Abortion is as unjust as slavery. An American historical perspective.

When one suffers a heart attack or MI perhaps 40% of the time that event could be called, in the "12 Lead" vernacular, a "STEMI." Specific grouped leads would show a devastatingly detrimental condition. Conversely the opposite lead groups would show the inversion on the EKG tracing of the leads recording the electrical activity of the area under "attack." As the opposing leads can provide evidence for a heart specialist to confirm what is actually taking place, perhaps a microbiologist could consider the following. If, according to the instruction I received, short of an instantly massive traumatic event, our deaths start at the cellular level, if that is true would not the opposite also be true, that our lives begin at the cellular level too? If that is true would not human life begin at conception?

 

Your beliefs, are anti-abortion (you claim) yet you lobby with the pro-abortion crowd. What are you trying to force on me? Per you and others I "am forcing women to do things". I've asked of the others (alas they could not) and ask of you State for the record what I have forced women to do. Also please share your insight on what you know of me that drives you to be so obviously supportive of me adopting AND why are you (as you've not mentioned it) not supportive of me fathering children of my own?

 

But accurate. You twist and turn my comments more than Chubby Checker did his signature dance on Bandstand. Foxxy we are dead opposites, you're for killing and I'm for saving, still I'm holding out for you to come around. Though we might be runnin' out of time as I always thought you were a youngin', never realized you were of retirement age (thought I saw you post that somewhere in this thread).

 

BZZZT Wrong!

It is a PF rule violation to quote from a source without providing the appropriate credit which is something that I always do! Those were common knowledge facts and not from any other source.

Your puerile allegations expose your inability to actually address the relevant facts that I provided in my post.

The "right to life" applies only to those who are entitled to rights under the Law of the Land. A fetus is not entitled to those rights. Obviously you don't understand when rights apply.

Onus is entirely on YOU to prove that her uterus is NOT her property.

To put this into a context you might understand are your kidneys your property? Yes or no? If your answer is no then are you saying that you don't have "sole control" over your own kidneys?

Your lack of understanding of individual rights is exposed once again. Do you think so little of women's rights that you believe that a man can cause her serious physical harm and not be criminally charged?

That you resorted to flame baiting says volumes.

 

And I hope it would be to think of the child first as Anti-Choicers keep insisting is their agenda....to NOT adopt these "precious LIVES" so you aren't accused of using them as a prop is shameful...don't the "precious lives" come first!! ??

You: ""Still, our laws define what is acceptable behavior and our societal values"""


And for over forty years abortion has been legal...that must define what is acceptable and our societal values


THANK YOU

 

Every human conceived is "running out of time". NO one is promised anything, certainly not life.....



So, you're 'for saving'... did you protest the killing along side me during the Vietnam war ??? Or were you for it?









YOU: ""Wielding absolute power can numb the actor from the reality, anguish and pain experienced by the victim."""

YES , that's true, but you would have men have absolute power over women ...

....those that want to forbid women to abort have been numbed ( and dumbed ) to the pain and anguish of pregnant women who do not want a child.

 

Where is your "proof" aside from your opinion?

Bull **** is still bull **** no matter how often you post it.

Never said it wasn't, and even the articles I posted acknowledged it was. The point being made was when abortions were illegal, mainly after the mother felt movement by the baby in the womb. Now we have abortions even in the third term based on convenience to the mother, not a realistic threat to the mothers health.

Once again you have not actually read the Constitution or you have a very limited understanding of such. Abortion is not mentioned in the 9th, nor was the Ninth enacted to provide a right to kill ones offspring. The Ninth was intended by the Framers to secure ones right to life, not to ensure the death of another. For 175 years the Ninth was ignored by the Courts, and then came Griswold v Connecticut, and the rise of a "privacy" right never mentioned in the Constitution, or even implied. The Court created this right out of thin air. Eight yesars later the "right" mentioned in Griswold led to Roe v Wade, and the slaughter of 56 million unborn babies.

Privacy is never mentioned in the Constitution, nor is it unlimited.

Again you ignore what was written before to perpetuate your bull ****. The 14th. only applies to citizenship, not life.

Now you are becoming a real joke. If a tourist is killed while here on vacation is that not a "murder"? They are not "naturally born" according to the Constitution. What of Fetecide Laws? Are they unConstitutional?

Why amend it when it would be much easier just to undersrand it, and obey it.

Or one could just expect a certain modicum of morality, respect for life, and responsibility for ones actions, all of which seems to be lacking is certain individuals.

 

Where is your "proof" aside from your opinion?

Bull **** is still bull **** no matter how often you post it....you can't prove that late term abortions are done without a threat to the woman....

.


Too bad for you but "right to life" includes women...

Overly emotional hyperbole doesn't prove a thing....

Yup, it is.

Unless a tourist is a fetus it is murder....tourists who are born have a right to not be murdered.

I do....you don't.

One could...or one could just mind their own business....Ya know, do their own thing, fight against having war, taking care of their OWN personal responsibilities and not setting themselves up as dictators of other people's responsibilities.


I can understand how a certain type of person needs to have control of women even if it can only EVER be from a distance

 

In the Law of the Land!

What is your "opinion" based upon?

Nevermind, we don't hold your BS against you!

Now you are the one doing the BS'ing. No doctor would risk their license violating the law for that reason.

Ironic!

There are many unenumerated rights that you take for granted.

Nowhere is the presumption of innocence stipulated in the Constitution but it still exists as a right.

Obviously your comprehension of the Constitution leaves a lot to be desired.

So, as an example, if you don't have a right to privacy then does that mean that your medical records can be posted on the internet and everyone can find out about your Rx for Viagra?

Only "persons" have rights under the Law of the Land. Onus is on you to change the Constitutional definition of a "person".

Every "person" under US jurisdiction is treated equally under the Law of the Land.

The UVVA specifically EXCLUDES abortion.

Once again your lack of knowledge is glaringly obvious to all.

Abortion is legal and therefore obeys the Law of the Land.

Certainly lacking in those individuals who don't respect the Constitutional rights of women.

 

Nice dodge, but no reasonable person could extract that from what I actually posted. You claim to care about human life, support laws that would force women to give birth, but want nothing to do with the little lives you claim to care so much about. Conclusion: You don't really care; you seek the appearance of caring. Nothing more.

 

1) you did not address the vast majority of points I made in my post. Note that I address the vast majority of your points and all of the significant ideas.

2) I am not just an expert in microbiology - I have a degree in chemistry (which is the science of using instrumentation - NMR, XRAY Diffraction, Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy, on and on ... used all these instruments you actually use and then do a write up after.

When we are talking electical activty - any chemical reaction produces detectable electrical activity. Every cell has detectable electrical activity going on. When someone dies, the cells in the body live on for quite some time.

When we are talking formation of the brain in the early stages - of course we can detect electrical activity but, is this "significant" electrical activity. There are all kinds of readily accessible studies on "fetal pain" and so forth which outline the process of brain development - when the wiring of the brain get's completed such that "significant electrical activity" - brain waves and so on - can be detected. This is why many states have the abortion cut off at around 22-26 weeks.

When a coroner pulls the plug due to insufficient brain activity - the person is still alive - but the brain is dead. The lights on the xmas tree have shut off and there is no turning them back on again.

To the question of when human life begins. Much of this question depends on how one defines "human life" - this is trotted out in the link provided previously but, what is a categorical fact is that "experts disagree". Then there is the fact that even if experts did come to agreement on "the beginning". That does not mean that a human exists at that point.

The beginning of a tree is a seed - but a seed is not a tree.
Some will use the linguistic trickery combined with fallacy saying things like "Its a developing human" or "this is a stage in the development of a human"

1) the first is fallacy (assumed premise) as they are assuming a human exists. In the second case,

2) the process of product development includes stages in which that product does not exist - design, blueprint and so on. In the case of the science of human development - this contains stages - such as sperm and egg (without which a human can not exist) where a human does not exist. So being at a stage in human development does not mean the human exists.

I digress - animate can not come from inanimate. In the human life cycle - the life of another human does not come from something dead. Life is a continuum. Without your parents you would not be here - sperm and egg are alive and human. (this is what the metabolic perspective argues). It is hard to refute this - the process by which a human is created begins prior to the zygote.

The genetic perspective argues - but, prior to the zygote, there is no complete DNA so this is the beginning. The zygote stage is the stage where a complete human DNA has been constructed. How does this make this the beginning of "human life" ... sure we have something recognizable as a human cell (but it is not like a human sperm is not recognizable as coming from a human).

Then of course we have the glaring fact that almost every cell has a complete human DNA and those are not humans. So, even if we say "this is he beginning" we still have to prove that the entity at that point is a human.

The undisputed reality is that a process is underway that is intent on creation of a human. At the zygote stage we have the first human cell. In that cell is the blueprint for the human that is to be created - and a set of instructions how how that human will be created.

The DNA directs all cellular activities (the rest is mostly just a cell wall and other organs). It is an organic computer.

The significant difference the DNA in the zygote (for the purposes of this discussion) and the DNA in a heart cell is that the DNA in the zygote has the program codes for the creation of a human activated. The heart cell has these codes but, they are not activated.

The heart cell is not a human. The question is then - does a single human having these program codes activated mean a human exists ?

There is no question that having a complete DNA containing the blueprint of a human (and the program codes activated that will direct the activities of the cell towards creation of the human in that blueprint) means that (if all goes well) a human will be created. This is certainly a landmark moment ( it is not actually a moment - which is an argument against the genetic perspective which I won't get into) in the process of human creation but, this is not the beginning of that process. Leaving that hang ..

Does having a strand of human DNA (a complete functioning organic computer which contains the blueprint for a human), and the the instruction set not just for the creation of a human but, for all the functions of that human, and having the instruction set for creation of a human turned on (the others will turn on later) ... constitute a human ?

In case you have not noticed - I am now trying my best to come up with an argument for the "pro life" side ... and I think I have come close. This is an amazing organic machine whose purpose is the creation of a human. In this organic computer is the instruction set that will dictate all the physical characteristics of the human in that blueprint. All instruction sets for all cellular function, interaction with other cells - cells that have not yet been created, and bodily function are contained in that organic computer.

Analysis of the DNA can tell you if you will have a propensity for certain disease ( the instruction set contains some "mistakes" - if it is proper to call them that - things that will not be desirable - things that the human might wish were different). Regardless, all these things that will make the human physically unique have already been determined.

All the elements of this stage in human development are undisputed scientific fact. The question remains, does having all these things in place constitute a human. As you can see this is not a simple question- claims such as "science has proven" are abject nonsense.

I have laid out the science which tells us what this thing "is" (put yourself in the perspective of an alien). The answer to question of whether or not this is a human now lies more in the arena of Philosophy. Is this thing (organic computer) a person such that it should have rights, including the right to life.

This is the best case I can make. Your job for now is to poke holes in my argument. Try and come up with reasons why, despite being an incredibly amazing organic computer with all the functions I laid out, this is not a human.

This is how philosophic reasoning works. You try and come up with the best arguments you can on both sides... and then (and only then) give an opinion. I have done the first part - if you want to add something that further glorifies this organic computer that is fine - but, then, try and come up with arguments that go against this "thing" being a human.

 

Why are you lying about Fox? She is for CHOICE. She has never stated that women *should* abort, only that they should have the choice to do so.

 

Some of the parallels between abortion and slavery/human property rights are; no right to your own life, can be treated as property, denied your humanity, in fact you are regarded as less than human, less than a person innately deserving of rights, if you offend/worry your master/birth mother your life, at any age can be taken with the full support of the slavery/abortion minded people and current privacy law. Please stop forcing your views on me.

What's wrong with the organizations in place now?

With the mindset that comes with your last sentence one could say prisoners of war should be executed because the enemy does not want to "waste their resources" on the POW's, they're living off us, they're an inconvenience, we can't support them etc., or people on welfare or the elderly or the poor etc., etc., etc.

 

Not killing the children comes first.

Sure, as much as slavery was moral, totally legit and acceptable to Americans. Your Velcome.

 

What choice is Foxxy offering? Women can't have a child without abortion minded folks offering birth?

 

..and to heck with the ensuing actual children...ya, I know, that's how Anti-Choicers feel....they don't care if a kid is born into poverty or to a person who doesn't want it ...

All they want is to stop women from having the right to their own body and punish women for having sex.

...they even lie and say children are killed in abortions...

...and slavery was then deemed wrong and made illegal as it should be....it involved owning persons.....a fetus is not a person You're welcome.


To compare in any way the horrors that slaves endured (including being FORCED to give birth , what Anti-Choicers LOVE) to the quick painless death of a fetus is sickening.... but not unexpected...

 

What does this "sentence" mean : ""Women can't have a child without abortion minded folks offering birth ?""

The choice I want women to have is to give birth or not....

 

You: """Some of the parallels between abortion and slavery/human property rights are; no right to your own life, can be treated as property, denied your humanity, in fact you are regarded as less than human, less than a person innately deserving of rights"""


EXACTLY what YOU want to happen to women...exactly.....

 

WTF are you trying to say??

 

Since we are made up of cells, death will inevitably involve the death of cells. However, since the death of cells is not equivalent to death in itself, the death of cells on its own does not tell us anything. Most of the cells in our body have a fairly finite lifespan and are regenerated by stem cells. Cells, tissues, and organs are, for the most part, just tools to support the overall community of cells. What is it that makes this community of cells different from, say, a tree that is an even bigger community of cells? Why do we care what happens to a person, or maybe even a dog, but not a tree? The answer seems obvious to me, and I am not sure why it is not obvious to pro-lifers. We care about things that have minds, feelings, can suffer. A person does this. A dog does as well. A tree... a tree does not. Similarly, a fetus without a sufficient level of development also has no mind because the brain is not sufficiently developed to support it.

 

Oh, the dance of the sanctimonious. Your deflection technique is graceful and elegant. I have strong feelings on this issue, but would never support laws that would force my beliefs on others. That is neither freedom nor justice. You are being forced to do nothing. (Which is exactly what you are doing to protect these little lives!)

In fact, you are welcome to put on a Pro-Life T-shirt, get up on a soapbox and continue to tell the world you care about these precious little lives. Knock yourself out.

The POW, elderly, and Welfare example is quite a stretch.

As far as what is wrong with the current system, are you serious??? Do you know where half these kids end up once they age out of the system???

The nucleus of this issue is the "Unwanted" part. There are already thousands of children that will never feel what it is like to be wanted, loved, or cherished. The will never see the inside of a permanent, loving home. Do you have any ideas to address the real issue?

 

I sincerely appreciate your effort in your novella dissertation. Just for historical clarity, my questions; if death begins at the cellular level (save an instantaneously massive traumatic events) does life also begin at the cellular level? If that is true does life begin at conception? These two questions and a STEMI reference were the catalyst for your dissertation above and as follows.

Expert, in polyfields, impressive. Experts, in my humble non-Holiday Inn Express stay experience, are asked questions with an expectation of definitive answers.

If the coroner doesn't act, will the person's status, you've referenced, improve? Will a developing pre-born human's status improve, barring an abortion? The point being the difference in outcome if no action is taken.

However, is the "fertilized" seed a part, perhaps the beginning, of the tree's life timeline? Would a tree ever be a tree save the "fertilized" seed in the tree's life timeline?

From the beginning, from conception, who is "developing" within his or her's mother's womb?

Does your process move along a timeline? Would this timeline then be the timeline of a developing (pre-born) human?

Do all human's travel this timeline (less those aborted) or is there another path?

This raises a number of questions. Intent? Like willfully directed intent? Intentional intelligent design creation? Where does this willful intent originate?

Is your point, a heart cell can be more than a heart cell or that it is limited to the function of a heart cell?

Does the seed come before the tree? Does the tree exist without the seed? Within that "fertilized" seed is defined what that tree is destined to be? Does that single cell contain all of the developing pre-born human that will be birthed in the near future?

How does one argue with an authoritative expert with degrees? Did you, I and everyone we share this Q & A with have the same type of life timeline development? Is that part of our lifeline? Without it are we, us...human? If not, when is that magic moment when we cross from being...inhuman...to human? If death begins at the cellular level conversely where does it start?

Though we are created equal your equal, undoubtedly, is much more equal than mine, being the expert in this shared (humbly regarding my involvement) experience You have shared some excellent points.

 

I see. What have you done for these thousands of children?

 

What choice is Foxxy offering, women can't have a child without abortion minded folks offering birth? Grammar adjustment, comma addition and capitalization change, does that make it clearer for you?

 

I almost get what your garbled sentence means..


To clarify my post, "Fox" says that women should have a choice between having a kid or an abortion. Is that complicated for you?


I think women can have a child """without abortion minded folks offering birth....""

I think women can abort with out Anti-Choice folks offering nothing but birth.