More abortions = less welfare. Pick one, right wingers !

Your mother wears combat boots.

 

Using him, aligns you with him.

Actually, NOT including it shows your distortion of UVVA.

 

Yep, you base even your wishes on religious beliefs.

Sorry, everybody else seems to know what the law is really about. You grab a part of the law and then spin as some new truth about fetuses.

 

Ok, whether nor not she can get it is not what I'm arguing. I'm saying we don't have a universal definition of when the fetus becomes a person and has all the rights everyone else has - and when it comes to rights, everyone needs the same rights. The fact that one person could be born in one state, because they couldn't be aborted at that point, and another fetus could be aborted at the same point in their development cycle in a different state, is ridiculous. Whether people are born or not, in such a system, comes down to which state you happen to be in! It needs to be standard, the same, the whole country.

So again, the question is: when does it get those rights? I'm simply proposing that since there's no consensus, we poll it. We find out at what point in its development people think a fetus should be considered a person. Then we average those times and make that our threshold for murder/not murder. Since, scientifically, there's no real distinction - there's no magic moment where it becomes human, it's simply at various stages of development.

Also, the vasectomy analogy is BS because my testes are an organ of my body. They have my DNA, they're part of me. A fetus is a human too underdeveloped to live outside its mother - but it has separate DNA, separate organ systems, it's entirely separate except for the umbilical cord that keeps it alive. It isn't part of a woman's body - it's another thing growing inside of it.

I'm quite curious as to when you think it's "too late" to abort, and whether you realize it's just as arbitrary as anyone else's opinion.

 

"uninformed" lol. I'm not talking about the bloody experience. You can make someone be born prematurely and they'll still live and grow up fine; there's no magic "it's alive!" point - it becomes more and more conscious, more and more independent, and more and more complex as time goes on. It takes about 25 years for it to fully form, we just give birth to it at around the earliest time it can live without being inside its mother. Viewed developmentally, you exist from the moment that single zygote cell forms - chemistry just hasn't had any time to work its magic yet.

 

Biologically, the only real difference between individuals of a species is their DNA. That's what makes them different. So the moment that single zygote cell forms, it's something different, something individual. Armed with new DNA, in about 25 years it will sort itself out and becomes a mature human being. Until then it grows.

I guess you're just biased against something so underdeveloped it doesn't act very human so you don't feel bad killing it.

 

Legally? Depends on where you are. Biologically? Same organism, different point in time.

- - - Updated - - -

I can go with that.

 

Wouldn't it just as easy to ask liberals to decide between abortion and welfare? If they do not value the lives of the unborn babies, then how can they expect others to value the lives of the born babies?

 

What are you six?

 

You're absolutely wrong about that and I would appreciate if you would stop with the personal attacks.

People are serving time in prison for illegally killing children in the womb.

True or false?

The answer is TRUE.

So, what am I spinning?

 

That is so disingenuous. A woman can get an abortion anytime during her pregnancy and you are trying to limit that arguing for a fetus rights. You think that dodging what Roe v Wade says and trying to muddy the waters with some personhood nonsense will eliminate parts of Roe v Wade. Anti-abortion people have been trying to nibble away at Roe v Wade by lying that their purpose isn't to eliminate it. None of your care about the woman. You care more about your religious belief. Why are people not trying to pass a law to charge a woman, who aborts, with murder? Because you know that the public would see through your actions.

Many of us are fed up with your lies and sneaky actions.

What is ridiculous is these male politicians make up laws with no real facts.

And the woman's reply "My vagina is an organ of my body. It has my DNA, it is a part of me. ANYTHING in my body is a part of me."

 

No, we want both. You want one but not the other.

 

Please stop threatening me. Oh, the other comment was to show how childish your comment was. I guess that it worked

That a definition in the law to put people in prison and states that it is there only for that purpose - brings new meaning to fetuses.

 

I never claimed new meaning.

 

The fetus has different DNA so that argument makes no sense.

Also, you can go on believing I'm trying to eliminate abortion all you want and that I hate women, that doesn't make it true and it just makes you more of an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

Clearly, you did not see my post in which, in response to someone who proposed allowing abortions at any time before viability, I said I would go along with that. You're so flustered in trying to make me a bad guy your accusations only hurt your own repute, not mine.

Kindly (*)(*)(*)(*), if you don't mind.

 

Thanks for demonstrating the level of intelligent reasoning you bring to this debate.

And thanks for demonstrating the integrity you also bring to the discussion.

Because stating something like that would be truly moronic.

 

Then lets talk about significance.

Can they? How premature? At what point? 20-22 weeks? Would you like to live the life of a 20 week premie? What about before?

You are right, no magic, just development and that adds significance, say much like a foundation and a pile of construction material as opposed to a finished shell with a roof.

Nobody said different. Why is it significant?

 

So cancer cells are individuals then?

Why is it significant to the point of having a law infringe on the rights of a woman's self determination?

Or become a mass murderer. Point is we are talking about NOW.

If I am biased is in favor of freedom of self determination.

- - - Updated - - -

So we do not see things so radically different, it just took a bit of time to hash out the details.

 

Correct, I believe one cannot be a Person without a Brain, that is unless they are a right-winger, then there seems to be ample proof of brainless human activity.

Never happen, enjoy reality.

 

Most of the anti-abortion activists are strong supporters of states rights. Personally, I don't think it's so much that they are really strong constitutionalists, but just that they think, as a practical matter, it would be easier to collapse one state at a time. Once they succeed in their efforts in one state, they move on to the next. I do not think for one minute that they will be happy so long as even one state in the union has legal abortion.

I'm proposing a wild notion....that women be allowed to make that decision on their own unfettered by regulation. "Since, scientifically, there's no real distinction", we have no business passing laws based on our own preferences.

But you're wanting to legislate regarding the woman's body. You're not talking about legislating actions taken by the fetus, you're wanting to regulate women. You should understand that if the inner parts of a woman are subject to government regulation, your inner parts (that is those enclosed by your skin) are also subject to government regulation. And there are more parts we could regulate, for instance, if a woman is legally obligated to provide use of her uterus to "save the life" of the zef, why shouldn't fathers be legally obligated to provide a spare kidney, bone marrow, etc. to "save the life" of the child?

Women don't choose abortion in late term, those abortions are necessary medical abortions. Proof of that can be seen in our neighbor Canada, they have no abortion laws whatsoever but still have lower rates than we do.

 

I don't have a huge issue with our lack of regulation - for the most part, because I'm against regulation in general. But I have big moral problems with aborting after viability (except for medical reasons), because at that point it could live on its own and is very clearly an individual.

I'm saying what I'm saying to try to bridge the gap, if you will, because getting what either side wants entirely done is very difficult if not impossible. I do not, in fact, oppose your idea, as I trust people with other freedoms too; I'm just trying to get somewhere, because at this point the whole thing is all or nothing. And, as I said, I have personal moral issues with it after a certain point, which colour my outlook a bit.

 

If you cannot value the life of an unborn child, then you cannot value the life of the born child. What you want is the votes which is why you, as in the progressives, refuse to do anything to substantially change a broken welfare system that is trapping people into poverty instead of lifting them out of it. If you think people do not game the earned income credit system to get the maximum they can, including working less and borrowing other people's children to claim on their taxes to get their free $5K then you , as in the progressive democrats, are so detached from what happens in the real world that there is no point in even trying to reason with you.

Life is difficult even under the best of circumstances. Rationalizing the unnecessary murder of unborn children as somehow justifiable is morally reprehensible and politically hypocritical.

 

There's nothing clear about individuality before birth. Your moral problems are just YOUR moral problems, and certainly don't require legislation, although you should think about the fact that women DON'T choose abortion that late term without medical reasons for it.

It's not "all or nothing" at this point, most states don't allow abortions after viability. There are a gazillion rules and regulations regarding abortion and more are forthcoming every day. You do need to understand that women will obey the rules up to the point they accept them as reasonable, beyond that they will break the law, as they did prior to 1973.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).....I've been breaking my own rule about not moralizing issues. I can't argue with your point.

I admit defeat. I'm out. (*)(*)(*)(*) me.

 

Why? Did I mention the fetus DNA as a reason one way or another? You do because you refuse to admit that a woman should have a choice when it comes to her body like you do.

I saw it. You are so kind to give women a little freedom. Baloney. You have no say in any woman's rights. You want to give rights to a presence in her body and take away her right. Who may you god? It is not my business or yours. We have opinions but no rights over any living woman.

Sorry, In my mind, you are a bad guy by forcing your opinion on women.