When does Motherhood Start? - Page 13

OKgrannie · 05-30-08, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

They do not agree, obviously, or there wouldn't be debate within the medical community on the matter. The fact remains that the definition of pregnancy was CHANGED to suit the agenda that supports abortifacient birth control. It's a fact that changing the long accepted definition of pregnancy from beginning at conception to beginning at implantation--whether one finds it an acceptable change or not--found its origin in the purposeful, agenda-driven redefinition of the language for the express purpose of "the social advantage" of the "habit of speech" as Dr. Boving stated in 1959 and which the ACOG then adopted. That same tactic is used today with the added twist of using euphemisms for the reality of what the abortion proponents promulgate. I.e. "pro-choice," "selective reduction," "termination of pregnancy" among so many...

The definition of pregnancy was changed when understanding was developed of what was actually happening after fertilization. Please, no one is better at using the language to suit their agenda euphemistically and with emotional appeal than the pro-life camp. Examples are the term "pro-life" itself, going on to "innocent child in the womb", "inconvenience", "murderer", "baby-killer", and so on, ad infinitum.

Felicity · 05-30-08, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

Please, no one is better at using the language to suit their agenda euphemistically and with emotional appeal than the pro-life camp. Examples are the term "pro-life" itself, going on to "innocent child in the womb", "inconvenience", "murderer", "baby-killer", and so on, ad infinitum.

Both sides do it. I, personally, try to avoid such abuse of language for that very reason. I don't need emotional rhetoric to state the facts of the matter.

Quote:

The definition of pregnancy was changed when understanding was developed of what was actually happening after fertilization.

Why do you feel it necessary, then, to ignore the agenda-driven impetus. It's a fact that the abortion agenda was considered and that social manipulation occurred as a result. It's proof of the social engineering inherent in the AOD (abortion on demand) agenda.

OKgrannie · 05-30-08, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

Why do you feel it necessary, then, to ignore the agenda-driven impetus. It's a fact that the abortion agenda was considered and that social manipulation occurred as a result. It's proof of the social engineering inherent in the AOD (abortion on demand) agenda.

LOL, there is NO "agenda-driven impetus" for pro-choice. Pro-choice means every single woman makes her own free choice unimpeded by an "impetus". Social engineering would require manipulating people to make the "right" choice. So it's the pro-life crowd with a social engineering agenda.

P.S. It's really AOR (abortion on request). See, you are using "emotional rhetoric".

American · 05-30-08, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

LOL, there is NO "agenda-driven impetus" for pro-choice. Pro-choice means every single woman makes her own free choice unimpeded by an "impetus". Social engineering would require manipulating people to make the "right" choice. So it's the pro-life crowd with a social engineering agenda.

P.S. It's really AOR (abortion on request). See, you are using "emotional rhetoric".

Then do you support the premise that a man does not have to support the child? It's just like an abortion.

Felicity · 05-30-08, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

LOL, there is NO "agenda-driven impetus" for pro-choice. Pro-choice means every single woman makes her own free choice unimpeded by an "impetus". Social engineering would require manipulating people to make the "right" choice. So it's the pro-life crowd with a social engineering agenda.

The "right" choice is compromised by manipulating the language to make it appear that the death of a living organism is irrelevant. "Pregnancy" involves that living organism--without it, one is not pregnant. One doesn't "abort a pregnancy," one aborts a conceptus--the organism--since one cannot be "pregnant" without the organism. Regardless of whether the conceptus is implanted in the womb or not, it is a living organism and to intentionally create conditions that will flush it out of its natural environment is an abortive act. To obfuscate the issue of what is aborted, for the social benefit perceived by Dr. Boving and adopted by the ACOG in 1965, the longstanding definition of pregnancy was limited to after conception to allow for abortifacient contraception to be considered non-abortive. It was calculated and employed. If that's not an agenda, how do you define having an agenda? There was a specific goal and action taken to bring that goal about.

Quote:

P.S. It's really AOR (abortion on request). See, you are using "emotional rhetoric".

"On demand" is colloquial. Your insisting on calling it "request" is the emotional appeal. If it's a request, that implies that the request could be denied. Do you support the right to deny a woman an abortion upon request? I didn't think so.

American · 05-30-08, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

The "right" choice is compromised by manipulating the language to make it appear that the death of a living organism is irrelevant. "Pregnancy" involves that living organism--without it, one is not pregnant. One doesn't "abort a pregnancy," one aborts a conceptus--the organism--since one cannot be "pregnant" without the organism. Regardless of whether the conceptus is implanted in the womb or not, it is a living organism and to intentionally create conditions that will flush it out of its natural environment is an abortive act. To obfuscate the issue of what is aborted, for the social benefit perceived by Dr. Boving and adopted by the ACOG in 1965, the longstanding definition of pregnancy was limited to after conception to allow for abortifacient contraception to be considered non-abortive. It was calculated and employed. If that's not an agenda, how do you define having an agenda? There was a specific goal and action taken to bring that goal about.

"On demand" is colloquial. Your insisting on calling it "request" is the emotional appeal. If it's a request, that implies that the request could be denied. Do you support the right to deny a woman an abortion upon request? I didn't think so.

Amazing, see my post #227 here (At what point do you think the fetus becomes a baby?).

Felicity · 05-30-08, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

Amazing, see my post #227 here (At what point do you think the fetus becomes a baby?).

Exactly. It's a tragic irony that the AOD side is percieved as being backed up by science, logic, reason, and equality when the opposite is more accurate.

OKgrannie · 05-30-08, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

The "right" choice is compromised by manipulating the language to make it appear that the death of a living organism is irrelevant. "Pregnancy" involves that living organism--without it, one is not pregnant. One doesn't "abort a pregnancy," one aborts a conceptus--the organism--since one cannot be "pregnant" without the organism. Regardless of whether the conceptus is implanted in the womb or not, it is a living organism and to intentionally create conditions that will flush it out of its natural environment is an abortive act. To obfuscate the issue of what is aborted, for the social benefit perceived by Dr. Boving and adopted by the ACOG in 1965, the longstanding definition of pregnancy was limited to after conception to allow for abortifacient contraception to be considered non-abortive. It was calculated and employed. If that's not an agenda, how do you define having an agenda? There was a specific goal and action taken to bring that goal about.

The earlier definition of pregnancy was used before experts really understood the process of fertilization and pregnancy. Defining pregnancy as after implantation reflects a more complete understanding of what is happening. The fact that that understanding supports the use of hormonal birth control and IUDs is incidental but advantageous.

Quote:

"On demand" is colloquial. Your insisting on calling it "request" is the emotional appeal. If it's a request, that implies that the request could be denied. Do you support the right to deny a woman an abortion upon request? I didn't think so.

"On demand" is colloquial because pro-life made it colloquial, it is referred to in Europe as "on request" which is more respectful of the women seeking abortions. Of course, that request can be denied for a number of reasons. The doctor doesn't choose to do abortions, the pregnancy is too advanced, etc. The request should not be denied on the basis of age, race, money, perhaps other reasons which basically mean that "I think I know better than you what is good for you."

Felicity · 05-30-08, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

The earlier definition of pregnancy was used before experts really understood the process of fertilization and pregnancy. Defining pregnancy as after implantation reflects a more complete understanding of what is happening. The fact that that understanding supports the use of hormonal birth control and IUDs is incidental but advantageous.

And so...as I said, why do you then feel the need to ignore the agenda driven impetus? It's a matter of historical record that it played a part in accepting that definition. I believe it is because to do so is to admit the political/social engineering that is inherent in the movement and that is unflattering.

Quote:

"On demand" is colloquial because pro-life made it colloquial, it is referred to in Europe as "on request" which is more respectful of the women seeking abortions.

2 things:
"On demand" is used in all sorts of situations like "Movies on demand" etc... on demand - Google Search It's not the intellectual property of the pro-life movement nor was it created by the pro-life movement.

And why should we be concerned about respecting a woman's legal choice to kill human beings? We can respect the women themselves without playing word games to save them from their "feelings" being hurt by the supposed "choice" they are making. Right there, you acknowledge exactly what I'm talking about.

Quote:

Of course, that request can be denied for a number of reasons. The doctor doesn't choose to do abortions, the pregnancy is too advanced, etc. The request should not be denied on the basis of age, race, money, perhaps other reasons which basically mean that "I think I know better than you what is good for you."

But you don't think pharmacists have that right to deny what they perceive as "abortion on demand," correct? No other killing of a human organism can be "requested" and free from "denial" as abortion is. Abortion on demand is exactly what the so-called (and inappropriately called) pro-choice movement seeks to attain. There is no emotional appeal there. As I said, I am very careful about my word choices in this matter and I am far more accommodating than most on either side.

American · 05-30-08, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

The earlier definition of pregnancy was used before experts really understood the process of fertilization and pregnancy. Defining pregnancy as after implantation reflects a more complete understanding of what is happening. The fact that that understanding supports the use of hormonal birth control and IUDs is incidental but advantageous.

"On demand" is colloquial because pro-life made it colloquial, it is referred to in Europe as "on request" which is more respectful of the women seeking abortions. Of course, that request can be denied for a number of reasons. The doctor doesn't choose to do abortions, the pregnancy is too advanced, etc. The request should not be denied on the basis of age, race, money, perhaps other reasons which basically mean that "I think I know better than you what is good for you."

This is all semantic BS, we've always known the process of fertilization and pregnancy, and it was sufficient until the pro-abortionists needed to split hairs in order to make their agenda plausibly moral. But reasonable people see through the veil of deceit and know that legal abortion was rammed through the court system with twisted rationale. Abortion can only seem morally acceptible when the miracle of life is redefined in terms of electro-chemical processes and biological phases. It is intellectually trifling and morally dishonest.