How many men have no clue

a reply to: Sookiechacha

women don't know what an abortion is, that they don't know what's in their uterus.

Most do, in my experience. You obviously do not.

Women have no moral duty to a carry a fertilized egg, an embryo or a fetus to term.

They do if they put it there.

Abortion is freedom from victimhood.

Doesn't seem to be working in your case.

And you see women's wombs as property that can be regulated by the individual states, on the whims of pandering politicians and religious zealots.

The Supreme Court is not part of the "individual states." But earlier you seemed to dislike them as well, despite telling everyone how wonderful Roe v. Wade was for so many years.

Face it: the only "pandering politicians and religious zealots" are in your mind. You're really just upset because you didn't get your way.

Bless yore little heart.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xtrozero

The question you ask is not necessarily a religious question; it is a philosophical question.

Can we at least agree that the abortion question is a philosophical one?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Most do, in my experience. You obviously do not.

Oh look! A personal insult from Redneck. How predictable.

They do if they put it there.

Women pregnant from IVF often carry multiple embryos, some of which may need to be culled through abortion.

Doesn't seem to be working in your case.

Oh dear, as if this is about me. My reproductive days have long passed.

The Supreme Court is not part of the "individual states." But earlier you seemed to dislike them as well, despite telling everyone how wonderful Roe v. Wade was for so many years.

Oh okay. It's like you just dropped into this issue yesterday, and don't understand how SCOTUS taking away their reproductive constitutional rights gives individual states the power to regulate women's bodies, at the whim of pandering politicians and religious zealots.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xtrozero

The question you ask is not necessarily a religious question; it is a philosophical question.

Can we at least agree that the abortion question is a philosophical one?

TheRedneck

Well of course, Immanuel Kant comes to mind. I think it is both depending on how you are implying the action of abortion tends be as in either good/evil or right/wrong decisions, and so the good/evil tends to be religious in nature. We also have this Gandhi level of life attitude out there that all pregnancies from hour one outside of the health of the mother must be protected at all cost, and that too goes down the path of religion mostly.

Is it right for a 16 yearold to have an abortion where she has no means to care for the baby, and it will make an already hard life 10 times harder to do anything? Is it wrong to do partial birth abortions? As examples as to what I see as more philosophical questions.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I guess my point is by what context can we not end that human being's development? I agree there is a life cycle, but at one cell what makes that so special that the development can not be ended? We end fully developed humans all the time well within the law and social norms, so what makes it different with a human being in the initial stages of development when it is not much more than cells?

This is where we get more into the religious context side of it all.

Which I really try not to do, when discussing this subject.
Everyone has different beliefs, there is no way to prove who is right because philosophy, theology, psychology, sociology, law and politics evaluate this topic from different point of views and beliefs.
Science/biology, on the other hand, lay it out very clear in factual evidence that can be reproduced time and time again.
We are not talking about a "single cell", after mitosis two identical cells are created with the same original number of chromosomes, 46, different from either parents' 46. This is stage one of each and every human beings life cycle, most important is the recognition of the new genome, which represents the principal information center for the continued development of the new human being and for all its further activities.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

Science/biology, on the other hand, lay it out very clear in factual evidence that can be reproduced time and time again.
We are not talking about a "single cell", after mitosis two identical cells are created with the same original number of chromosomes, 46, different from either parents' 46. This is stage one of each and every human beings life cycle, most important is the recognition of the new genome, which represents the principal information center for the continued development of the new human being and for all its further activities.

Yes, you keep saying this, but why is it wrong to stop that development? What makes very early stages of development so damn special it can not be stopped for reasons the mother/father feel are in their best interests.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

A personal insult

More of an observation. You don't think it is alive (it is), you don't think it is human yet (it is), so it follows that you don't know what it is.

Women pregnant from IVF...

...are undergoing a medical procedure. Abortion of multiple fetuses may be part of that; I don't know because we never used IVF. However, if the "culling" of multiple fetuses is a part of that procedure, I am sure such would be allowed as a part of that procedure.

If not, then the laws need to be changed. They might be if ranting and raving people like you could calmly discuss the issue without going into hysterics and trying to oppose science.

Oh dear, as if this is about me.

Sure sounds like it is. You're the one ranting and raving while others are trying to discuss the issue. You are also the one playing victim.

It's like you just dropped into this issue yesterday, and don't understand how SCOTUS taking away their reproductive constitutional rights gives individual states the power to regulate women's bodies, at the whim of pandering politicians and religious zealots.

Memory issues now?

You were one of those who claimed men should sit down and shut up because of Roe v. Wade. So as soon as I heard about the decision to overturn it, I jumped right into a thread where you were and rubbed it in your face. I've been dancing for joy on the grave of Roe v. Wade ever since, and I have no intention of stopping... EVER!

There never was a "reproductive constitutional right" to abortion; Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that was used by activist judges (read: wanna-be legislators) to find a "right" that wasn't mentioned and then legislate it illegally. Abortion is never explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution, abortion has been regulated throughout the history of the USA and therefore cannot be an implied right under the US Constitution, and the Supreme Court does not get to make laws; that is Congress' job exclusively.

You've been shown that over and over and over again, yet you refuse to even acknowledge it.

You have shown clearly just how insincere your arguments are by praising the Supreme Court when things went your way and then demonizing them when things didn't go your way. That's a 3-year-old mentality and most adults consider such an argument as worthless. So you get to try and change the US Constitution now with maybe 20% of the adults on your side to help. Good luck with that in a democratic republic. You're gonna need it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

A non-sentient, non-viable, potential human being, in the making.

That is your philosophical belief, are you becoming........... na....

This is the same old trope, suggesting that women don't know what an abortion is, that they don't know what's in their uterus. It's why legislators want to shame women, to force women to get vaginal ultrasounds, see the sonogram and listen to the "heart beat", because they don't think women know what they're doing or what an abortion actually is. They do.

I don't believe that, I think you know exactly what abortion is;
The premeditated killing of another human being.

Abortion is freedom from victimhood.

Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being.
In 99% of abortions it was a conscious choice to attempt to get pregnant.
Here are some clear signs you may suffer from "Victim Mentality":

*placing blame elsewhere
*making excuses
*not taking responsibility
*reacting to most life hurdles with “It’s not my fault”

www.healthline.com...

Do any of these sound similar or reminiscent to your "argument"?
(Hint: ALL OF THEM)

I'm emphasizing how incredibly unreasonable and disrespectful these misogynous laws are to all women, telling them that their biological output of offspring takes precedent over their self-determinism and is more valuable than they are.

No, no your not. You are using a little girls tragedy to further your own goals. The difference between this innocent young girl and the other 99% who try and exploit her?
She didn't have a choice.

And you see women's wombs as property that can be regulated by the individual states, on the whims of pandering politicians and religious zealots.

The woman's womb is her own. Until she makes a conscious decision to use it for it's SOLE purpose. Once that occurs, the body in your body is not your body. If you try to claim it as property or less than human, you are no better than the slavers or Nazis of the past.
By the way, you and a couple others are the only ones bringing your "beliefs" to the table here.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yes, you keep saying this, but why is it wrong to stop that development?

Wrong?
Nothing, if you don't think the premeditated killing of an infant, adolescent, adult or elderly human being is not "wrong".
They are all human beings, just in different stages of development.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You don't think it is alive (it is), you don't think it is human yet (it is), so it follows that you don't know what it is.

Oh c'mon. I never, ever made any such claims.

I am sure such would be allowed as a part of that procedure.

I'm glad you're sure. But IVF doctors and their patients in states that claim life begins at fertilization aren't so sure.

Memory issues now?

Get outta town! We've been here before, or did you recently suffer a stroke?

You were one of those who claimed men should sit down and shut up because of Roe v. Wade.

Nope. I claimed that your opinion has no leverage of what women you don't know do with their bodies. Now that Roe is gone, you have even less influence over women that do know you and respect your opinion than you had when Roe was alive.

There never was a "reproductive constitutional right" to abortion

Here we go again with the gaslighting! You can't change history. For 50 years abortion was a constitutional right, affirmed by SCOTUS 20 different times. A month ago, our new SCOTUS reversed Roe V Wade. That doesn't mean that the right to abortion didn't exist before, or that "The People" didn't retain that right for the past 50 years.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Immanuel Kant

That's a good example.

You also mention Mahatma Ghandi. I have always seen Hinduism as a unique cross between religion and philosophy, not really one or the other but rather a combination. I know many see it as a religion only, but the philosophical side of it cannot be ignored.

For that matter, all religions seem to be philosophical in nature to some degree. The main difference seems to be that religion bases their philosophy on one or more deities, That would seem to make religion a subset of philosophy.

Is it right for a 16 yearold to have an abortion where she has no means to care for the baby, and it will make an already hard life 10 times harder to do anything? Is it wrong to do partial birth abortions?

Those are indeed the kinds of questions we need to consider, with attention to the scientific, moral, and philosophical implications.

The real reason I do not base my abortion position on religion is that my religion does not address the issue, at least not consistently. Different verses can be interpreted different ways, and I am not sure enough of my position to make a definite religious statement. I am not God, nor do i speak directly for Him. So on this issue, I stay away from a religious argument and base my position on my philosophy and morals.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Quadrivium

You are using a little girls tragedy to further your own goals

What goals would those be?

Once that occurs, the body in your body is not your body.

Let's say that's true. What right does that body have to another's? Nobody has the right to demand life support from another. No woman has a moral duty to carry a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus to term.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Are you really so blind?
I said "the BODY in your body IS NOT your body" and your reply is:

Let's say that's true.What right does that body have to another's?

Seriously??
This is exactly what I have been saying.

Nobody has the right to demand life support from another.

In 99% of abortions, nothing was demanded, it was freely given.
Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I never, ever made any such claims.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

A non-sentient, non-viable, potential human being, in the making.

IVF doctors and their patients in states that claim life begins at fertilization aren't so sure.

Then the laws need to be changed. To do that, one needs a consensus among the population. To date, i don't think anyone has ever managed to get a consensus by insulting the rest of the population and denying science.

Hey, maybe you'll be the first in history to do so! I'm not holding my breath, though.

We've been here before, or did you recently suffer a stroke?

Did you?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

It's like you just dropped into this issue yesterday

That's twice in one post you've apparently forgotten what you said just yesterday. Might want to get that checked out.

Nope. I claimed that your opinion has no leverage

Yep! You specifically told me I shouldn't have any input because I'm not a woman. Multiple times. And I told you I would dance for joy on Roe v. Wade's grave to stop that argument. Guess who was accurate?

Now I'm telling you that you are an obstacle to states passing common sense laws to protect women. And you are dismissing that the same way. Some people never learn.

You can't change history. For 50 years abortion was a constitutional right, affirmed by SCOTUS 20 different times.

I'm not trying to change history. In 1973, the Supreme Court made a bad ruling and that bad ruling was then (ab)used by future litigants to try and normalize the premeditated killing of another human being. A month ago, the Supreme Court saw the errors that had been made and attempted to rectify them. The case would likely have never happened except for people (like you) denying science and pushing the boundaries to kill as many innocent children as possible. You and those like you took what was, indeed, a defensible "middle ground" (despite being unconstitutional) and forced the issue until that determination was necessary to preserve any hint of political neutrality. You even used Roe v. Wade as a way to try and take the right to speak out on issues from half the population!

Own that. It's all on you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yep! You specifically told me I shouldn't have any input because I'm not a woman.

Nope. You either have me confused with another poster or are projecting your insecurities onto me.

Now I'm telling you that you are an obstacle to states passing common sense laws to protect women.

LOL I'm not the reason people like Quadrivium, politicians and religious fanatics want to ban abortion from the moment of conception. Religious zealotry is the reason Roe was overturned.

You and those like you took what was, indeed, a defensible "middle ground"

Nonsense. Roe was middle ground. It was far right religious zealots that kept chipping away at the pre-viability rights Roe outlined. All late term abortion regulations were left up to the states, as long as state statutes protected a woman's health and life. The federally guaranteed protections of a woman's health and life are another thing the far right didn't like and sought to eliminate.

(despite being unconstitutional)

That's not what SCOTUS ruled. SCOTUS didn't rule that abortion is unconstitutional. They ruled it wasn't constitutionally protected under the 14th Amendment.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Seriously??

Seriously! Nobody has the right to demand to be hooked into another body to live. A fertilized egg doesn't have "the right to implant". An embryo or a fetus doesn't have "the right to gestate". No woman has a duty to carry and unwanted pregnancy to term.

Seriously, you can make laws that outlaw abortion, but all those laws will do is make safe abortions illegal for poor women. Desperate women will find a way. Women of means will always have access. even if it means traveling to Canada, Mexico or Europe.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
This was your statement:

Let's say that's true. What right does that body have to another's?

This works both ways.
If you believe this new human, who was conceived through CONSENT (in 99% of abortion cases) has no right to a woman's body, then why do you believe a woman has a right to its body?

My guess:
Because you have the mentality of a victimized Nazi.

a reply to: TheRedneck

a reply to: Xtrozero

a reply to: Sookiechacha

a reply to: VierEyes


This thread has gone through all the bases, with little headway.
I am speaking for myself here, as I have changed positions on my stance of Rape/incest (somewhat).

With that being said, I would like to pose two questions. One essay and one multiple choice.
Please, if you are able, put your feelings aside, answer truthfully.

1. When does a human beings life begin?

2. Which authority would you most likely trust to give you an unbiased answer?
A. philosophy
B. theology
C. psychology
D. sociology
E. law
F. polotics
G. science

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You either have me confused with another poster or are projecting your insecurities onto me.

Nope.

And I am not going to argue that with you any more.

I'm not the reason people like Quadrivium, politicians and religious fanatics want to ban abortion from the moment of conception.

Yes, you are, whether you want to admit it or not. Quadrivium has admitted several times already that he has changed his outlook some due to the information in this thread. I promise you, it was not because of your antics. When you push too far, people tend to push back.

Religious zealotry is the reason Roe was overturned.

Speaking of pushing too hard... you know that is a lie.

. All late term abortion regulations were left up to the states, as long as state statutes protected a woman's health and life.

And how many states actually bragged about how late in a pregnancy they could rip a baby limb from limb and get away with it? How many stories about people in those states suggesting infanticide (post-natal abortions)? You weren't satisfied with that middle ground... you wanted more, and more, and more, and you scoffed when people tried to speak up against the excesses. You attacked people's religion without cause, just like you are still doing, over a philosophical and not a religious position.

AND YOU LOST IT ALL.

That's not what SCOTUS ruled.

The fact that Roe v. Wade was an improper decision is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled.

I know you read the decision, so stop lying through your teeth.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Quadrivium

Not much of an essay question.

A human being is created at the moment of conception. Period.

I use G (Science) for my answer.

TheRedneck