me when it is changed! Until then, your complaint is meaningless.

What is meaningless is your rather dubious logic.

Let's apply that "logic" to something else, shall we?

All your complaints about Trump are meaningless because he hasn't been indicted or impeached.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.59  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @3.2.55    2 months ago

I see you're buying into erroneous conservative  talking points.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.60  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.52    2 months ago

WHY DO DEMOCRATS WANT TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR THEIR CHOICES?

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2.61  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.59    2 months ago
I see you're buying into erroneous conservative  talking points.

Really?  Can you dispute that comment?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.62  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.58    2 months ago

I see you have no valid rebuttal. Youre just complaining about nothing. And I didn't even mention Trump. But nice smokescreen. It's a tactic of a failed argument. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.63  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.57    2 months ago
The Hyde Amendment prohibits tax money going towards elective abortions. Plain and simple.

You didn't read the articles did you. Skirting the so-called Uber important Hyde amendment is easy !

Just like Tax Laws are easy to skirt if one knows what they are doing!

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.64  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @3.2.61    2 months ago

Yes, no one is advocating or allowing elective 3rd trimester abortions. The restrictions on such abortions are still in effect. And there's no serious challenge or threat to the Hyde Amendment. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.65  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.54    2 months ago
Since money is fungible, when Planned Parenthood is receiving over a half billion dollars annually—well over $127 million of that “excess revenue”—taxpayers are effectively freeing up other funds to pay for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business.

Ah yes, the old "fungible" bullshit argument. If that's true, then guess what? Everyone who has ever donated to a Baptist Church, the Catholic Church or any Protestant denomination is supporting the rape of children. That "fungible" money was spent defending pedophile priests, spent paying off victims and their families. So apparently YOU (if you've ever donated to a Church) are condoning raping kids in the same way anyone who supports funding Planned Parenthood for all the good work they do, cancer screening, health checkups for low income men and women, are condoning or supporting abortion. Sure Churches do good things with those donations, but they also spend it on their own rape victims, and with money being as "fungible" as you claim, whose to say it wasn't your dollar that got paid like an after-the-fact prostitution payment to a family for the sexual services of their child by a priest or pastor?

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.66  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.65    2 months ago

I see You have a "Church" fetish.

Now how 'bouts that "Abortion" and "Taxes" thingy.

Anything ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.67  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.64    2 months ago
And there's no serious challenge or threat to the Hyde Amendment.

Then there would be no point in Democrats calling for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment.

But they are calling for it.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2.68  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.64    2 months ago

Just your uniformed rhetoric....you didn't dispute a thing.

Democrats are pushing for exactly what was said in the comment.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.69  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.62    2 months ago

See how silly your logic sounds when applied to other things?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.70  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.66    2 months ago
Now how 'bouts that "Abortion" and "Taxes" thingy.

[delete]

You argue the "fungibility" of money, the concept that if you give money to a group for a specific thing, like donate to a Church to support their soup kitchen for the homeless, that money doesn't just go to the homeless but also to pay the attorneys to defend pedophile priests. With a Churches tax exempt status, they get all the benefits my tax dollars provide, roads, sewer, water, power infrastructure, fire departments and police departments, but they pay nothing so in a way we are all paying their share of these expenses.

With the concept of fungibility, we are all paying for the Mosques, Churches and synagogues to defend their priests, pastors, imam's and rabbi's when they are caught abusing and raping children. Of course, that's rather silly and no one really blames anyone donating to a Church or paying their share of taxes because no one really views fungibility that way. The same should be true for Planned Parenthood who is merely reimbursed for many health services they provide, but some folk apparently don't mind being monumental hypocrites by claiming fungibility applies here, but not in their own church.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.71  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.70    2 months ago

Why do Democrats want taxpayers to pay for their choice?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.72  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.67    2 months ago

Where are Democrats advocating for elective 3rd trimester abortions? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.73  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.70    2 months ago
removed for context

Your a bad teacher. I hope they haven't "Given" you tenure !

Now ….. AGAIN ….. how 'bout's that "Abortion" and "Taxes" thing.

I just can't find anything specific about "Churches" in the article.

Are you adlibbing again ?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.74  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.67    2 months ago

So what? It's not going to change anything. Nothe likely it'll happen anytime soon.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.75  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.69    2 months ago

Logic clearly seems to elude you.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.76  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.63    2 months ago

So you're only assuming money i's going towards elective abortion's then! Pardon me if that means absolutely nothing to me.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.77  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.76    2 months ago
So you're only assuming money i's going towards elective abortion's then!

Please note where I "assumed" anything like that !

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.78  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.75    2 months ago
Logic clearly seems to elude you.

Well, Gordy, if that's true, it must be because some try to pass comments like 3.2.56 off as "logical".

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.79  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.77    2 months ago

You're the one mentioning skirting tax laws, implying that is what is occurring with regards to abortion funding. If that is not occurring, then money is not going toward elective abortions. My mistake then. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.80  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.72    2 months ago
Where are Democrats advocating for elective 3rd trimester abortions?

Whoa there. 

Slow down.

Calm down.

I never said they were. Why don't you try to debate on something I claim instead of doing what you are now?

You are being intellectually dishonest and lazy, trying to debate that way.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.81  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.78    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.82  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.79    2 months ago
You're the one mentioning skirting tax laws, implying that is what is occurring with regards to abortion funding.

Did you read the articles I "Gave" you ?

"If that is not occurring"

You really don't know ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.83  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.81    2 months ago

I'll give you credit--you never give up or budge off a talking point even in the face of real logic.

Congrats?

 
 
 
lib50
3.2.84  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.53    2 months ago
Then why are Democrats trying to change the Hyde Amendment?

Probably because of the current republican attack on women's reproductive health and rights that is being carried out by a bunch of ignorant old MEN who want to slut shame and control women to keep some fragile hold on their waning manhood.  Time to shut this all down and get all society out of our uteri.  Its REALLY not your collective business and they should have stopped at the Hyde Amendment if they cared about that.  Now the war is on.  We are going for broke.  Enjoy the ride.  The younger generations aren't having this bullshit.

Have all the abortion you want and can afford to pay for yourself.

Should be a normal part of women's reproductive healthcare.  Not your business in ANY way.  Nobody forces you to pay nor have one.  Some women CAN'T afford them, and guess what?  YOU STILL DON'T PAY.

It isn't society's responsibility to pay for your choice.

Nothing to do with you or society any more than your diabetes or high blood pressure.    Although society does NOT pay for elective abortions.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.85  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.80    2 months ago

My mistake. That was supposed to be in response to Sunshine's claim.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.86  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.83    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.87  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.73    2 months ago
how 'bout's that "Abortion" and "Taxes" thing.

I guess having a rational discussion is impossible so I will no longer bother. You're obviously not going change your views and are intentionally being obtuse in response so I see no point in continuing. [deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.88  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @3.2.84    2 months ago
Nobody forces you to pay nor have one. Some women CAN'T afford them, and guess what? YOU STILL DON'T PAY.

I am simply not naïve or stupid enough to recognize that if Democrats get their way and repeal the Hyde Amendment, tax dollars WILL be going for abortions.

Nothing to do with you or society any more than your diabetes or high blood pressure. Although society does NOT pay for elective abortions.

Society does not pay currently, but that is only because the Democrats haven't gotten their way yet.

WTF is wrong with paying for your OWN choices?

I pay for mine. Why can't women?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.89  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.85    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.90  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.86    2 months ago
How hilarious that you think you "know" logic.

Today's your lucky day!

I have some free time--need it all explained to you?

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.91  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.87    2 months ago
I guess having a rational discussion is impossible so I will no longer bother.

Rational people don't go off on some other subject.

Is that "Logical" jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif to you ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.92  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.81    2 months ago
Like I said, you don't understand logic.

Logic tells you …… Nothing is going on ?

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.93  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.89    2 months ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.94  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.43    2 months ago

No, you did not...

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.95  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.44    2 months ago

Exactly.  Well put.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.96  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.48    2 months ago

It’s changing in New York State.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.97  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.96    2 months ago
It’s changing in New York State.  

Good! I That is NY's prerogative! It's a response to the draconian anti-abortion laws some states try to pass. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4  MrFrost    2 months ago

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

.

In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

.

In Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine;   it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5  MrFrost    2 months ago
Arguments For Abortion Mimic The Arguments For Slavery Before The Civil War

Curious, and what do you call forcing women to have kids? Sounds a LOT like slavery to me! 

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1  Gordy327  replied to  MrFrost @5    2 months ago
Arguments For Abortion Mimic The Arguments For Slavery Before The Civil War

Yep, some want to make women a slave to their fetus. Slavery is the proper term to use when you forcibly take away or deny someone their established rights. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @5    2 months ago

Being terminated for merely existing is as bad as slavery. For the poor child it’s actually worse.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @5.2    2 months ago

There is no child in an abortion. And being forced to carry one against one''s will is Handmaid's level messed up.

 
 
 
charger 383
5.2.2  charger 383  replied to  Heartland American @5.2    2 months ago

Being prohibited from removing something that is inside of you and affecting what you can do, that you do not want is slavery

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.2.3  Don Overton  replied to  Heartland American @5.2    2 months ago

Except there is no child yet.  Make believe is all you have

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @5.2    2 months ago
Being terminated for merely existing is as bad as slavery. For the poor child it’s actually worse.  

More wars!!!!!! YES!

More gun violence and more guns!!!! YES!!!!!!

More abortions!!!!! No, I am pro life. 

Your argument literally makes no sense. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.3  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @5    2 months ago
forcing women to have kids

Who is being forced to get pregnant?

 
 
 
charger 383
5.3.1  charger 383  replied to  Tacos! @5.3    2 months ago

getting pregnant is not the problem, being forced to remain that way when they don't want to is

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  charger 383 @5.3.1    2 months ago
getting pregnant is not the problem

It shouldn't be, but this notion the someone is being forced sort of implies that people are getting pregnant against their will. That, in turn, implies they had sex against their will. That surely is not the situation in all cases. Of course contraception fails, but that danger exists and is - or should be - well known.

The idea is that once a woman is pregnant, her circumstances have changed and she now holds power over another life. You can say remaining pregnant is some kind of slavery or you can say it's a responsibility.

It's the only context in which we allow a person to end some other human life. For some, the only way to justify it is to make the claim that no such human life exists.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.3.3  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @5.3.2    2 months ago

If someone gets pregnant, they have the choice to continue the pregnancy or not. Forcibly removing that choice and forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will is essentially enslaving her to the pregnancy/fetus. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.3.4  Don Overton  replied to  Tacos! @5.3    2 months ago

Women are.  Especially catholics and other other religious sects

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.3.5  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @5.3    2 months ago
Who is being forced to get pregnant?

Guessing you missed HA's other article about religious freedom and not supporting contraception? So there is your answer. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.3.6  MrFrost  replied to  charger 383 @5.3.1    2 months ago
getting pregnant is not the problem, being forced to remain that way when they don't want to is

Well said. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.3.7  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @5.3.5    2 months ago

In that context, I agree. The religious prohibitions on contraception are absurd.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6  MrFrost    2 months ago
In both cases, activists cannot silence the conscience, no matter how loud and radical they become.

So you want to legislate "thoughts" now? SO much for that more personal freedoms garbage. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
7  MrFrost    2 months ago
Like Roe v. Wade(1973), it codified a systemic denial of basic rights to an entire group of people.

And what do you call making a legal medical procedure almost literally, illegal? A systemic denial of a basic right to an entire group of people? 

Yep. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
8  bbl-1    2 months ago

Conservatism can only thrive when the society relinquishes it's freedoms to those who stoke fear, division and avarice.

Equating a decision to have a child with a decision to own a slave is...……...bizarre and reeks of not so subtle Russian propaganda.

This debate concerning 'Choice' for the ''Non Choicers' is a movement to create a permanent subservient sub class in American society, not so different from 'the status class' in rigid theocratic governance such as some of those in the Islamic world. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
9  MrFrost    2 months ago
New York has ruled that killing an unborn human cannot count as "homicide."

That's because a fetus has no rights, according to the SCOTUS. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
9.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @9    2 months ago

Actually in several states a person who kills a pregnant woman intending to carry to term her live baby and the baby dies too, the murderer can be charged with two counts of murder.  The state of New York reversed such a law.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @9.1    2 months ago

Yea, it's that whole choice thing. Would the fetus been carried to term had the mother not been shot and killed? Yes. She was not given a choice, get it? "Choice", that thing the cons want to take away from women. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @9.1    2 months ago
Actually in several states a person who kills a pregnant woman intending to carry to term her live baby and the baby dies too, the murderer can be charged with two counts of murder.

That's not a guarantee. It's dependent on individual state laws, the stage of gestation, the circumstances surrounding the death in question, and whether a prosecutor decides to pursue such a charge.

 The state of New York reversed such a law.  

Good! Fetal homicide laws are clearly emotionally driven!

 
 
 
MrFrost
10  MrFrost    2 months ago
Early Christianityforbade the killingof an unborn baby in the womb.

That's because there is no such thing as an, "unborn baby". Just more appeal to emotions. Pretty sick. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.1  Gordy327  replied to  MrFrost @10    2 months ago
Just more appeal to emotions. Pretty sick. 

Are you really that surprised? Appeals to emotion is pretty much the only argument anti-choicers have against abortion. They certainly can't make any logical or rational arguments. I suppose that's why they've repeatedly lost on the issue when it went before the courts. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
10.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1    2 months ago

Except 'the courts' are being changed.  Quickly.  McConnell is pushing them through as fast as he can. 

It is very possible that judicially, DJT will be the most influential president since FDR.   

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1    2 months ago
Are you really that surprised?

Not in the least. LOL 

Appeals to emotion is pretty much the only argument anti-choicers have against abortion. They certainly can't make any logical or rational arguments.

Or religious arguments for that matter. Even their own bible says life doesn't begin at conception. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1    2 months ago
I suppose that's why they've repeatedly lost on the issue when it went before the courts. 

Indeed. It's EXTREMELY rare that the SCOTUS will reverse a previous decision. Of course it can happen, but I don't see abortion being made illegal via the SCOTUS. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
10.1.4  bbl-1  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.3    2 months ago

I disagree.  Roe v Wade will be a states rights issue.  Wait for it.  SCOTUS needs one more Trumpian judge.  Wait for it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.3    2 months ago
Of course it can happen, but I don't see abortion being made illegal via the SCOTUS. 

Especially since there are multiple SCOTUS rulings which have affirmed and expanded on abortion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.4    2 months ago
Roe v Wade will be a states rights issue. 

It already was, and to a lesser degree still is. Clearly that didn't go well, as states tend to not be very rational when it comes to such issues.

 
 
 
Heartland American
10.1.7  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.1    2 months ago

And that is a very good thing for America.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @10.1.7    2 months ago

Taking away people's rights is hardly a good thing.

 
 
 
Don Overton
10.1.9  Don Overton  replied to  Heartland American @10.1.7    2 months ago

So it's ok with you if the 2nd is taken away

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @10.1.7    2 months ago
And that is a very good thing for America.  

Just remember, McConnell said that a justice cannot be confirmed in an election year. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.11  MrFrost  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.8    2 months ago
Taking away people's rights is hardly a good thing.

Bingo. Smacks of fascism. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.10    2 months ago
Just remember, McConnell said that a justice cannot be confirmed in an election year.

So now you agree with him?

Does this mean we will finally see the end of the complaining about Obama's pick?

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.13  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.12    2 months ago
So now you agree with him?

Do you not think he should be held to the same standards he set forth 4 years ago? Should he get a pass only when it fits his agenda? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.13    2 months ago

Not what I asked. I asked if YOU agreed with him NOW.

I didn't say anything about a pass--just asked a simple (or so I thought) question.

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.11    2 months ago
Bingo. Smacks of fascism. 

I was going to say the same thing. Some probably think the government legislating women's personal health care choices is not fascism, But if the government legislates something that they disapprove of, suddenly it's fascism.

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.16  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.14    2 months ago
Not what I asked. I asked if YOU agreed with him NOW.

I agree that there should be no confirmations in an election year. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
10.1.17  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.10    2 months ago
Just remember, McConnell said that a justice cannot be confirmed in an election year. 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/05/29/fill-mitch-mcconnell-says-would-fill-supreme-court-vacancy/JWfYOSUHku9zFdc5esXCkJ/story.html

‘Oh, we’d fill it.’

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.16    2 months ago
I agree that there should be no confirmations in an election year.

That's nice.

If you have any pull with the folks who are STILL whining about the Senate not confirming Obama's pick, tell them!

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @10.1.17    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.19    2 months ago

I was referring to the prick McConnell and it was all correct 

 
 
 
Heartland American
10.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @10    2 months ago

The link in the article is quite clear about the early Christians opposition to abortion, child abandonment, and infanticide.  .  

 
 
 
bbl-1
10.2.1  bbl-1  replied to  Heartland American @10.2    2 months ago

Yeah well, they also opposed shellfish and a bunch of other stuff too.  Hell, they even opposed each other.  Your point?

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @10.2    2 months ago
Christians opposition to abortion

So what is in the bible is only valid if it fits a political agenda? Seems totally legit. /s

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.3  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @10    2 months ago
there is no such thing as an, "unborn baby"

So, to clarify, do you believe there is any point during a pregnancy when it would be wrong to abort? Would 39 weeks be ok?

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.3.1  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @10.3    2 months ago

I am not in favor of abortions past the point of viability and then, it would need to be a truly extreme case. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @10.3.1    2 months ago

Why?

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @10.3.1    2 months ago

Exactly what do you consider to be the point of viability?

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.3.4  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @10.3.2    2 months ago
Why?

Because it can survive on it's own? Do you not know what "viability" means? Wow. Let me help. 

vi·a·bil·i·ty
/ˌvīəˈbilədē/
noun
  1. ability to work successfully.
    "an interest in the long-term viability of British companies"
    • BIOLOGY
      ability to survive or live successfully.
      "pregnancy depends on the viability of the sperm and egg"
 
 
 
Texan1211
10.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @10.3.4    2 months ago

Why would it need to be an extreme case?

Is 24 weeks too late for an abortion? 25 weeks? 

And why would that matter if the woman is the sole arbitrator of her body, what difference would it make if it is 4 weeks or 30 weeks?

 
 
 
pat wilson
10.3.6  pat wilson  replied to  Tacos! @10.3    2 months ago

Only 1.3 % of pregnancies are terminated after 21 weeks. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.3.7  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @10.3.5    2 months ago
Is 24 weeks too late for an abortion? 25 weeks? 

Nope.

And why would that matter if the woman is the sole arbitrator of her body, what difference would it make if it is 4 weeks or 30 weeks?

it shouldn't.

Exactly what do you consider to be the point of viability?

Medical science has determined viability is approximately 23-24 weeks gestation.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.3.8  Tacos!  replied to  pat wilson @10.3.6    2 months ago

And? Does that mean we should or should not care about them at all?

 
 
 
pat wilson
10.3.9  pat wilson  replied to  Tacos! @10.3.8    2 months ago

No it means that most abortions performed after 21 weeks are for extreme reasons, like health of the mother or fetal deformities.

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.3.10  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @10.3.8    2 months ago
And? Does that mean we should or should not care about them at all?

The better question is, how is it any of your business?

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.3.11  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @10.3.7    2 months ago
Medical science has determined viability is approximately 23-24 weeks gestation.

Yes, but that is the extreme. The chances of survival at that stage aren't even 50/50. It's more like 30%. And it's not like they go home right away. The ones that do, don't leave the NICU for months and face an increased chance of physical and/or mental defects. In this context, "viability" means only that doctors have a better than zero chance of keeping a baby alive. That seems like a generous definition of "viable."

It seems reasonable that at some point in the future, though, medical science will find ways to extend that viability line back to 22 weeks, 21 weeks, and so on. Maybe 23 weeks shouldn't be the line we draw.

One of these days, some smart person will figure out how to design an artificial womb. What will that do what constitutes concepts of "a human life?"

Should the lines we draw in this regard really be based on what a doctor can pull off if everything goes right?

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.3.12  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @10.3.10    2 months ago
The better question is, how is it any of your business?

Actually, considering the intent of this forum, that's the most useless question I can think of. I could just as easily ask how is this any of your business?

That's rhetorical, though. Until Perrie says otherwise, everyone here has the same right to explore a topic as anyone else. You don't get to police that, Gordy.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.3.13  Tacos!  replied to  pat wilson @10.3.9    2 months ago

I guess what I'm trying to point out is you just keep stating a statistic. It would be more useful if you explained why you thought that was important - particularly why you think it's important to me since you addressed it to me.

 
 
 
pat wilson
10.3.14  pat wilson  replied to  Tacos! @10.3.13    2 months ago
particularly why you think it's important to me since you addressed it to me.

You and others were discussing the timing (in terms of weeks) of abortions. That's why I thought it was pertinent to the thread.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.3.15  Tacos!  replied to  pat wilson @10.3.14    2 months ago

Right, but if you think an abortion is wrong at [insert number of] weeks, wouldn't it be wrong whether 98% of abortions were performed then or 2%? Any crime, for example, is still a crime even if it happens infrequently.

 
 
 
pat wilson
10.3.16  pat wilson  replied to  Tacos! @10.3.15    2 months ago
if you think an abortion is wrong at [insert number of] weeks

I didn't say anything about right or wrong. 

Abortion is not a crime but I do happen to think its wrong after 20 weeks (except for extreme cases). Its still a decision for the woman and her physician not me or you or anyone else.

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.3.17  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @10.3.7    2 months ago

So viability really has nothing to do with it.

A woman can get an abortion at any point in her pregnancy, right?

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.3.18  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @10.3.16    2 months ago
bortion is not a crime but I do happen to think its wrong after 20 weeks (except for extreme cases). Its still a decision for the woman and her physician not me or you or anyone else.

So really, a woman could get an abortion at any time of her pregnancy.

Viability doesn't really have anything to do with it.

I am always curious as to why when matters regarding abortion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.3.19  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @10.3.17    2 months ago
So viability really has nothing to do with it.

From a legal standpoint, yes.

A woman can get an abortion at any point in her pregnancy, right?

From a legal standpoint, no.

Somehow, I think you already know that. So what's the point to your line of questioning.

I am always curious as to why when matters regarding abortion.

It shouldn't. But lawmakers seem to make a big deal about it. Perhaps you should ask them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.3.20  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @10.3.19    2 months ago

I always like to ask the people who advocate for choice when they claim that abortion should only be at certain times or when the mother's life is in danger.

To me, that is inconsistent. Either be for abortion choice at any time during the pregnancy or none. It makes no sense to restrict it to certain times.

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.3.21  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @10.3.11    2 months ago
Yes, but that is the extreme. The chances of survival at that stage aren't even 50/50. It's more like 30%. And it's not like they go home right away. The ones that do, don't leave the NICU for months and face an increased chance of physical and/or mental defects. In this context, "viability" means only that doctors have a better than zero chance of keeping a baby alive. That seems like a generous definition of "viable."

Do you have a point?

It seems reasonable that at some point in the future, though, medical science will find ways to extend that viability line back to 22 weeks, 21 weeks, and so on. Maybe 23 weeks shouldn't be the line we draw.

Current medical science maintains viability at approximately 23-24 weeks. Future what-ifs is just speculation. It's probable that future medical advancement may only increase the survival rate of those born at viability.

One of these days, some smart person will figure out how to design an artificial womb. What will that do what constitutes concepts of "a human life?"

Let me know when that happens.

Should the lines we draw in this regard really be based on what a doctor can pull off if everything goes right?

Currently, yes!

Actually, considering the intent of this forum, that's the most useless question I can think of.

So why don't you answer it!

I could just as easily ask how is this any of your business?

Answer; it's not! But then, I'm not trying to legislate or actively limit or remove a woman's rights. Neither am I telling anyone what they can/should do or not regarding their health choices. I have no say (nor should I) in such matters and neither does anyone else, except the woman in question!

That's rhetorical, though. Until Perrie says otherwise, everyone here has the same right to explore a topic as anyone else. You don't get to police that, Gordy.

I never said you couldn't discuss something. I see you missed the point! People, especially politicians,  go on about abortion. But the question remains, how is it anyone else's business what a woman chooses to do regarding her pregnancy? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.3.22  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @10.3.20    2 months ago
To me, that is inconsistent. Either be for abortion choice at any time during the pregnancy or none. It makes no sense to restrict it to certain times.

I agree. I also find it sometimes hypocritical.

 
 
 
pat wilson
10.3.23  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @10.3.18    2 months ago
bortion is not a crime but I do happen to think its wrong after 20 weeks (except for extreme cases). Its still a decision for the woman and her physician not me or you or anyone else.

So really, a woman could get an abortion at any time of her pregnancy. Yes, but you knew that.

Viability doesn't really have anything to do with it. Of course it does. You didn't read my post, did you ?

I am always curious as to why when matters regarding abortion. Because you think that a tiny human exists as soon as a sperm fertilizes an egg, right ?

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.3.24  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @10.3.21    2 months ago
Do you have a point?

Yes. Have a standard that makes some kind of sense. We're arguably not even using the word "viable" correctly and that word is somehow the standard. That makes it a hard thing to base policy on whether you think it's too early or too late.

Let me know when that happens.

And when I do, will that change your concepts of right and wrong? Are those concepts so flexible?

So why don't you answer it!

Because it doesn't deserve an answer. You're unclear on how this works, I guess.

I'm not trying to legislate or actively limit or remove a woman's rights.

Neither am I, but you think you have the authority to question my right to speak on a topic.

I never said you couldn't discuss something.

Demanding that I justify my right to speak is doing exactly that. Stop asking me how it's any of my business and we won't have a problem.

how is it anyone else's business what a woman chooses to do regarding her pregnancy?

I don't honestly believe you don't know the answer to this. The objection to abortion is not about a woman's personal choices. It's about the impact it has on a developing human being. If you want to believe there is no human being growing in a pregnant woman, that's your choice, but other people feel differently and that's the root of their objection. They feel they are intervening to save an innocent life. For them, it's no different than laws that require a parent to feed their children, prohibit beating them to death, and so on.

It's not about preventing someone from making routine personal choices. Every time you go down that road, you are dishonestly representing the opposing argument.

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.3.25  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @10.3.23    2 months ago
So really, a woman could get an abortion at any time of her pregnancy. Yes, but you knew that.

Actually, some on both sides claim that a woman can not get an abortion at any time before birth. When some opponents of abortion tried to say that the NY law would allow abortion up to birth, many pro-choice were quick to say that was false.

Viability doesn't really have anything to do with it. Of course it does. You didn't read my post, did you ?

If a woman isn't allowed to have an abortion after the age of viability, then YES, viability has something to do with it. If she can terminate her pregnancy at any time she chooses for any reason, then NO, viability doesn't have anything to do with it.

I am always curious as to why when matters regarding abortion. Because you think that a tiny human exists as soon as a sperm fertilizes an egg, right ?

No, and it is extremely foolish and presumptuous of you to tell me what I think.

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.3.26  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @10.3.24    2 months ago
Yes. Have a standard that makes some kind of sense. We're arguably not even using the word "viable" correctly and that word is somehow the standard. That makes it a hard thing to base policy on whether you think it's too early or too late.

You do understand what viability is, right?

And when I do, will that change your concepts of right and wrong? Are those concepts so flexible?

What does right or wrong have to do with anything?

Because it doesn't deserve an answer. You're unclear on how this works, I guess.

Speak for yourself! It works like this: A question is asked, then an answer is provided. Since you have yet to provide an answer, I can only assume you're either deflecting or have no answer. Which is it?

Neither am I, but you think you have the authority to question my right to speak on a topic.

I never said you couldn't speak about a topic. But just because you speak about something doesn't mean what you say will be free from scrutiny or challenge.

I don't honestly believe you don't know the answer to this.

Humor me then.

The objection to abortion is not about a woman's personal choices. It's about the impact it has on a developing human being.

The woman's choices are paramount.

If you want to believe there is no human being growing in a pregnant woman, that's your choice, but other people feel differently and that's the root of their objection.

People can have their beliefs. But personal beliefs should not be pushed onto others or made into public policy. If a woman believes a fetus is not yet human, who are you to tell her otherwise?

They feel they are intervening to save an innocent life. For them, it's no different than laws that require a parent to feed their children, prohibit beating them to death, and so on.

That's just sanctimonious arrogance. It's not their body, it's not their fetus, it's not their life, and it's not their buisiness!  And yes, it's totally different, even if they don't want to see it that way.

It's not about preventing someone from making routine personal choices. Every time you go down that road, you are dishonestly representing the opposing argument.

Women might make personal choices. But restrictive abortion laws purposely prevent women from either making a choice and/or restrict her options. Such laws effectively state that once a woman is pregnant, she has no choice but to continue a pregnancy, even if she chooses otherwise! 

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.3.27  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @10.3.26    2 months ago
The woman's choices are paramount.

In your opinion. Other people have a different opinion. You keep seeming to insist that your opinions are the only possible logical conclusion and everyone who disagrees with you is delusional. Ironically, you call others "sanctimonious" and "arrogant."

Circumstances can change affecting whose choices are paramount. That is true of many situations.

But personal beliefs should not be pushed onto others

Some would say that the belief that "choice is paramount" is being pushed onto someone else and ending a life. That's a pretty severe tradeoff.

If a woman believes a fetus is not yet human, who are you to tell her otherwise?

Imagine all the ways that philosophy could be implemented horribly. Imagine if someone thinks other people are not human because their skin is dark. Or they're female. Or they are missing a limb. Or they have brain damage. You can literally justify anything and defend it because it's their belief.

But restrictive abortion laws purposely prevent women from either making a choice and/or restrict her options.

Yeah, so? Any law does that. If you had unrestricted choice to do anything, that would literally be a lawless situation. The whole point of needing laws is that people don't do things by choice that the rest of us want them to do.

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.3.28  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @10.3.27    2 months ago
In your opinion. Other people have a different opinion. You keep seeming to insist that your opinions are the only possible logical conclusion and everyone who disagrees with you is delusional.

I've made no such insistence. My "opinions" do not deprive nor seek to deprive individuals of their rights. They are also based on legal precedent.

Circumstances can change affecting whose choices are paramount. That is true of many situations.

Women's choices have been paramount for decades, despite attempts to change that.

Some would say that the belief that "choice is paramount" is being pushed onto someone else and ending a life. That's a pretty severe tradeoff.

Belief is just belief, nothing more. Choice is paramount because of individual autonomy and the law!

Imagine all the ways that philosophy could be implemented horribly. Imagine if someone thinks other people are not human because their skin is dark. Or they're female. Or they are missing a limb. Or they have brain damage. You can literally justify anything and defend it because it's their belief.

Spare me the hyperbole. The flip side of that is dehumanizing or devaluing the woman in question. Same difference.

Yeah, so? Any law does that.

And such laws are also unconstitutional and unduly deprive an individual of their established rights.

If you had unrestricted choice to do anything, that would literally be a lawless situation. The whole point of needing laws is that people don't do things by choice that the rest of us want them to do.

There are already laws in place with restrictions. Some now want to go to extreme ends of the law, such as we see with states attempting to severely restrict or outright prohibit abortion.

 
 
 
charger 383
10.3.29  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @10.3.17    2 months ago
in her pregnancy, right?

her pregnancy, not anybody else's 

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.3.30  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @10.3.11    2 months ago
'One of these days, some smart person will figure out how to design an artificial womb. What will that do what constitutes concepts of "a human life?"

What the fuck does this mean and what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Who the fuck would try to design an artificial womb and for what purposes?

Doesn't sound like 'a human life' to me?

That's some really cockamamie nonsense right there.  

86282ff54f369893f55d97b053666963.jpg

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.3.31  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @10.3.15    2 months ago
Right, but if you think an abortion is wrong at [insert number of] weeks, wouldn't it be wrong whether 98% of abortions were performed then or 2%? Any crime, for example, is still a crime even if it happens infrequently.

One point I haven't seen articulated here in regards to the 1.3% of abortions that occur after viability is the fairly obvious fact that virtually none of those 1.3% of women want an abortion, that's why they carried the fetus to viability. It's five plus months of pregnancy and nearly every woman with an unwanted pregnancy will terminate that pregnancy long before viability.

So that leaves the 1.3% who nearly all are preparing to be mothers, wanting to bring a child into the world, but are then hit with one of the biggest decision they'll have to make in their lives when the doctor tells them their life or health is at risk if they attempt to give birth or the fetus is deformed or a stillbirth. The religious conservatives want to take away that woman's choice and make it for her, to simply force the woman to carry a stillbirth to full term or force her to risk her life and possibly die giving birth bringing a child into a world with no mother. They also may be taking away someone's wife and perhaps mother of other children, all to appease some anonymous religious conservatives conscience who wrongly imagine it's any of their business.

It really is incredibly ignorant to try and use the 1.3% to vilify the 98.7% of terminations before viability which are elective. And that's why there is no "crime", because the 98.7% occur before viability and the 1.3% are only allowed due to special circumstances. Most religious conservatives support the death penalty which is killing a fully born, raised, possibly educated human because of "special circumstances", that being the fact that the convicted committed a heinous crime, perhaps they killed a new mother. Well that's nearly the same special circumstance that would allow the termination of a pregnancy after viability accept it's to save the life of the mother instead of just punishing the one who took her life after the fact.

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.3.32  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @10.3.29    2 months ago
her pregnancy, not anybody else's

Yes, that is what I stated.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.3.33  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.3.31    2 months ago
when the doctor tells them their life or health is at risk if they attempt to give birth or the fetus is deformed or a stillbirth

You're never going to see me say that a woman should be compelled to die or put her life at serious risk to continue a pregnancy. Very few people are going to suggest that. 

It really is incredibly ignorant to try and use the 1.3% to vilify the 98.7% of terminations before viability which are elective.

I personally am not doing that. If you think that is my intent, you are mistaken.

Deformities are a different conversation. Many individual cases of severe deformity will lead to obvious decisions. However, we can't ignore the slippery slope. Aborting a fetus with half a brain is maybe not such a tough choice. What about merely missing a limb? What about down syndrome? What if it just carries a gene for diabetes? Many imperfect people lead long, happy, and productive lives. Where is the line separating mercy from eugenics?

I'm not demanding you or anyone else answer all these questions. I just think it's a conversation we (society) should be able to have without screaming at each other.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.3.34  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @10.3.33    2 months ago
Very few people are going to suggest that. 

I've seen and heard many religious conservatives who refuse to accept any abortion even when its to save the life of the mother.

"Deformities are a different conversation. Many individual cases of severe deformity will lead to obvious decisions. However, we can't ignore the slippery slope."

I don't want to "ignore" it, I think it should be carefully considered. But taking away the choice from the doctor and the woman and putting it in religious conservatives hands is not the way to keep from slipping. That slippery slope is just as dangerous, where religious conservatives could argue they should have rights over the "unborn babies" among the limits eggs women have thus turning us into the Handmaids Tale.

 
 
 
MrFrost
11  MrFrost    2 months ago

PJ Media is a far right wing site with mixed factual reporting. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
11.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @11    2 months ago

And yet despite the attack on the source, this article made the cut of featured articles today on Real Clear Politics.  Unlike the bigot source you refer to, Real Clear Politics can distinguish the quality of an individual article and not stigmatize it because they have some bogus imagined dislike of the site it came from.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
11.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @11.1    2 months ago
Unlike the bigot source you refer to

You do realize they also call out far left wing sites as well, yes? 

 
 
 
Heartland American
11.1.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @11.1.1    2 months ago

As a fig leaf to hide their obvious hate filled bigoted biases.  That so called self appointed site run by arrogant asses rates 11 conservative sites as questionable or propaganda for every liberal site so labeled.  Your source is clearly and obvious for all to see an anti Trump, anti conservative, anti Christian site.  It is a shill for a point of view and for the msm.  It is of no redeeming value and is worthy of nothing but sheer and utter contempt.  

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.3  katrix  replied to  Heartland American @11.1.2    2 months ago
That so called self appointed site run by arrogant asses rates 11 conservative sites as questionable or propaganda for every liberal site so labeled

Gee, it would never occur to you that's because more conservative sites are questionable or propaganda - because that would require accepting actual facts.

 
 
 
lib50
12  lib50    2 months ago

If I have to tell one more member of the christian taliban to mind their own business I don't think I can do it in a nice way.  But I'll try. 

Forcing women to adhere to your personal beliefs is the form of slavery no matter how many times you try to claim the opposite.  You want a clump of cells to have more rights than the woman who is a living breathing human being.  Butt the hell out of our business.

 
 
 
charger 383
13  charger 383    2 months ago

        " Early Christianity forbade the killing of an unborn baby in the womb"

what does early Christianity have to do with the rights of an American woman in 2019? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
13.1  Tacos!  replied to  charger 383 @13    2 months ago
what does early Christianity have to do with the rights of an American woman in 2019?

It's about the argument as to whether or not the Christian concern over abortion is recent or ancient. The link goes here. I think trying to argue that it is specifically a Christian teaching is a very long reach, but I wouldn't be surprised if culturally, it was disapproved of in ancient times.

 
 
 
Heartland American
13.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Tacos! @13.1    2 months ago

It was by Christianity.  The pagan cultures all around allowed abortion by potion, child abandonment after birth and outright infanticide.  

 
 
 
lady in black
14  lady in black    2 months ago

Republican/conservatives want women to be SLAVES to their uterus. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
14.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  lady in black @14    2 months ago

My mom did not consider herself a slave to either her uterus or to any of her three children.  It’s not slavery to not be able to terminate the life of ones child.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
15  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave.

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @15    2 months ago

Get an abortion, then one is no longer a slave to a fetus. Problem solved.

 
 
 
MrFrost
15.2  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @15    2 months ago
If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave.

Excellent point, given that slavery is illegal, we can conclude that forcing women to carry a fetus to term is....slavery. 

 
 
 
charger 383
16  charger 383    2 months ago

Can it be proved a fetus knows anything?

 
 
 
MrFrost
16.1  MrFrost  replied to  charger 383 @16    2 months ago
Can it be proved a fetus knows anything?

It can do nothing an actual human can do. Up to and including breathing air, walking, talking, voting, riding a bike, picking a booger, drive a car, etc..

 
 
 
Heartland American
16.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @16.1    2 months ago

And yet we were all at that stage of development at one point and here we are now, the winners of the lottery of life, survivors of our own mother’s and spared of the abortuary

 
 
 
charger 383
16.1.2  charger 383  replied to  Heartland American @16.1.1    2 months ago

we also did not get run over by a truck or get some disease so we were lottery winners  

 
 
 
Gordy327
16.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @16.1.1    2 months ago

So?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
16.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Heartland American @16.1.1    2 months ago
And yet we were all at that stage of development at one point and here we are now, the winners of the lottery of life, survivors of our own mother’s and spared of the abortuary

And we were all sperm at that stage of development "at one point" and here we are now, shall we ban masturbation? My sperm was the winner in the lottery of life, should we consider every sperm sacred and start monitoring every boy going through puberty so they don't become mass murderers in the eyes of religious conservatives?

 
 
 
Tessylo
16.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @16.1.4    2 months ago

 
 
 
Tacos!
16.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @16.1.4    2 months ago
we were all sperm . . . should we consider every sperm sacred

You were never sperm. That sperm was your father. Your unique DNA was created as a new thing when father's sperm melded with mother's egg. So, no, every sperm is not sacred. But what it creates might be.

 
 
 
Gordy327
16.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @16.1.5    2 months ago

Another classic.

 
 
 
Gordy327
16.2  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @16    2 months ago
Can it be proved a fetus knows anything?

It's not likely they know anything since neurological development is not complete nor are they born with intrinsic knowledge of anything.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
16.2.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Gordy327 @16.2    2 months ago
nor are they born with intrinsic knowledge of anything.

And it seems to appear that there are some who never learn anything no matter how old they get. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
16.2.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Raven Wing @16.2.1    2 months ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
Gordy327
16.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @16.2.2    2 months ago

Can't resist the ad hom attack, eh?

 
 
 
Tessylo
16.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Raven Wing @16.2.1    2 months ago
'nor are they born with intrinsic knowledge of anything.'

'And it seems to appear that there are some who never learn anything no matter how old they get.'

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
17  sandy-2021492    2 months ago

Denial of choice depends on dehumanization of the pregnant woman.  She is reduced to an incubator without autonomy.

 
 
 
charger 383
17.1  charger 383  replied to  sandy-2021492 @17    2 months ago

Like Axlotl tanks from Dune 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
17.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  charger 383 @17.1    2 months ago

I've never read the books, so I had to look that up.  Scary stuff.

 
 
 
Tessylo
17.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @17.1.1    2 months ago

I read those books so long ago I had forgotten about that.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  sandy-2021492 @17    2 months ago
Denial of choice depends on dehumanization of the pregnant woman.

and denial of life depends on dehumanizing the fetus so it can be killed without guilt.


zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, teenager, adult, and the old fuk are all part of the human life cycle.

https://www.reference.com/science/human-life-cycle-2828d4f916244b27

ending that life cycle is ending life.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
17.2.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.2    2 months ago

We don't require anybody, even the dead, to donate organs or tissues to critically ill  adults, teenagers, children, or infants.  You would give a corpse more rights than a living woman.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17.2.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  sandy-2021492 @17.2.1    2 months ago

 never said anyone alive or dead had to donate anything to anyone. LOL

all I said was from zygote to old fuk all are part of "the human life cycle" and that is simple fact.

 You would give a corpse more rights than a living woman.

obviously, a corpse is no longer part of the "human life cycle" 

if you had read the link I provided? you would have already known that.

reading is your friend...

https://www.reference.com/science/human-life-cycle-2828d4f916244b27

try reading that first, it will help with your confusion about what you think I said.

cheers :)

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
17.2.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.2.2    2 months ago

You're supporting taking away a living woman's right to control the use of her own organs, to support a fetus.  We don't harvest the hearts of even those who have been declared brain dead without their prior consent, or their family's, if they're minors.  People in need of hearts, kidneys,  and livers die frequently, but we don't rob corpses to keep them alive.

Again, you'd give a corpse more rights than a living woman.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
17.2.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.2.2    2 months ago

Also, I'm well aware of the human life cycle.  That actually isn't my point.  My point is autonomy.  Bodily autonomy is a human right.  One human's rights do not supersede another's.  Denying a woman bodily autonomy puts the rights of the fetus over the mother's, and dehumanizes her.

If we wouldn't force any other human, alive or dead, to donate organs to save a life, then we shouldn't force women to serve as unwilling incubators.

 
 
 
Heartland American
17.2.5  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.2    2 months ago

Exactly.  Right on and well written.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
17.2.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @17.2.5    2 months ago

So, you're for forced organ donation, then?  Human lives are as dependent on your spare kidney as they are on a pregnant woman's uterus?

Oh, and you'll foot the bill for surrendering your kidney, yes?  Same as you'd expect a pregnant woman to pay for her own medical care after you've made her decisions for her?

Or do you want government to force one group of citizens to render over the use of their bodies against their will, but not another group, specifically, the group to which you belong?

 
 
 
lib50
17.2.7  lib50  replied to  sandy-2021492 @17.2.6    2 months ago

And they think women will buy this patronizing, condescending attempt to control women's reproduction.  A bunch of men who have no idea about female physiology want to force their christian sharia law on us, with no regard for maternal, fetal or child health.  The states who want the most control have the worst death rate, so basically they would be guilty of homicide when women are forced to bear children they shouldn't.  Can you tell they younger generations aren't buying that bullcrap?  Warms my heart.

 
 
 
Heartland American
17.2.8  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @17.2.6    2 months ago

I never ever anywhere even remotely suggested that I favor forced organ donation.  Quit making stuff up.  I am a voluntary donor of as many organs as can viably be given away to another upon my demise. A developing human baby is not the organ of another person. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
17.2.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @17.2.8    2 months ago

You want to force women to allow the use of their organs - uterus, respiratory system, circulatory system, digestive system, etc. to support a fetus, whether they wish to or not, and while they're still alive to consent or withhold consent.  That's forced organ donation, even if on a temporary basis.  You would only enforce that on women, though.

I am a voluntary donor

Kudos to you.  A key word here is "voluntary".

upon my demise

We're talking about living women here whose organs you would use against their will.

A developing human baby is not the organ of another person. 

I never said it was.  It's using the organs of another person.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Dismayed Patriot
Trout Giggles
JaneDoe
JohnRussell
Ender
zuksam
Sparty On
squiggy
Tacos!


51 visitors