Calling out "Personhood" supporters

If the people choose this (which I agree) then it is their right to do so.

All this talk about the voice of the people, be heard, say something. . . . .

And yet, when the people speak, if it isn't what many agree to, then they should shut up?

Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Just move to a state where murder of unborn children is legal, if it bothers you all so much.

reply to post by Confusion42

How can you support abortion in cases of rape, incest and when the mother is in danger?

I can see peoples support for that. If you assume a fertilized egg is a Human Being (which it is) then you'd essentially be condoning the murder of an innocent victim because of actions that occurred that they had no choice in.

Who do you think you are, telling young teen girls that if they where to get raped, they wouldn't have abortion available to them (even if there own lives where in danger!)?!?!?!? Who are you trying to save?!?!?

This is simply a straw-man argument because you pinpoint a very small portion of abortions then say all abortions should be legal because of this. We shouldn't murder children, imo (some people like murdering children) just because their conception was not by choice..

and the effect it will have on women's right is so extreme that it will spit you pro-lifers into two groups.

I'm uncertain how we as a society ever came to the conclusion that murdering a baby was a woman's choice. The voters will speak, and we should respect the decision of the voters.

reply to post by beezzer


My sentiments exactly.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Why is it whenever anyone crows for "state's rights," the rights being crowed for is always the "right" to oppress people living in the state?

I'm gunna explain this real slow like for the Liberals.

People against Abortion do not deem it a "right" to murder. Because they view a fetus as a Human Being ... which it is .. killing it is murder. Liberals will say it's not alive, or it has no soul, or they simply don't think it's actually a Human till it pops out.

In my mind, this Liberal logic would allow me to kill my children regardless of what age they are.. "I brought them into this World, I can bring them out!"

I'm sorry if you feel oppressed, not being allowed to kill babies and all..

Originally posted by Rockpuck
People against Abortion do not deem it a "right" to murder. Because they view a fetus as a Human Being ... which it is .. killing it is murder. Liberals will say it's not alive, or it has no soul, or they simply don't think it's actually a Human till it pops out.

You're painting pro-choicers in a broad brush there. Most pro-choicers believe that abortion is morally wrong, there are pro-choicers who would never make the choice of abortion personally, regardless of the scenario.

Pro-choice is about keeping government outside of issues that involve ones own body and personal life, it's about keeping that responsibility to the person in question. You can yap on all day about how a fetus is a person and so forth, but it doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day, you're also dealing with somebody's body. I'm not sure how you justify the idea of government officials monitoring the bodies of pregnant women.

In my mind, this Liberal logic would allow me to kill my children regardless of what age they are.. "I brought them into this World, I can bring them out!"

So by your logic, if a pregnant woman decides to drink a glass of wine one night, then somebody should notify authorities that she is forcing her kid(s) to consume alchohol and harming them, and child welfare will come in to take the fetus, or fertilized egg, right? This is your logic from what I understand. I suppose on a cold day this pregnant women decides not to wear warm enough clothing, she'd be harming her kids as well?

Pro-lifers obviously do not see the full picture of what they're proposal. It's just 'fetuses are babies' and thats that, everybody needs to follow their own ethical views and values. What's more, you're prepared to blow out the size and oversight of government for this, at the tax payers expense as well.

reply to post by Confusion42


What actually will happen is that women will try to do the abortion themselves especially after a rape for example. This often ends in the death of both the mother and baby.

Its funny, the people mKing the abortion law obviously have no idea what it means to be raped. If they had been raped they certainly wouldnt be voting in favour of such a law.

That said the definition "person" is your strawman, a person is not a "human being". A person becomes a person after their parents have given the baby to the state when they apply for a birth certificate.

it could have an impact on a woman's ability to get the morning-after pill or birth control pills that destroy fertilized eggs, and it could make in vitro fertilization treatments more difficult because it could become illegal to dispose of unused fertilized eggs.

Basically , the way most types of birth control work is by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus , which leaves us with some of the most unreliable and expensive forms of birth control such as condoms, spermicide creams and diaphragms.
This is a step back to stone-age times, or what I consider oppression and a violation of women's right to autonomy.
I guarantee that if this garbage passes , we are in for one hell of a social decline due to a MASSIVE increase in child abuse , crime , oh and I guess MURDER for women who are caught taking an illegal birth control . Let's not forget suicide , I'm sure the women who are forced to sit and be some queen bee, unable to work because she can't afford childcare are sure to off themselves, MASSIVE increases in welfare and probably infanticide...the list goes on and on. Absolute BS.
This happened in Romania where abortion and birth control was outlawed. The study shows evidence to support that crime rates skyrocketed for generations due to increase of child abuse and neglect and lowered conditions of child upbringing . www.princeton.edu...
We don't need less birth control , we need MUCH MUCH more apparently after reading this B.S.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Pro-choice is about keeping government outside of issues that involve ones own body and personal life

Or.. it's about Government stopping the murder of a child.

So by your logic, if a pregnant woman decides to drink a glass of wine one night, then somebody should notify authorities that she is forcing her kid(s) to consume alchohol and harming them, and child welfare will come in to take the fetus, or fertilized egg, right?

Thanks you for the strawman argument.

So by your logic, if a pregnant woman decides to drink a glass of wine one night, then somebody should notify authorities that she is forcing her kid(s) to consume alchohol and harming them, and child welfare will come

I am pro-choice and I support this. Either abort, or dont take drugs. And this is the current law in the US, its called chemical endangerement.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I'm gunna explain this real slow like for the Liberals.

People against Abortion do not deem it a "right" to murder.

Yes they do. Odds are, the majority of people popping wood right now for the bombs to start falling on Iran? "Pro-life." The people here on ATS cheering for the cops to murder protestors? "Pro-life." The people keeping the death penalty functional in this nation? "Pro-life." The politicians in Wisconsin saying it's okay to assault someone if it's "your religion"? "Pro-life." The people demanding that programs like WIC and TANF and medicaid be gutted to "save money?" Guess what, they're pro-life.

So yes, most of you DO think it's your right to murder. This "Abortion is murder" is simply a BS cover story to make up for the reality of the situation - you're pissed that a woman has a say in her reproductive process that can't be vetoed by a man. That's what it's about, and that's what it's always been about.

Because they view a fetus as a Human Being ... which it is .. killing it is murder. Liberals will say it's not alive, or it has no soul, or they simply don't think it's actually a Human till it pops out.

I'm afraid science - you know, reality, not a bunch of political woo - disagrees with you on what constitutes a human being. A fertilized egg most certainly is not a human being.

In my mind, this Liberal logic would allow me to kill my children regardless of what age they are.. "I brought them into this World, I can bring them out!"

This says an awful lot about the way your mind works, but it doesn't say very much about the position you think you're speaking against.

I'm sorry if you feel oppressed, not being allowed to kill babies and all..

As I happen to lack a uterus, I really don't feel I carry a lot of weight in this "debate." But if the choice is between preserving a person's autonomy over their own bodies, and making a bunch of psychopathic misogynists happy about stripping said autonomy, I know precisely where I'm going to stand.

It worries you so much? Don't abort. in fact, maybe you should adopt. I'm sure there's lots of love in your heart for all those post-natal kids who need a parent.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox
T'is funny. You, of all people, should be applauding the "peoples voices" in this effort. Just like "OWS", this started as a grassroots movement.
Like it, dislike it, it doesn't matter.
It's up to a vote.

If the majority decides that this will be the law, then so be it. Call them any and every name in the book if it makes you feel any better, but I'm glad to see some real actions taken by real people instead of the top heavy legislation that always seems to happen.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Confusion42

 

So every woman who has a menses after unprotected sex should be tried for murder? 'Cause, that's what this means. "Fertilization" happens constantly.

Welcome to biology, conservatives! It's not magic. It's a sloppy, haphazard, and flaw-ridden process that auto-terminates more often than not. If you count every fertilized egg as a "person," well, you're going to end up prosecuting every sexually active woman who has a period. You're going to effectively ban all contraceptives (which actually seems to be the point.)

Absolutely. Every conservative believes that, and every person should. The menstrual cycle murders more people a year than cancer, and every woman who has ever had a visit from Aunt Flo should be locked up forever.

You've finally winnowed them out, Fox! Good job!

/TOA

Originally posted by stinavamp
I'll let you have your abortions as long as you don't try to convince me that it isn't murder.

I'm pro choice, and not religious but...

That is very godly on your part.

reply to post by beezzer


I suppose in your universe of self-delusion, such an argument makes sense. There are two big flaws, though.

1) A fertilized egg is not a human. It's not even on its way to being human. It has to implant in the uterine lining for this stuff to even be a concern. This is known as "science." And science is not a democratic institution. I don't care how many people, at what level, say that Pi equals three, Pi does not equal three. All it means is that morons travel in herds.

2) Grassroot or not, this is an effort to destroy autonomy for a little over 50% of the nation, and make their bodies subject to veto by people who will not actually ever have to worry about it one way or another. This is not something that I could support by any means.

Now, I'm sure you happily support an unscientific attempt to institute bigger, more intrusive government that restricts the rights and freedoms of your countrywomen, at a greater cost to you as taxpayer. Even while you are equally vocal in your rejection of any notion of government programs to help out needy children. This is because you are a generally confused person, Beezzer. I would suggest finding out what your own principles are before trying to talk about those held by others.

Originally posted by Confusion42


Do you think rape / incest is also a viable excuse for abortion?

Why murder the child for the father's sins? Rape is certainly no excuse for killing a baby. And incest? They can do tests to learn if the child is going to be so retarded as to not be a viable life. If it's basically normal there is no excuse for killing it.

And I have offered for many years to take any child that is born because it's mother wanted to murder it and had a change of heart. No takers yet and I am getting old, but the offer still stands. Don't kill it, I will take it and raise it.

The ONLY excuse for abortion is to save the mother's life and that situation is too rare to worry about these days. I will not associate with any woman who murders her child in the womb. They are murderers and below me.

And the old canard about back alley abortions, well, if a woman wants to murder her child that badly she deserves to die with it. There should be equal risk for the mother and child. Killing is never easy and killing a baby should be the hardest, most dangerous thing a woman can attempt. And hopefully she dies too. A woman that can kill her child is not a woman. She is a monster. They kill monsters. As they should.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

You're splitting hairs so much your knife must be dull.
An embryo might get his throat constricted by an umbilical cord. So what! Your definition of "personhood" is full of. . . . wait for it. . . . wait for it. . . . .

FAIL!

reply to post by Rockpuck


as a master mason you know a fetus isn't an individual until about the 7th month, with the entry of the soul, or activation of higher cognitive functions, if you prefer a "scientific" explanation

don't practice your antinomianism by diverting others from the truth.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

T'is funny. You, of all people, should be applauding the "peoples voices" in this effort. Just like "OWS", this started as a grassroots movement.
Like it, dislike it, it doesn't matter.
It's up to a vote.

If the majority decides that this will be the law, then so be it. Call them any and every name in the book if it makes you feel any better, but I'm glad to see some real actions taken by real people instead of the top heavy legislation that always seems to happen.

we are a constitutional republic buddy,, not a democracy
more coffee, or teafor you, pal

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
When did I say "democracy"?
Of course we're a constitutional republic.
And the people have spoken (so far, at least)

Oh, and tea please.

Their definition of personhood is logically inconsistent, unless they also outlaw all organ donations from people who died neurally (basically everything except cornea). A biologically alive but braindead human has the same attributes as an embryo (is alive, is human, but contains no mind). If being alive and having human DNA is enough for personhood, then all people must also be protected till biological death, not neural death like it is now. That means heart transplant operations must be illegal, because they require murder.

What should define personhood and rights is presence of mind (brain waves), just like absence of mind (brain waves) defines death. And that happens after 5th month of fetal development.

Another thing - this is not only about abortions, maybe pro-lifers have no problem with mothers being forced to endure few months of discomfort so unsentient blob of human cells wont be killed. But this crazy law will also ban any embryonic stem cell therapy and terapeutic cloning.

So how is it, would you also stand by your opinion that embryo is a person if the alternative to killing unsentient embryos is not few months of discomfort, but death or otherwise incurable illness for your already sentient loved ones, which could be easily cured by ESC or clonal therapy?
If yes, you are psychopaths in my book. Sentient beings capable of suffering must ALWAYS have preferrence over unsentient life, no matter the genome.

reply to post by beezzer


beezer, ultimately this is a minority, hiding behind the mask of the majority, in order to impose their beliefs/legislate morality upon others

i know you'd oppose, Muslims trying to impose sharia through the back door, or Hindus tried to ban eating beef,so...

as fox has pointed out[more or less]:
murdering brown/yellow/black babies in other countries [and causing slow radioactive genocide with DU]=good

preventing the birth of more white christian babies= BAD

the salem witch trials are a perfect example of what happens when you allow church to have a say in the management of the state
ignorant people had a bad trip due to eating spoiled bread [ergot poisoning] and then started murdering each other via accusations of witchcraft, meanwhile the most "righteous" in the assembly were making a killing [pun int.] in real estate, just as had happened in europe, also good for getting rid of the more intelligent who might "see" what is really going on and point it out, or ask some very inconvenient questions.

the bottom line is: as a man, You CANNOT have a baby on your own,
you need a woman to cooperate with you, of her own free will,
anything else is just slavery and or rape no matter the degree.

this is what all the hemming,hawing, and verbal acrobatics when the "what about rape victims?" argument is brought up, is really all about.