Abortion battle looming?

[apple0154]

There was a time when classifying minorities as human beings turned a great number of laws and beliefs on their heads. Yet we managed to get through it because we recognized that classifying them as NOT "real humans" was morally corrupt.

The FACTS are that science PROVES the unborn to be living humans. It is only your own prejudice that does not allow you to accept these facts.

You talk about the principle that ALL humans are supposed to be equal. We have laws that demand we treat all humans (persons) equally under the law. Yet that is not quite true, is it? You will only accept equal treatment for those humans you AGREE deserve human rights. So, when it comes to equality, nothing fundamental has changed. We have added minorities to the list of accepted humans deserving human rights. But we still will not accept the principle that ALL humans deserve human rights. You still cling to the idea that society has the right to exclude specified groups of humans. I do not accept that idea.

Yes, in a medical situation, even if there is not threat to the mother's life, the mother is automatically considered first unless the mother herself demands her baby be put first. Then again, there was a time when white people in our society were automatically put first. In your emergency room example, a white person with a broken finger would be treated before a black person with a sucking chest wound. We got over that by recognizing we were excluding a living human based on a selected differentiation. Before, Blacks were not included because they were "different". Now we exclude the unborn because they are "different". You can claim that excluding the unborn is justified all you want, but in the end, all your excuses come down to their being "different" from us, despite the scientific fact that they are, indeed, human.

Laws can be changed. So complaining about law being "turned on their heads" is a flimsy reason to continue with the injustice of denying a specified class of humans their basic human rights. and the attitude that it is OK to deny ANY class of humans their rights based on our BELIEFS has been proven an immoral system time and again throughout history. Sad thing is, unless you have experienced being on the outside due to those immoral beliefs, very few who hold to them will ever give them up.

As you mentioned there was a time when "a white person with a broken finger would be treated before a black person with a sucking chest wound". However, that has changed, has it not?

Also, you wrote, "Yes, in a medical situation, even if there is not threat to the mother's life, the mother is automatically considered first unless the mother herself demands her baby be put first."

Is there any logical reason that can not be changed? Or, perhaps I should ask, is there any logical reason that shouldn't be changed?

What makes the mother's health/life automatically more important than that of a fetus?

Just as equality for blacks involved a lot more than where they'd sit on a bus considering a fetus a human being will involve a lot more than just abortion.

What logical argument could be used against a charge a woman is not eating properly and it's affecting the fetus? Surely a woman's right to eat what she wants does not include the right to damage the fetus as we've witnessed by State intervention regarding pregnant drug abusers.

As science progresses doesn't logic and common sense dictate the State will have a right to interfere in the lives of pregnant women? Are we going to allow pregnant women to participate in sports/activities that may result in a miscarriage?

Today, would we not punish a parent who strapped a young child on their stomach and went down a ski hill? And what punishment should be meted out to the individual who participated in an activity that resulted in a miscarriage? What punishment do we prescribe to a parent who involved themselves and their child in a activity that lead to the child's death?

 

[Good Luck]

LOL Now its the "if we give them human rights, it will take away all of ours" argument?

Yea, they made that argument against giving "a bunch of uppity niggers" rights, back in the 50s. Yet, somehow, we managed to acknowledge the humanity of minorities without the severe disruption to all creation that the racists kept warning us would happen.

In short, to answer your question, no there is no LOGICAL reason that we, as a society, cannot and should not grasp the moral truth that ALL LIVING HUMANS, no matter what their status, skin color, income, or developmental level, deserve to have their most basic human rights protected.

But I can see you still are trying for a whole bunch of emo excuses to not do so.

 

[Cancel8]

..."the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (HR 5939), which was introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and already has 185 cosponsors. The bill's goals were highlighted in the GOP's "Pledge to America," and future Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) has repeatedly emphasized his continued commitment to anti-abortion legislation. After Republicans won control of the House, LifeNews, an anti-abortion rights website, trumpeted Boehner's promise that he "won't compromise""...

http://carloz.newsvine.com/_news/20...nd-the-democratic-help-they-will-probably-get

 

[apple0154]

LOL Now its the "if we give them human rights, it will take away all of ours" argument?

Yea, they made that argument against giving "a bunch of uppity niggers" rights, back in the 50s. Yet, somehow, we managed to acknowledge the humanity of minorities without the severe disruption to all creation that the racists kept warning us would happen.

In short, to answer your question, no there is no LOGICAL reason that we, as a society, cannot and should not grasp the moral truth that ALL LIVING HUMANS, no matter what their status, skin color, income, or developmental level, deserve to have their most basic human rights protected.

But I can see you still are trying for a whole bunch of emo excuses to not do so.

I do not lose rights by another human being having rights but I most assuredly can lose rights by having them half-ass bestowed on something that isn't a human being and the first attack on those rights would be society recognizing/legalizing two classes of human beings.

For example, those who say the life of a woman always comes before the life of a fetus. Sorry, but in my world the value of life does not depend on what class a particular human being is assigned.

If you knew the 50s, as you referred to, you'd know all about the "equal but different" crap from that time period.

Yes, let's go down that road again, why don't we. Fetuses are human beings but they're different human beings. Their life in never equal to the life of a human being known as a woman but, hey, they're still human beings, just not quite as human? Important? Valuable?

You tell me. What's the fine print you want to accompany the bestowing of "human being" on a fetus?

 

[Good Luck]

I do not lose rights by another human being having rights but I most assuredly can lose rights by having them half-ass bestowed on something that isn't a human being and the first attack on those rights would be society recognizing/legalizing two classes of human beings.

So said the racists in the 50s and 60s.

For example, those who say the life of a woman always comes before the life of a fetus. Sorry, but in my world the value of life does not depend on what class a particular human being is assigned.

Actually you ARE saying exactly the opposite of that. You refuse to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn. That's why you call them by their scientific classification of development level. Ever heard a pregnant woman say "My fetus"? No, she calls it "my baby" doesn't she? YOU are the one with the classification issues, and you are happy to relegate the unborn to subhuman class, thus justifying your support of killing them at will, with no more thought than one gives to slapping a mosquito.

If you knew the 50s, as you referred to, you'd know all about the "equal but different" crap from that time period.

Yea, I was just a child in the 50s. I didn;t understand fully what was going on, just that it made me feel bad. I did know the 60s, and they were not a hell of a lot better, the crap going on was just not (as) legal.

Yes, let's go down that road again, why don't we. Fetuses are human beings but they're different human beings. Their life in never equal to the life of a human being known as a woman but, hey, they're still human beings, just not quite as human? Important? Valuable?

Now you are flat out misrepresenting what I said. (ie: LYING) What I said was we need to get PAST the need to classify humans, and simply recognize that ALL LIVING HUMANS deserve their human rights defended as any other human does. Nowhere have I said the unborn are less -- that is YOUR claim and always has been.

YOU are the one claiming that "fetuses are not real human beings". You do so again in the very post I am responding to. Just like one of those fucking racist assholes calling "uppity niggers" not real human beings. There is no difference between you, except the factors you choose to focus on to justify calling them different from "real" humans.

You tell me. What's the fine print you want to accompany the bestowing of "human being" on a fetus?

Asked and answered. That ALL LIVING HUMANS have their human rights protected on a equal basis, recognizing the basic hierarchy of rights, with right to life itself being most fundamental. And I do not want it in fucking fine print, either. Nice, large bold letters are preferable so prejudiced assholes like you can see them without squinting.

 

[apple0154]

Now you are flat out misrepresenting what I said. (ie: LYING) What I said was we need to get PAST the need to classify humans, and simply recognize that ALL LIVING HUMANS deserve their human rights defended as any other human does. Nowhere have I said the unborn are less -- that is YOUR claim and always has been.

YOU are the one claiming that "fetuses are not real human beings". You do so again in the very post I am responding to. Just like one of those fucking racist assholes calling "uppity niggers" not real human beings. There is no difference between you, except the factors you choose to focus on to justify calling them different from "real" humans..............

That ALL LIVING HUMANS have their human rights protected on a equal basis, recognizing the basic hierarchy of rights, with right to life itself being most fundamental.

So just to clarify your position are you saying a fetus has a right to life regardless if a woman has a defective body?

Let me make this clear so there's no misunderstanding. Let's say a pregnant woman contracts gestational diabetes or uncontrolled high blood pressure. It is likely she will suffer some body damage (liver, kidney, vision, etc). As a society protecting the life of the fetus do we insist she continue to carry that fetus and should damage occur and her very life is in jeopardy do we forcibly hospitalize her so if she does die we can keep her body functions going until the fetus is viable to be removed?

Or do we kill the innocent human being so the defective one may live?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

So said the racists in the 50s and 60s.

Actually you ARE saying exactly the opposite of that. You refuse to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn. That's why you call them by their scientific classification of development level. Ever heard a pregnant woman say "My fetus"? No, she calls it "my baby" doesn't she? YOU are the one with the classification issues, and you are happy to relegate the unborn to subhuman class, thus justifying your support of killing them at will, with no more thought than one gives to slapping a mosquito.

Yea, I was just a child in the 50s. I didn;t understand fully what was going on, just that it made me feel bad. I did know the 60s, and they were not a hell of a lot better, the crap going on was just not (as) legal.

Now you are flat out misrepresenting what I said. (ie: LYING) What I said was we need to get PAST the need to classify humans, and simply recognize that ALL LIVING HUMANS deserve their human rights defended as any other human does. Nowhere have I said the unborn are less -- that is YOUR claim and always has been.

YOU are the one claiming that "fetuses are not real human beings". You do so again in the very post I am responding to. Just like one of those fucking racist assholes calling "uppity niggers" not real human beings. There is no difference between you, except the factors you choose to focus on to justify calling them different from "real" humans.

Asked and answered. That ALL LIVING HUMANS have their human rights protected on a equal basis, recognizing the basic hierarchy of rights, with right to life itself being most fundamental. And I do not want it in fucking fine print, either. Nice, large bold letters are preferable so prejudiced assholes like you can see them without squinting.

 

[Topspin]

riech-wingers will never give up the abortion or racist fights

 

[Good Luck]

So just to clarify your position are you saying a fetus has a right to life regardless if a woman has a defective body?

Let me make this clear so there's no misunderstanding. Let's say a pregnant woman contracts gestational diabetes or uncontrolled high blood pressure. It is likely she will suffer some body damage (liver, kidney, vision, etc). As a society protecting the life of the fetus do we insist she continue to carry that fetus and should damage occur and her very life is in jeopardy do we forcibly hospitalize her so if she does die we can keep her body functions going until the fetus is viable to be removed?

Or do we kill the innocent human being so the defective one may live?

Asked and answered. And answered. And answered. And answered. And answered. And answered. And answered. And answered. And answered.

(Hint: medical science has been able to handle gestational diabetes as a routine, minor complication for several years now.)

If the woman is under a genuine threat to her own life, then and only then should she have the option to kill in order to save her life. How many times over how many threads does it need be explained?

(Ans: Forever, since you will never like the answer, you will continue to act as if it is a new question.)

But let me ask this one: since you invariably come out with the "what if a pregnancy causes medical problems for the woman?" excuse, what of the 90+% abortions which are NOT performed for medical reasons? Do you oppose the legal right to convenience killings, or is all your focus on potential medical problems a bunch of smoke to hide what is really going on?

 

[Canceled1]

Nobody is denying the fetus the right to life.

Insisting one has the right to use another persons body against their wishes, including their internal organs, makes "regular" slavery pale in comparison.

As for women's deaths one is too many. And then there's "damage".

As I've asked before, "What is a fetus worth vis-a-vis damage?" Loss of a limb due to circulation problems brought on by uncontrolled Gestational Diabetes? A foot? A toe?

What about loss of vision? A stroke? Kidney damage? What about liver damage?

Would it OK to say a fetus is a human being and has a right to life but a woman may kill it to prevent kidney damage?

Then there's high blood pressure brought on by pregnancy.

How far up the hypocritical ladder do anti-abortionists crawl? If there is a possibility a woman may suffer kidney damage due to uncontrolled high blood pressure is killing an innocent human being, a fetus, OK? Murder as a precaution?

Of course, there's always the self-defense argument. Because hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to anti-abortionists they believe if the mother's life is in danger and the danger can be removed by killing the little human then it's OK to kill it. The same argument can be used to kill a pharmacist who refuses to give a woman life saving medicine if she can't afford it. Self defense. Kill the pharmacist and the woman has access to the insulin.

But those exceptions are so few, the anti-abortionists tell us. If that's the case why should the innocent human being, the fetus, lose it's life rather than the women suffer the injuries?

I think we all know the answer to that one, don't we? For those who are unsure the answer is women will suffer injuries because, after all, who can say for 100% she will suffer injuries? It will be a wait-and-see scenario because some people believe every case should be treated individually. In other words the doctor will make the decision and we all know how doctors disagree.

Some women will suffer injuries and, yes, some women will die or end up incapacitated to a degree they will have no quality of life. No job. And we also all know that the people who oppose abortion are generally the ones who oppose government programs which help the poor.

So, the woman ends up in poverty, dealing with her injuries, while little Johnny or Mary grows up in poverty dealing with rejection and bullying.

But it's all for the good, they tell us.

Yea, right.

Buh-bye Apple. No more of this crapola post after post, thread after thread. This subject is wrung out to the ridiculous. The mere thought of reading another bloviating tome of yours is just too much.

Sorry Charlie. Only Starkist gets to be the best tuna...

 

[Phantasmal]

They will never change the laws, abortion is a fund raising tool of the right, they need it to unify their base!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Typical black & white, emotional argument.

It's a very complex issue. Issues such as sentience, viability & development all come into play. I know you'll be dismissive of these, but it is what it is.

It's interesting that you think taking such complexity into consideration is "hypocritical," but you have no issues advocating freedom & liberty on other topics, while also (I'm assuming) supporting a state where a woman is forced to carry a fetus to term in her body.

1) it is a black and white issue

2) The child is alive and it is human. That is FACT.

3) IF the womans life is in danger, then it is the right to life vs. right to life and that must be left up to the woman to decide.

4) The ONLY instance where a woman would be FORCED into a pregnancy is when it is a result of rape. In those cases, the woman should have the right to chose since the option of choosing to have sex or not was quite obviously taken from her.

5) Other than number 4, the woman isn't forced to carry the child to term. The woman CHOOSES. She can choose to have sex or not. She can choose to use protection or not (as can the man). If she chooses to have sex and becomes pregnant, then the child is a result of HER actions (along with the man of course).

I know liberals like to pretend the woman is being forced to carry the child, but that is not the case. We all have to take responsibility for our actions. Taking the life of a child based on convenience is a violation of that child's inherent rights in the most egregious of ways.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Not a terrible question, but not an apples to apples either. My main issue w/ abortion, or outlawing it, is that we're talking about the interests of the fetus having a right to develop vs. the right of the mother to decide what to do with her own body. Since we're talking about the use of another body, I personally weigh that more heavily than, say, the right of parents to simply make a decision. While the latter is important with regard to children, it's not the same as your right over the physical use of your body.

But I don't want to be dismissive of the rights of parents to decide for their children, either. Not to sound like a politician, but I just haven't given that one as much thought, since it's not something that seems to come up a lot (at least in the news); I don't even really know what the current legislation is like surrounding that issue. When I do hear about a child dying or something because their parents refused medical care on some religious grounds or something along those lines, I'm not supportive of that. If there was an effort to over-ride that kind of decision, I'd probably support it...

The above is typical of the left. It is a human CHILD. Calling it a 'fetus' is simply a way for the left to dehumanize the child. The 'fetal stage' is just that... a STAGE of the childs development.

 

[Phantasmal]

Always easy for guys to say this kind of shit! We wouldn't even be having this conversation if it were males that had to carry the evidence of their actions! Abortions in all forms would be legal and given away free of charge to all males who needed one!
Human birth is one of the most difficult and dangerous, it is life threatening to the mother. It is a miracle we have so many women survive, but that is today's technology, and in the past it wasn't always this way, but women had no choice, now we have a choice. Men just hate that!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Always easy for guys to say this kind of shit! We wouldn't even be having this conversation if it were males that had to carry the evidence of their actions! Abortions in all forms would be legal and given away free of charge to all males who needed one!
Human birth is one of the most difficult and dangerous, it is life threatening to the mother. It is a miracle we have so many women survive, but that is today's technology, and in the past it wasn't always this way, but women had no choice, now we have a choice. Men just hate that!

Typical bullshit from the left.

'it is a miracle we have so many women survive'???? are you fucking kidding?

What percent of women who give birth in the US die as a result? (edit: the answer is less than 1/100th of a percent)

You like so many others simply want to dehumanize the child because it is convenient. You then pretend that our thoughts on abortion would change if men were the ones bearing the children.... which is simply a pathetic attempt to justify your desire to allow the children to continue being killed in the name of convenience.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

SF.....is an egg a chicken?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Always easy for guys to say this kind of shit! We wouldn't even be having this conversation if it were males that had to carry the evidence of their actions! Abortions in all forms would be legal and given away free of charge to all males who needed one!
Human birth is one of the most difficult and dangerous, it is life threatening to the mother. It is a miracle we have so many women survive, but that is today's technology, and in the past it wasn't always this way, but women had no choice, now we have a choice. Men just hate that!

Again, as previously stated, women have a choice in ALL cases except rape. YOU just don't like the fact that someone is saying that people should be responsible for their own actions. It is easy to prevent getting pregnant or impregnating someone. It is called protection. We all know how to use it.

 

[Canceled1]

Always easy for guys to say this kind of shit! We wouldn't even be having this conversation if it were males that had to carry the evidence of their actions! Abortions in all forms would be legal and given away free of charge to all males who needed one!
Human birth is one of the most difficult and dangerous, it is life threatening to the mother. It is a miracle we have so many women survive, but that is today's technology, and in the past it wasn't always this way, but women had no choice, now we have a choice. Men just hate that!

Tell it to your daughter and grandchildren.

 

[Phantasmal]

Those being responsible for their actions are men, so keep it in your pants, or wear a condom! It isn't just woman that have to be responsible and by the way, accidents happen, there are those who are responsible and still get pregnant. It is not my business to make decisions for others! Talk about imposing your will on others.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Those being responsible for their actions are men, so keep it in your pants, or wear a condom! It isn't just woman that have to be responsible and by the way, accidents happen, there are those who are responsible and still get pregnant. It is not my business to make decisions for others! Talk about imposing your will on others.

so the man has no say on whether the baby lives?

 

[Good Luck]

Always easy for guys to say this kind of shit! We wouldn't even be having this conversation if it were males that had to carry the evidence of their actions! Abortions in all forms would be legal and given away free of charge to all males who needed one!
Human birth is one of the most difficult and dangerous, it is life threatening to the mother. It is a miracle we have so many women survive, but that is today's technology, and in the past it wasn't always this way, but women had no choice, now we have a choice. Men just hate that!

Yea, let us ignore the fact that a significant percentage of the pro-life movement are women. Let's turn the topic into men wanting to subjugate women emo argument, hating on men and vastly exaggerating the dangers of childbirth, completely devoid of anything resembling either reality or facts.