Unintended consequences of attacking PP. [W:800, 1034]

[MoSurveyor]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

It only passes your test if you're looking for a lame excuse to justify abortion.

There are plenty of good reasons for abortion -- no need to resort to a lame excuse.

Indeed, the very fact that the ZEF is a human, alive and well inside the woman, and the postnatal human in your example has a dire health problem that situationally justifies ending medical life-support is sufficient substantive difference to render your superficial analogy inapplicable all by itself.

But your continued intellectualism is .. revealing.

In reality you have no clue how "and well", aka healthy, the human (biological term) embryo/early fetus is. For all you know any given human (biological term) embryo/early fetus could have a fatal disease or have some other fatal biological flaw that won't show up for several months. You have no proof of health but insist it's there. That's not science, that's religion.

There's also no way to know that a woman's body will not reject the blood-sucking human (biological term) that's inside her. To pretend otherwise is folly.

Neither the vegetative human (legal term) nor the human (biological term) embryo/early fetus can support themselves, which I suspect is the real reason the SCOTUS ruled the way it did.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

No.
I've posted my centrist position, which is neither pro-choice or pro-life, many times on this forum, including at the beginning of that other thread on defense mechanisms, etc., so you just have to go there and read it.
You, on the other hand, continue to dodge the same question.
Pro-lifers don't dodge that question.
Neither do centrists.
That likely leaves probably ...

You'll notice my "Lean" is "Undisclosed", which has nothing to do with secrecy. It's due to the simple fact few of my positions fit into any neat box. You can believe whatever you want about my position on this issue. Being male I don't believe it's very important, anyway. I rely on my wife for important judgement calls on this subject because of the two of us she is in a unique position. And, yes, you CAN read that as "I'm not as important as my wife" - at least in this area. But I suppose you'll twist that statement around to read "I'm not as alive as my wife". :lol:

 

[choiceone]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

The Declaration does not have the weight of law; if it did, abortion would, by necessity, be illegal right now nationwide.

The Declaration states that all humans are created equal and endowed with an unalienable right to life. Something you and yours are quite eager to alienate from the most innocent among us...



No, it was declared a Constitutional right, in complete error - see the actual text of the Constitution and realize how negligent Blackmun and his compatriots were.



Pregnancy is not a punishment. A child is not a punishment. If unable to economically provide for a child, pursuing adoption is the moral and responsible action.




I'm just going to call this a non-sequitur. That's perhaps more charitable than I should be.

Unwanted pregnancy is a punishment if the pregnant woman thinks it is, because in the average pregnancy, there is damage to her body, and because many women consider that giving birth and being a mother is, effectively, giving your life to someone else and never being able to have it again, is becoming a living sacrifice for the rest of your life.

 

[choiceone]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

The Constitution was written just fine.

It is, of course, a shame when people who either a) can't read or b) like to pretend they can't in bad faith are appointed to the role of upholding and defending the rule of law.

And if you're going to sit here and say that the Constitution actually protects a right to an abortion, you're in the same boat - illiterate, or just pretending to be and lying. The full text is readily available to you - you have no excuse.

What makes you think that you are better qualified to read and understand the Constitution than the people who have been selected to be on the Supreme Court?

 

[choiceone]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

Regardless of how she says it, she really means baby. When she tells her husband "we're having a baby" she means that what's inside of her is alive. She knows it's alive and she takes care of herself, and her health so that she doesn't hurt the baby. If she falls down the stairs and loses the baby, she has lost a "BABY".

When two cells merge, they exchange chromosomes, and they start to divide. It may not look like much, but it is indeed, and in fact, a baby, a life, and a human. Not a horse, a cow, or a chicken, but a human. You can slice it any way you like; analyze it any way you want to, or intellectualize it, theorize it, or say what you want 100 different ways, it is still a human child.

Such efforts by the left to hide this fact serve one purpose and one purpose only. To save abortion from being criminalized. And while it is not legal murder, it is moral murder, so I will henceforth call it murder because that's what it is. But I'll tell you what it is not. It is not an effort to help pregnant women unless there is something wrong with the woman, the baby, or the pregnancy itself. Because if there was, I could support that. But for the great majority of pregnancies, there is nothing wrong with either one of those three things. So that being the case, what is abortion helping?

Nothing at all.

And whoever decided that a life has to be viable before it has to be valuable, cherished, protected and cared for? Isn't it enough that it is human, and alive? Your view of life is technical, detached, unemotional, cold, calculating, and heartless.

You misunderstand. You think the "left" makes efforts to hide the fact that a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is a human child in order to prevent abortion from being criminalized. Actually, the "left" on this issue does not believe that a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is a human child, and that is why it supports abortion not being criminalized. This is the big difference between most pro-life and pro-choice people, that the latter do not equate a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus with a human child.

This is a basic disagreement on what a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is and what a child is. It has to do with one group thinking it is okay to use the term child to refer to the unborn and even unviable, while the other group thinks it is only okay to use the term when the fetal form development is sufficiently complete. You are not going to change the opposing group on this, any more than that group is going to change you.

 

[Moot]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

The Constitution was written just fine.

It is, of course, a shame when people who either a) can't read or b) like to pretend they can't in bad faith are appointed to the role of upholding and defending the rule of law.

And if you're going to sit here and say that the Constitution actually protects a right to an abortion, you're in the same boat - illiterate, or just pretending to be and lying. The full text is readily available to you - you have no excuse.

The education system in this country has certainly failed you. What a shame.

 

[Moot]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

And that proves you right how?

You learned to talk.

We ARE just another mammal trying to survive on the face of the earth. Shocking I know.

So we ARE and the thing that makes us different from other mammals aside from the physiological is our learned human behaviour.

 

[Moot]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

The Declaration does not have the weight of law; if it did, abortion would, by necessity, be illegal right now nationwide.

Hardly, if anything the first paragraph of the DoI could apply to abortion ....

"When, in the course of human events [sex], it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another [pregnancy], and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation [abortion]...."

The Declaration states that all humans are created equal and endowed with an unalienable right to life. Something you and yours are quite eager to alienate from the most innocent among us...

I'm pretty sure they meant viable breathing humans that had suffered under the tyranny of a king and not embryos.

No, it was declared a Constitutional right, in complete error - see the actual text of the Constitution and realize how negligent Blackmun and his compatriots were.

No it wasn't. Women have fundamental rights and the courts have recognized these rights and the constitution protects them.

Pregnancy is not a punishment. A child is not a punishment. If unable to economically provide for a child, pursuing adoption is the moral and responsible action.

It is if the woman thinks it is.

I'm just going to call this a non-sequitur. That's perhaps more charitable than I should be.

I'm just going to call this cognitive dissonance and I too am being overly charitable when I say that.

 

[Moot]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

:roll:

You do have a tendency to over-react .. and to things that never occurred.



No.

I've posted my centrist position, which is neither pro-choice or pro-life, many times on this forum, including at the beginning of that other thread on defense mechanisms, etc., so you just have to go there and read it.

You, on the other hand, continue to dodge the same question.

Pro-lifers don't dodge that question.

Neither do centrists.

That likely leaves probably ...

You've posted a position that is decidedly biased toward Pro-Life. You might be fooling yourself that you are a centrist but you aren't fooling anyone else least of all the Pro-choice folks.

 

[mac]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

CAN LEARN. You just proved the original point about humans having to be taught how to act like humans.

How to act like humans is not what you said.

 

[mac]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

No one said anything about "abilities" only that babies have to be taught human behaviour. You haven't shown any evidence or logic that says otherwise or disputes it, therefore everyone with some sense have no reason to believe you.

No, what was said is that infants are not born a member of our species, and are not human until they are taught to be humans. This, of course, is absurd.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

Unwanted pregnancy is a punishment if the pregnant woman thinks it is

No, your delusions aren't real just because you think they are. That's what makes them delusions.

many women consider that giving birth and being a mother is, effectively, giving your life to someone else and never being able to have it again, is becoming a living sacrifice for the rest of your life.

a) Once you've created your offspring, you're already a parent.
b) Such melodramatic absurdity, if expressed by an actual mother, would indicate that adoption should be looked into.

What makes you think that you are better qualified to read and understand the Constitution than the people who have been selected to be on the Supreme Court?

I possess the ability to read.

Justice Blackmun, flatly, either did not, or was a wicked liar pushing a political agenda, his responsibilities to upholding the rule of law be damned.

Either way, illiteracy or the faux-illiteracy-for-the-sake-of-synthesizing-new-constitutional-amendments-out-of-nothing-to-push-an-activist agenda.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

The education system in this country has certainly failed you. What a shame.

You have been so consistently demonstrably ignorant of basic scientific fact and what basic English words mean that it should surprise no one when your ignorance extends to basic civics.

I did quite well in school, in all subjects. I am uncertain what classes you may have paid attention in, but they are plainly not related to the ones you have been discussing here.

I'm just going to call this cognitive dissonance and I too am being overly charitable when I say that.

No, you just threw a random string of words that may have been a nonsense accusation about others wanting to inflict suffering, and possibly a random mixing of socialist views into the discussion.

A non sequitur, or a ridiculous - and decidedly uncivil - unprovoked personal attack. As I said, I chose to be charitable. That time. Which was a mistake, because see "education has failed" quote above. You did not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Moot]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

No, what was said is that infants are not born a member of our species, and are not human until they are taught to be humans. This, of course, is absurd.

Why is it absurd? Humans could revert back to being monkeys in just a few generations if they didn't teach their children how to be human. Observe the empirical evidence:

Naked Man Eats Face of Victim | Indiana's NewsCenter: News, Sports, Weather, Fort Wayne WPTA-TV, WISE-TV, CW, and MyFOX | Top News

I recall a chimpanzee doing that to a woman not so long ago.

 

[tecoyah]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

That's how he engages and, in his mind, wins every date. You just rewarded his bad behavior.

Actually, to those of reasonable intellect it should be obvious I was dismissing someone who is unworthy of serious debate.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

Put another way, if your civics teacher taught you that there is a right to abortion in the Constitution, the education system failed you.

The solution to such a failed system would be to read the damn thing for yourself and start looking at the system with some warranted scrutiny. Then look to the author of the text in question - Madison's writings are readily available, online, and in the public domain.

 

[Moot]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

You have been so consistently demonstrably ignorant of basic scientific fact and what basic English words mean that it should surprise no one when your ignorance extends to basic civics.I did quite well in school, in all subjects. I am uncertain what classes you may have paid attention in, but they are plainly not related to the ones you have been discussing here.

No, you just threw a random string of words that may have been a nonsense accusation about others wanting to inflict suffering, and possibly a random mixing of socialist views into the discussion.

A non sequitur, or a ridiculous - and decidedly uncivil - unprovoked personal attack. As I said, I chose to be charitable. That time.

The pot calling the kettle black.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

The pot calling the kettle black.

No, Moot, as quoted you were the pot, and you were calling the snow black. Hypocrisy is only part of your problem.

You stated that the lifespan of a sexually reproducing organism does not begin at conception, and you sarcastically compared masturbation (the loss of haploid gamete cells) to genocide. I'm pretty sure you've used the nonsense term "fertilized egg." You are uniquely unqualified to discuss this matter until you seek an education, and I said as much a dozen pages ago when you did these things.

You've since regressed to vindictive ranting against the meaning of words - coupled with threats, and now we're down to "No you are!"

We will not waste further words on your little tantrum. Speak to the topic or do not speak to me.

 

[Moot]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

Put another way, if your civics teacher taught you that there is a right to abortion in the Constitution, the education system failed you.

The solution to such a failed system would be to read the damn thing for yourself and start looking at the system with some warranted scrutiny. Then look to the author of the text in question - Madison's writings are readily available, online, and in the public domain.

A civics teacher should know that constitution doesn't grant rights, it protects them. So if that isn't what you were taught then the education system has failed you.

In Madison's day abortion was legal.

 

[Moot]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

No, Moot, as quoted you were the pot, and you were calling the snow black. Hypocrisy is only part of your problem.

You stated that the lifespan of a sexually reproducing organism does not begin at conception, and you sarcastically compared masturbation (the loss of haploid gamete cells) to genocide. I'm pretty sure you've used the nonsense term "fertilized egg." You are uniquely unqualified to discuss this matter until you seek an education, and I said as much a dozen pages ago when you did these things.

You've since regressed to vindictive ranting against the meaning of words - coupled with threats, and now we're down to "No you are!"

We will not waste further words on your little tantrum. Speak to the topic or do not speak to me.

I pretty sure that my uterus qualifies me to talk about this subject more than you.

 

[Ockham]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

A civics teacher should know that constitution doesn't grant rights, it protects them. So if that isn't what you were taught then the education system has failed you.

In Madison's day abortion was legal.

I would guess the civics teachers do know the difference... they just choose to ignore it for their own reasons.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

A civics teacher should know that constitution doesn't grant rights, it protects them. So if that isn't what you were taught then the education system has failed you.

Please refrain from telling me things I have plainly stated towards you and others in this very thread. Governments protect our natural human rights, that's why they exist. See the DoI.

They do so, however, with a rule of law. Through amendments, our Constitution has had several items set explicitly in the text as constitutional rights. Items that are not there cannot just be pretended into existence - just as these others were placed, the "right to abortion" would require a constitutional amendment.

As would the abortion equivalent of the 13th Amendment banning the human rights abuse of slavery.

If the federal government can simply imagine contradictory rights into existence via the courts, then it can quite literally do anything. Conceptualizing runaway power of that magnitude should be quite sobering, unless you're an authoritarian statist, I suppose. In which case I imagine you'd find the status quo to your liking.

In Madison's day abortion was legal.

a) Our understanding of Biology was far more limited back then.

b) Under the 10th Amendment, each state certainly could have enacted such laws in the late 1700s. They eventually did so. Those laws should still stand today, as they do not run afoul of anyone's rights and the federal government has no power to set the criminal code in each state's jurisdiction.

c) So was slavery, but we fixed that with an amendment, and as a result we're better living up to Jefferson's mission statement of all men being created equal than before. Just as we will be when we stop denying personhood to another set of living humans relegated to mere property to be harmed at their master's whim.

I pretty sure that my uterus qualifies me to talk about this subject more than you.

:attn2: No more benefit of the doubt.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

You learned to talk.

And?

So we ARE and the thing that makes us different from other mammals aside from the physiological is our learned human behaviour.

Our genetics is what makes us NOT other species. What made us superior to everything else on the planet is our intelligence and thumbs.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

Regardless of how she says it, she really means baby. When she tells her husband "we're having a baby" she means that what's inside of her is alive. She knows it's alive and she takes care of herself, and her health so that she doesn't hurt the baby. If she falls down the stairs and loses the baby, she has lost a "BABY".

When two cells merge, they exchange chromosomes, and they start to divide. It may not look like much, but it is indeed, and in fact, a baby, a life, and a human. Not a horse, a cow, or a chicken, but a human. You can slice it any way you like; analyze it any way you want to, or intellectualize it, theorize it, or say what you want 100 different ways, it is still a human child.

Such efforts by the left to hide this fact serve one purpose and one purpose only. To save abortion from being criminalized. And while it is not legal murder, it is moral murder, so I will henceforth call it murder because that's what it is. But I'll tell you what it is not. It is not an effort to help pregnant women unless there is something wrong with the woman, the baby, or the pregnancy itself. Because if there was, I could support that. But for the great majority of pregnancies, there is nothing wrong with either one of those three things. So that being the case, what is abortion helping?

Nothing at all.

And whoever decided that a life has to be viable before it has to be valuable, cherished, protected and cared for? Isn't it enough that it is human, and alive? Your view of life is technical, detached, unemotional, cold, calculating, and heartless.

I strongly believe that viaiblity is when a fetus becomes a person. It is also about the time when the fetal brain becomes aware.

I had two miscarriages between my 2 ed and 3rd child.
The first miscarriage was early on. I was about 5 to 6 weeks gestation.
During my 4th pregnancy I went into premature labor when I was about 5 months gestation.

My doctor was out of town so when I went into early labor we ended up at the ER.
They took a pregnancy test and told me I was no longer pregnant.
The doctor covering for my doctor did not want to come in that day so they shot me full of med's to try to stop the labor.
They took me to the maternity ward with 4 other woman who had given birth to healthy babies.
When I was transferring from the gurney to the bed the fetus was expelled and I accidentally saw it and how deformed it was.

It was a nightmare.

My doctor told me that the fetus was so deformed that even if I had carried it longer it never would have been viable.

That deformed fetus was never a baby ,
it was never a person, and it never had a chance of becoming a person.
It was just a clump of deformed cells , a miscarriage in the making from the time I conceived.

 

[tecoyah]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

I strongly believe that viaiblity is when a fetus becomes a person. It is also about the time when the fetal brain becomes aware.

I had two miscarriages between my 2 ed and 3rd child.
The first miscarriage was early on. I was about 5 to 6 weeks gestation.
During my 4th pregnancy I went into premature labor when I was about 5 months gestation.

My doctor was out of town so when I went into early labor we ended up at the ER.
They took a pregnancy test and told me I was no longer pregnant.
The doctor covering for my doctor did not want to come in that day so they shot me full of med's to try to stop the labor.
They took me to the maternity ward with 4 other woman who had given birth to healthy babies.
When I was transferring from the gurney to the bed the fetus was expelled and I accidentally saw it and how deformed it was.

It was a nightmare.

My doctor told me that the fetus was so deformed that even if I had carried it longer it never would have been viable.

That deformed fetus was never a baby ,
it was never a person, and it never had a chance of becoming a person.
It was just a clump of deformed cells , a miscarriage in the making from the time I conceived.

Here, is an example of someone qualified to debate this issue...We Males are simply not........PERIOD!