At conception, a new life has begun

[Lursa]

She lies. So, anything that can conflate fact with fiction here is the aim.

And only if it's 'necessary...apparently it's up to her to judge if it's necessary. For women she doesnt know, that dont believe what she does.

 

[calamity]

A human fetus has human DNA making them entirely human.

Earthworms have DNA making them earthworms.

That's how science works.

I take it the words "more closely resemble" flew over your head.

 

[Lursa]

You're trying to debate a point I conceded initially?

What are you attempting to do?

Then why is it acceptable to kill the one conceived of rape but not a woman's other needs?

Are you going to dismiss the entirety of the life of the woman and her needs and responsibilities as 'conveniences' again? Before you do, please answer the question above.

 

[Lursa]

Point-of-fact, somebody has to determine when it is allowed or not.

Is this not what elections determine? Whose morality is the state going to follow?

It's already decided...by the Const. And the fact that women have rights that the Const protects, like reproductive and medical rights, due process, bodily autonomy, etc that would be violated if the govt stepped in and forced women to remain pregnant against their will...which is exactly what banning elective abortion means.

It means reducing women back to 2nd class citizens again...and the courts already examined blacks and women and found us equal under the law. They also examined the unborn and recognized no rights or equality for them...which makes complete sense since they are wholly physically intertwined with the woman's systems and cannot exercise a single right independently. that's proof right there they are not 'equal'. Blacks and women were always capable of exercising rights and were actively doing so even before equal status was recognized.

 

[vegas giants]

Hell yea. If you kill somebody we'll kill you right back.

That's our policy.

And you favor killing a innocent baby in the womb who has hurt no one



And you're defense is you're not perfect

 

[Lursa]

I do find it odd that the unborn itself has no legal rights, but the state retains the right to charge someone who murders the mother with two counts of murder. One for the mother, and one for the unborn.

I've noticed the inconsistency myself.

There's no inconsistency. The charges are brought on behalf of the woman and/or the state. The unborn still have no rights. They do something similar when charging people for killing other people's pets or livestock...the other animals have no rights but their owners, those that have a 'legal interest' in them, still deserve justice.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Clearly not. Did you even read the articles?

I don't give a shit about your articles.

 

[The Baron]

That's your opinion...

And that killing babies is okay is your opinion.

...what reason is there, what authority, to force it on women that dont agree with you?

What moral authority do you have to approve of the killing of babies.

It's morally reprehensible that women have rights?

Strawman. I never said that.

Well, then your posts that dont consider women's lives at all regarding this issue make a lot more sense.

And you don't consider the lives of the babies, at all.

That's Breitbart! LOLOLOLOLOLOL That's a complete bullshit source. Find something neutral, like Guttmacher.

Amateurish. You may now like my source but, so what? That doesn't make it wrong.

If you can contradict it, please do so.

So then why is it ok to kill the unborn from a rape but not for other needs the woman has?

I never said it was okay. But as a husband and father I've already conceded this point and did so initially.

What is the difference in the unborn that makes that acceptable? Is it more or less 'innocent?' Less human? Have less 'right to life?'

Murder is murder.

? Let me ask what you'd teach your kids: is keeping a job so you can keep a roof over your head and food on the table for your family...a convenience? Is finishing their high school or college education...a convenience? Are keeping your obligations and commitments to employer, church, community, society, etc...all conveniences?

I would teach them that engaging in risky behavior is dangerous and has consequences. Welcome to adulthood.

Please answer that directly, rather than starting to judge or dissect it. It's reality.

See above.

Really? Married couples whose birth control fails...'made a poor decision' if they cant afford kids or another kid yet?

Adoption is always an option.

(Many married women get abortions).

I know.

Or any couple, 2/3 of which use birth control...if their bc fails...they made poor decisions?

Intelligent people will utilize more than one form of birth control.

My, that's very judgemental and unrealistic. Many people believe consensual sex is good, not wrong, and a wonderful thing to share between couples.

And that, too, is making a judgment...and an unrealistic one as consensual sex (like any other kind) has consequences including pregnancy and venereal diseases including AIDS.

Of course they dont. How do they? Be specific...here's my statement again: "The scientific facts have no bearing on right and wrong."

The facts tell us that the human embryo is just that...human. And alive! Much of the pro-abortion rhetoric has always been that it's not human and / or it's not really alive. I'm glad to see that you've, at lease, abandoned those demonstrably false beliefs.

Science is objective...

Well, it should be but that's another thread...

...it doesnt decide right or wrong,

Facts do have a prominent say in determining what is "right" or "wrong". Otherwise you simply end up with a relativistic nightmare when "everything is right" and "nothing is wrong if it's right for you".

That's not the kind of thing you want to tell a murderer, rapist or child molester.

Don't you agree?
it doesnt confer any value or rights, and it doesnt view human life any more or less important than any other animal species or species stage of development.

So please, explain how scientific facts do anything more than provide facts objectively?

See above. I just explained the role that scientific facts needs to play in any scenario and the nightmare that ensues if you don't.

 

[The Baron]

Then why is it acceptable to kill the one conceived of rape but not a woman's other needs?

I don't think it's right and I've already conceded that my views on this particular point are not perfect.

While I appreciate you thinking that I'm perfect in every sense I'm afraid you'll have to turn to Christ to find actual perfection.

But if it makes you feel any better, I'm probably the closest thing to perfect you'll find in this world.

Are you going to dismiss the entirety of the life of the woman and her needs and responsibilities as 'conveniences' again? Before you do, please answer the question above.

See above.

 

[The Baron]

And you favor killing a innocent baby in the womb who has hurt no one

And you're defense is you're not perfect

It's not a defense. It's an acknowledgement.

 

[The Baron]

There's no inconsistency. The charges are brought on behalf of the woman and/or the state. The unborn still have no rights.

And that is morally reprehensible.

They do something similar when charging people for killing other people's pets or livestock...the other animals have no rights but their owners,

You don't own a child just as you do not "own" a slave.

those that have a 'legal interest' in them, still deserve justice.

As do the children being slaughtered in their mother's wombs.

 

[vegas giants]

It's not a defense. It's an acknowledgement.

To be clear this is your acknowledgment

And you favor killing a innocent baby in the womb who has hurt no one

 

[Lursa]

I don't. You seem to be confusing young, immature and not fully developed with something that has no value. A child--like all of us--is created in the image of God and has value.

Why on Earth should I believe that? And more importantly, why should other women that dont believe in your God be forced to abide by some mythical rules from him? Please answer this.

And I never said I didnt value the unborn...I asked clearly why you valued an invented 'innocence' that is no more than the vacuum of an empty mind? And you refuse to answer that. Why?

And you do use it to prioritize your 'feelings' that make the unborn more valuable than a woman that needs an abortion. Dont lie...you didnt explain how the woman isnt innocent too...what is she guilty of?

I never said that the baby's life was more important than the mother's life. I would consider them both equally valuable.

It doesnt matter...legally they cannot be treated equally. That's the point. To protect the life of the unborn, a woman's rights, as mentioned many times, would be violated. If you think they can be treated equally under the law, please explain how...and I mean give some specifics. Not just 'yes they can!'

Why do you not?

Because it's not possible legally or morally.

I value the unborn, but I value all born people more. Can you state your view as honestly? And again, they cannot be treated equally in any practical sense that would affect abortion.

If she made a baby then she ain't entirely innocent. She made a conscience decision to actively engage in a behavior that has consequences, i.e. a pregnancy.

So 'making babies' is evil? Huh. She made a decision knowing she had a safer medical option if she didnt want to have a kid.

That's perfectly fine and in no way immoral. We dont all follow your god.

See above.

No. It's murder.

It's not murder. If it was, women who had abortions would be in jail Murder is a legal term.

Murder is murder.

See above. And of course it's a responsible decision, you cannot deny this:

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you cant afford and expecting tax payers to take up that burden with public assistance.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you arent emotionally prepared to have and may abuse or neglect.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid if you know you wont stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc that will damage the unborn.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant and dropping out of high school or college or missing work and not fulfilling your potential in society.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant/having a child and not being able to fulfill your other commitments and obligations to family, dependents, employer, church, community, society.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid and giving it up for adoption when there are already over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted. It means one less waiting will find a home.​

Now do you see just how responsible having an abortion can be? Yes or no?

It doesn't matter how you try to spin it.

I dont have to spin anything, I use facts. You OTOH, spin everything so you can judge it. You have not explained why your 'beliefs' should be forced on women that dont follow your god or believe what you do. Please explain it?

 

[Lursa]

And that is morally reprehensible.

No, that's your unsupported opinion.

You don't own a child just as you do not "own" a slave.

Where did I write that anyone owned a fetus (there is no child in the example you referred to)...all you just did was write 'na huh' so you didnt have to address the argument. Are you so desperate that you have to lie now?

The woman and/or the state are represented by the legal system and the charges are on THEIR behalf, not that of the unborn. The factual answer to your example is that those laws still dont recognize any rights for the unborn, so your example trying to use such laws fails.

As do the children being slaughtered in their mother's wombs.

What goes on inside your head seems rather sickening...why do you imagine that...is it a choice? It's disturbing that you self-indulgently imagine that kind of horrible fantasy. You'd feel better if you just stuck to reality and didnt imagine creepy crap inside women you dont even know.

 

[choiceone]

A human fetus has human DNA making them entirely human.

Earthworms have DNA making them earthworms.

That's how science works.

Official criteria for membership in Homo s. sapiens according to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) include more than human DNA. Members of the species are free-living organisms. Implanted embryos/fetuses are not free-living. To meet that criterion, a fetus would have to have at least the immediate potential for viability when detached from and outside the woman's body.

That's how science works.

 

[Lursa]

And that killing babies is okay is your opinion.

I believe that abortion is a justifiable decision that any woman has the right to make. I would never insist any woman have one, nor deny her one.

You OTOH, would use your personal beliefs to see women forced by law to remain pregnant against our will...that is horrific and demeaning and by no means any moral High Ground.

What moral authority do you have to approve of the killing of babies.

I dont believe in killing babies, that's against the law and wrong and violates their rights.

Strawman. I never said that.

Yes, you did, since the law is protecting women's rights. You said this: And the law is morally reprehensible.

Dont lie.

And you don't consider the lives of the babies, at all.

I dont consider developing unborn in strangers at all, that's creepy. I like babies tho. Too bad that you pretend not to understand the difference.

Amateurish. You may now like my source but, so what? That doesn't make it wrong.

It's wrong and everyone else here has said so, it's garbage.

I never said it was okay. But as a husband and father I've already conceded this point and did so initially.

Murder is murder.

It's not murder, you are factually wrong and posts saying it are stupid.

And you just shrug your shoulders about murdering the unborn from rape. You make whatever decision that suits your conscience but disregard that of women you dont even know. That's pure hypocrisy.

Intelligent people will utilize more than one form of birth control.

And they still fail ("intelligent people" know that) . OTOH, why do you want stupid people to have kids they cant afford or cant care for? Please answer that...maybe you have a good point here.

And that, too, is making a judgment...and an unrealistic one as consensual sex (like any other kind) has consequences including pregnancy and venereal diseases including AIDS.

And so what? People are going to enjoy sharing sex. Your opinions dont matter and wont change it. And most couples do so responsibly...dont go moving the goal posts.

It seems that your idea is to punish them with kids they cant afford or arent prepared to raise. How is that good for anyone?

And I'll address adoption elsewhere.

The facts tell us that the human embryo is just that...human. And alive! Much of the pro-abortion rhetoric has always been that it's not human and / or it's not really alive. I'm glad to see that you've, at lease, abandoned those demonstrably false beliefs.

Those are facts, they have nothing to do with this: Be specific...here's my statement again: "The scientific facts have no bearing on right and wrong."

Where does science say that killing any living thing is right or wrong? Source? It does not. It only provides facts...it's objective.

Right and wrong, value, rights...are all subjective man-made concepts.

Facts do have a prominent say in determining what is "right" or "wrong". Otherwise you simply end up with a relativistic nightmare when "everything is right" and "nothing is wrong if it's right for you".

That's not the kind of thing you want to tell a murderer, rapist or child molester.

Don't you agree?

No, people, society, courts decide laws and punishment and consequences and that's what people know...including the criminals you listed. Science doesnt make laws or legal decisions or again, decide right or wrong.

We as a society make sure the laws are known and followed...or there are consequences. Science has nothing to do with it.

See above. I just explained the role that scientific facts needs to play in any scenario and the nightmare that ensues if you don't.

Yes, science provides facts. I've written it over and over. Man, society, determines what to do with those facts.

 

[Lursa]

I don't think it's right and I've already conceded that my views on this particular point are not perfect.

While I appreciate you thinking that I'm perfect in every sense I'm afraid you'll have to turn to Christ to find actual perfection.

But if it makes you feel any better, I'm probably the closest thing to perfect you'll find in this world.

See above.

So a post of 'na huh? OK, that's fine if you're done. Just so that you dont have to admit that you dont give a damn about how your 'beliefs' would impact women that dont believe the same if it were law? All I can say is, I sure hope you realize how important the Constitution is in protecting the American people then. Re: this issue, it protects women from people that would force their beliefs on them, that would force us to remain pregnant and give birth against our will.

Again, you hold no moral High Ground here.

 

[choiceone]

You don't own a child just as you do not "own" a slave.

Since this is an abortion thread and your posts often use the word "child" to refer to the product of human conception, the zygote/embryo, you are wrong here.

When IVF clinics use a man's sperm and woman's ovum to produce a zygote, which immediately begins replicating to turn into an embryo, the products are often frozen for later use. The donors have various rights over those embryos. If a married couple has frozen embryos and later divorce, there can be issues that certainly suggest "ownership." First, a woman cannot necessarily have them implanted in her if the ex-husband disagrees and vice versa if he has a different woman as wife. The donors have disposition rights, not the clinic. Etc. One could meaningfully argue that the donors do own these embryos.

 

[weaver2]

How are you not doing the same thing? Ultimately somebody's "morals" will dictate the norms of society.

I'm not trying to make abortion unlawful. And I'm not making a moral judgement. Pro-choice lets every family decide what is the best action for their family. If they are a pro-life family and decide to add another child even thought the timing and their financial situation are not conducive to an added expense who am I to dictate that they have to think my way, which would be to abort and wait for a better time. I will even vote for legislators that support families in need.

 

[Lursa]

I would teach them that engaging in risky behavior is dangerous and has consequences. Welcome to adulthood.

You would teach your kids that all these things are dangerous and have consequences?:

Let me ask what you'd teach your kids: is keeping a job so you can keep a roof over your head and food on the table for your family...a convenience? Is finishing their high school or college education...a convenience? Are keeping your obligations and commitments to employer, church, community, society, etc...all conveniences?​

That's odd. I asked you if you would teach your kids that those important things in life are merely conveniences? Are they? Yes or no?

Most people consider upholding their commitments and obligations in life, caring properly for their families, making the most of their opportunities in life, are very important...maybe you're different, I dont know.

Adoption is always an option.

No it's not. A woman still has to risk her health and job and everything else to deliver a baby...and why encourage that unnecessarily when there are more than 100,000 kids already waiting to be adopted in the US? (Not just in foster care, that # is 400,000) How cruel and unnecessary is it when those kids are waiting and hoping for families? Why produce more unwanted kids to compete with them? Those kids waiting are aware and hoping.

 

[weaver2]

Rank amateur horse$h!t. If my source is lying you should have no trouble proving it with a source of your own. That's how this works.

Here's proof
Headline: Under Oath: Planned Parenthood Staff Admit to Changing Abortion Procedure to Sell Intact Baby Parts
From article: "Gatter testified Planned Parenthood distinguishes between the abortion “technique” and the abortion “procedure” and that changing the “technique” is permissible while changing the “procedure” is not."



From article: Judge William Orrick III, barred much of this evidence and testimony from the jury.
And Here's why: "Orrick found that those people's public support for abortion rights does not mean they expected comments they made at closed, private meetings would be made public.
"That is especially true given the allegations - which will be addressed shortly in the ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction - that defendants' videos released as part of their Human Capital Project have been selectively edited to mischaracterize comments made by the identified speakers and, as a result, those speakers have been harassed and threatened,"

https://www.courthousenews.com/doctored-anti-abortion-videos-barred-as-evidence-at-scotus/

From article: The procedure of flipping the unborn baby to breech position with the use of ultrasound technology to attain intact extraction “is the hallmark of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure (18 U.S.C. 1531),” explained a CMP press release.
CMP is wrong and Breitbart is wrong for not having pointed that out. Federal law says fetus can be delivered feat first above its navel if it is dead or if decapitated.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

CMP observed, “the federal law at 42 U.S.C. 289g-1 prohibits any changes to the ‘procedures used to terminate the pregnancy,’ and not simply ‘the procedure’ as a singular category.”
CMP is leaving out the word 'solely' in referring to the law. Here's the law.
(ii) no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue;
Note how the word "solely" changes the meaning of the ban on this type of abortion.

"The videos showed how abortion providers made fetal tissue available to researchers, although no problems were found with the legality of the process. All of the videos were found to be altered, according to analysis by Fusion GPS and its co-founder Glenn R. Simpsonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy

"Officials in twelve states initiated investigations ....... U.S. House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigated........Texas grand jury chartered to investigate Planned Parenthood found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood but instead indicted CMP founder David Daleiden and member Sandra Merritt for creating and using false government IDs and attempting to purchase fetal tissue."

Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How much proof do you want that Breitbart lies. The fact that the article poses as news but is actually a support of Daleiden is one big lie.

 

[choiceone]

We are all made in God's image, therefore, human life is sacred.

We are not all made in God's image. The embryo that causes ectopic pregnancy or choriocarcinoma, the fetus that causes gestational diabetes or pre-eclampsia, the child who kills his mother in childbirth, the born murderer, rapist, and kidnapper are not made in God's image. Human life is not sacred and never has been.

Not believing in God creates a problem to justify why any human life is important and now it begins to become difficult to justify our laws against murder, rape, etc.

Believing in God creates a problem to justify why one religion;s definitions and beliefs are to be elevated above another's if there is to be a government promising to protect the right of freedom of religion.

Our government justifies our laws against murder, rape, etc., just fine right now, thank you. It accords women rights to life/liberty/property equal to those of men, as both are persons. Because an embryo/fetus is not capable of free-living, a precondition of official membership in Homo s. sapiens according to the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature, it can't qualify as a person. However, if you wish to claim it is one for your own behavior regarding your right to control your body, you don't have to have an abortion.

Somebody's morals are going to dictate how our society conducts itself and Christianity should play a prominent role in that.

I do not disagree with this as long as the right to freedom of religion is guaranteed. You might recall that the majority and plurality opinions in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey addressed this issue, as the SC found it necessary not to impose religious beliefs that could impeach the claim of guarantee of the right.

Hey, you kill somebody, rape a woman, molest a child and I have no problem with capital punishment.

I've always found it puzzling why Leftist have no problem killing an innocent, unborn child but cry rivers of tears when the state sends a killer to the eternal celestial dirt-nap.

I think your puzzle has to do with the fact that lots of people have read all about the Northwestern University law school project dedicated to reinvestigating death row cases in Illinois. The law grad students found numerous cases where the convicted person on death row was innocent and found the actual criminal and the conviction was overturned. This project led the then-governor, a Republican, to put a moratorium on the death penalty until the Illinois legal system was able to guarantee more accurate results.

Remember this? It is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be put in prison.
If you did, you would be much more capable of understanding why women have the right to choose, the Constitution recognized it, and the SC understood that.

 

[calamity]

I get a kick out of Right Wingers whining about fetuses while their friends and family die by the thousands from a deadly disease that could have been prevented by simply taking a vaccine instead of listening to charlatans rile them up over dead fetuses.

I guess someone would have to be smart to see the correlation between dying needlessly and needlessly chasing after the ghosts of a million "dead babies.".

 

[Lursa]

Official criteria for membership in Homo s. sapiens according to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) include more than human DNA. Members of the species are free-living organisms. Implanted embryos/fetuses are not free-living. To meet that criterion, a fetus would have to have at least the immediate potential for viability when detached from and outside the woman's body.

That's how science works.

I like this a lot and it's definitive. Do you have a link?

 

[Josie]

I don't give a shit about your articles.

Yes. You’ve made it quite clear that you don’t give a shit about truth.