• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Lursa said:
That's still just your opinion. That you value quantity of life over quality of life is not something you (nor the law) should be allowed to force on others.

A life is more than just breathing. I wrote a brief description of what women's obligations and responsibilities in life are, and didnt even include their right to self-determination and following their passions and goals and developing further their contributions to society.

I notice you didnt even address this, from that same post of mine that you quoted:

All women who have abortions have justification that affects their lives, sacrifices to their health, responsibilities to their families (most women who have abortions have a least 1 child, elderly, disabled dependents), commitments & obligations to their employers, community, society, even their very lives. Every single pregnancy is a risk to a woman's life...it cannot be predicted.
​

Should the ability of the woman to provide a safe home in a secure neighborhood, good food on the table, and attention to her current children or other dependents, be jeopardized by another child? Who can decide that better than the woman herself?

You are welcome to your beliefs. But the Constitution protects women, and more than just our lives. The slaves 'lived,' but not much else.
Click to expand...

In hindsight, I would not have chosen to abort myself. There may come a time when I decide to self-abort, however even if I do so, I've already had the privilege of living a life for a considerable amount of time. During that time, as the means of self-abortion are readily available, I have decided not to self abort. It could have been that my mother might have had "her" best interest at heart, and denied me the choice to self-abort: she could have made that decision for me.

You mention a good neighborhood and food on the table, and how more children would jeopardize this. My wife's sister, a white trash pig, had about 6 abortions. Mathematically, due to the economic boost that abortions provide (more food on the table, etc), that pig of a sister should be out-doing myself and the wife. Such is not the case. The pig is on disability, is divorced and had a druggie boyfriend living in a 'special' apartment complex. Regardless of abortions, pigs will be pigs. Likewise, regardless of abortions, successful people will be successful.

Her multiple abortions were merely an outcropping of her trashy mentality. This won't be understood by most people, as I consider the family that puts their kids in daycare to also be trash. Trashy people don't take care of themselves or their spawn.
 
Rickeroo said:
In hindsight, I would not have chosen to abort myself. There may come a time when I decide to self-abort, however even if I do so, I've already had the privilege of living a life for a considerable amount of time. During that time, as the means of self-abortion are readily available, I have decided not to self abort. It could have been that my mother might have had "her" best interest at heart, and denied me the choice to self-abort: she could have made that decision for me.

You mention a good neighborhood and food on the table, and how more children would jeopardize this. My wife's sister, a white trash pig, had about 6 abortions. Mathematically, due to the economic boost that abortions provide (more food on the table, etc), that pig of a sister should be out-doing myself and the wife. Such is not the case. The pig is on disability, is divorced and had a druggie boyfriend living in a 'special' apartment complex. Regardless of abortions, pigs will be pigs. Likewise, regardless of abortions, successful people will be successful.

Her multiple abortions were merely an outcropping of her trashy mentality. This won't be understood by most people, as I consider the family that puts their kids in daycare to also be trash. Trashy people don't take care of themselves or their spawn.
Click to expand...

I know it's hard to believe, but there have been 5 people here on this sub-forum, just in the past couple of years, that have said they wish their mothers had aborted them. I find that very sad, to say the least, but considering how this sub-forum is a very small subset of our population, 5 is a very significant number.

So I dont believe anyone should ever assume what others would choose.

I'm sorry for your family situation. OTOH, thru my familiy and my church being involved in the foster care system, I have seen the abject sadness and hoplelessness of those born to drug and alcohol addicted people, the mentally ill, criminals, abusers, etc and know BOTH sides of that. I have seen some that would indeed have been better off not being born (so physically and mentally defective that they would never be more than vegetables and once too big for foster parents to carry and lift, would end up in state facilities like cordwood, never again to feel a loving touch), or the ones in and out of foster care, until the last time when sent home...and beaten to death.
 
Lursa said:
I know it's hard to believe, but there have been 5 people here on this sub-forum, just in the past couple of years, that have said they wish their mothers had aborted them. I find that very sad, to say the least, but considering how this sub-forum is a very small subset of our population, 5 is a very significant number.

So I dont believe anyone should ever assume what others would choose.

I'm sorry for your family situation. OTOH, thru my familiy and my church being involved in the foster care system, I have seen the abject sadness and hoplelessness of those born to drug and alcohol addicted people, the mentally ill, criminals, abusers, etc and know BOTH sides of that. I have seen some that would indeed have been better off not being born (so physically and mentally defective that they would never be more than vegetables and once too big for foster parents to carry and lift, would end up in state facilities like cordwood, never again to feel a loving touch), or the ones in and out of foster care, until the last time when sent home...and beaten to death.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the sentiment. Keep in mind when I talk of abortion, I'm not talking about aborting a fetus with severe defects, it's basically euthanasia which I support. I think abortion is marketed as being beneficial for society. Since 1973, society should be 'happier' now that abortions are on demand. Happier now that we have tiny screens to look at all day. Happier now that we are connected with a 24 hour "news" cycle.

I don't buy into that premise. Modern, 'correct' thought around abortion is a contrivance to lessen our sense of self and make up for it with products and frayed nerves. When democrats clamor about abortion, they don't mention the peace of mind that I feel as a parent: When I look at my two kids, I know for certain that there was never a third one that we got rid of - their brother or sister: "The one we aborted would be about 12 now.." I'm not haunted by that. I think that lack of haunting is worth far more than the hypothetical 2017 Accord in the driveway I'd be able to afford rather than a cheaper 2013 if we had a third child. To me, it's a very small price to pay. There's enough in life to haunt me, I've reached that limit perfectly well without abortion guilt that democrats want me to feel.
 
Rickeroo said:
I appreciate the sentiment. Keep in mind when I talk of abortion, I'm not talking about aborting a fetus with severe defects, it's basically euthanasia which I support. I think abortion is marketed as being beneficial for society. Since 1973, society should be 'happier' now that abortions are on demand. Happier now that we have tiny screens to look at all day. Happier now that we are connected with a 24 hour "news" cycle.

I don't buy into that premise. Modern, 'correct' thought around abortion is a contrivance to lessen our sense of self and make up for it with products and frayed nerves. When democrats clamor about abortion, they don't mention the peace of mind that I feel as a parent: When I look at my two kids, I know for certain that there was never a third one that we got rid of - their brother or sister: "The one we aborted would be about 12 now.." I'm not haunted by that. I think that lack of haunting is worth far more than the hypothetical 2017 Accord in the driveway I'd be able to afford rather than a cheaper 2013 if we had a third child. To me, it's a very small price to pay. There's enough in life to haunt me, I've reached that limit perfectly well without abortion guilt that democrats want me to feel.
Click to expand...




I had 6 known pregnancies.

I was very ill during my first pregnancy due to complications from the pregnancy. My kidneys were damaged and I became very anemic. My husband and were looking forward to a little one and by the time I was ready to delivery my doctor was afraid I might bleed to death during delivery so he had the delivery room ready for a complete blood transfusion for me. I did not know if I would live to see the baby or even know if I had a boy or girl.


My husband and I have 4 wonderful children whom we planned for and love deeply.

Between our second and third child I had two miscarriages. The first miscarriage was early on -about 5 weeks.

I was about 20 weeks pregnant when I experienced the second miscarriage. Our little one died within my womb and was very malformed.

The doctor later told me even if I carried it longer it never would have lived. Pathology told him it was so malformed they could not even tell if it was a boy or girl.

We were looking forward to a new addition to family and it was very hard on my husband and I and our two children who were looking forward to a little brother or sister.

The point is , no one knows the real life situation of each pregnant woman better than the woman herself.

She absolutely should be able to thoughtfully make her choice according to her conscience and within the parameters of Roe, vs Wade.
 
Rickeroo said:
In hindsight, I would not have chosen to abort myself. There may come a time when I decide to self-abort, however even if I do so, I've already had the privilege of living a life for a considerable amount of time. During that time, as the means of self-abortion are readily available, I have decided not to self abort. It could have been that my mother might have had "her" best interest at heart, and denied me the choice to self-abort: she could have made that decision for me.

You mention a good neighborhood and food on the table, and how more children would jeopardize this. My wife's sister, a white trash pig, had about 6 abortions. Mathematically, due to the economic boost that abortions provide (more food on the table, etc), that pig of a sister should be out-doing myself and the wife. Such is not the case. The pig is on disability, is divorced and had a druggie boyfriend living in a 'special' apartment complex. Regardless of abortions, pigs will be pigs. Likewise, regardless of abortions, successful people will be successful.

Her multiple abortions were merely an outcropping of her trashy mentality. This won't be understood by most people, as I consider the family that puts their kids in daycare to also be trash. Trashy people don't take care of themselves or their spawn.
Click to expand...

From
Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015
Surveillance Summaries / November 23, 2018 / 67(13);1–45
Tara C. Jatlaoui, MD1; Maegan E. Boutot, MS1,2; Michele G. Mandel1; Maura K. Whiteman, PhD1; Angeline Ti, MD1; Emily Petersen, MD1; Karen Pazol, PhD1

8.2% of abortions are performed on women that have had 3 or more abortions.

This is a greater than acceptable number of serial abortions but it is not typical. 92% of all other abortions are performed for women that do not use abortion as birth control.

Laws should not be made based on the atypical cohort of any group.
 
minnie616 said:
I had 6 known pregnancies.

I was very ill during my first pregnancy due to complications from the pregnancy. My kidneys were damaged and I became very anemic. My husband and were looking forward to a little one and by the time I was ready to delivery my doctor was afraid I might bleed to death during delivery so he had the delivery room ready for a complete blood transfusion for me. I did not know if I would live to see the baby or even know if I had a boy or girl.


My husband and I have 4 wonderful children whom we planned for and love deeply.

Between our second and third child I had two miscarriages. The first miscarriage was early on -about 5 weeks.

I was about 20 weeks pregnant when I experienced the second miscarriage. Our little one died within my womb and was very malformed.

The doctor later told me even if I carried it longer it never would have lived. Pathology told him it was so malformed they could not even tell if it was a boy or girl.

We were looking forward to a new addition to family and it was very hard on my husband and I and our two children who were looking forward to a little brother or sister.

The point is , no one knows the real life situation of each pregnant woman better than the woman herself.

She absolutely should be able to thoughtfully make her choice according to her conscience and within the parameters of Roe, vs Wade.
Click to expand...

I'm actually on your side here. Kidney damage and complications are dire considerations with an abortion. These are what I would consider valid reasons. I draw the line by imagining my own mother aborting me, and whether I'd agree (or at least understand) that decision. If I had profound malformations with a life expectancy of 6 months? Sure. If my mother had life threatening complications and it was my life or hers? I'd understand that decision. But when those reasons become more superficial, when we start talking about a woman's ability to better serve her corporate masters by having time for the 'workforce' at the expense of my life, that's when I start to disagree with the reasoning.
 
weaver2 said:
From
Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015
Surveillance Summaries / November 23, 2018 / 67(13);1–45
Tara C. Jatlaoui, MD1; Maegan E. Boutot, MS1,2; Michele G. Mandel1; Maura K. Whiteman, PhD1; Angeline Ti, MD1; Emily Petersen, MD1; Karen Pazol, PhD1

8.2% of abortions are performed on women that have had 3 or more abortions.

This is a greater than acceptable number of serial abortions but it is not typical. 92% of all other abortions are performed for women that do not use abortion as birth control.

Laws should not be made based on the atypical cohort of any group.
Click to expand...

I agree. The sister's multiple abortions have messed up her 'plumbing' and she has various difficulties in that area. It's not illegal to be a pig.
 
Rickeroo said:
I'm actually on your side here. Kidney damage and complications are dire considerations with an abortion. These are what I would consider valid reasons. I draw the line by imagining my own mother aborting me, and whether I'd agree (or at least understand) that decision. If I had profound malformations with a life expectancy of 6 months? Sure. If my mother had life threatening complications and it was my life or hers? I'd understand that decision. But when those reasons become more superficial, when we start talking about a woman's ability to better serve her corporate masters by having time for the 'workforce' at the expense of my life, that's when I start to disagree with the reasoning.
Click to expand...

Those things cant be predicted...so does anyone...strangers, the govt...have the right to make laws that would force women to risk that against their will? It's not about women 'not being able to serve corporate masters', it's about being too sick from pregnancy that KEEPS her from that job and her family and her other commitments. When her health is affected, so is her ability to work and support her current family or save for a new one.
 
Rickeroo said:
Black men would get more sympathy, so I used that race as an example. Harming the mother in what way? Sapping her strength, forcing her to eat more food? Weight gain? Harder to walk? These could certainly be looked upon as burdens.
Click to expand...


Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
heartburn and indigestion
constipation
weight gain
dizziness and light-headedness
bloating, swelling, fluid retention
hemmorhoids
abdominal cramps
yeast infections
congested, bloody nose
acne and mild skin disorders
skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
mild to severe backache and strain
increased headaches
difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
increased urination and incontinence
bleeding gums
pica
breast pain and discharge
swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
inability to take regular medications
shortness of breath
higher blood pressure
hair loss or increased facial/body hair
tendency to anemia
curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
extreme pain on delivery
hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)
Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

stretch marks (worse in younger women)
loose skin
permanent weight gain or redistribution
abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
changes to breasts
increased foot size
varicose veins
scarring from episiotomy or c-section
other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)

(list shortened to get the post under the 5000 word limit. Rest can be found at link)

THE EFFECTS OF PREGNANCY - complications of pregnancy



If a black man were to be on welfare, some of my labor goes to paying that. I get stressed at work, which harms my well being. That black man's welfare is a measurable burden - a harm - on me. Can I kill him? If not kill, perhaps I could slap him hard across the face as punishment for harming my well being.
Click to expand...

Oh.my.god. How ridiculous. You mean you don't have to work to support yourself? Exactly how much of your taxes are going to welfare?


We could also apply the same theory to a woman's pregnancy. The fetus is being a bit presumptuous - greedy, if you will, by burdening the mother with various physical and mental strain. Rather than an abortion, perhaps there could be other punishments for the fetus for such an affront. Fining it a certain amount of money, garnishing its first few paychecks. Maybe a slap here or there.
Click to expand...


Why do you anti choicers come up with such ridiculous scenarios?
 
Lursa said:
I know it's hard to believe, but there have been 5 people here on this sub-forum, just in the past couple of years, that have said they wish their mothers had aborted them. I find that very sad, to say the least, but considering how this sub-forum is a very small subset of our population, 5 is a very significant number.
Click to expand...

I am one of them. The so-and-so who birthed me had no business having children.
 
weaver2 said:
From
Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015
Surveillance Summaries / November 23, 2018 / 67(13);1–45
Tara C. Jatlaoui, MD1; Maegan E. Boutot, MS1,2; Michele G. Mandel1; Maura K. Whiteman, PhD1; Angeline Ti, MD1; Emily Petersen, MD1; Karen Pazol, PhD1

8.2% of abortions are performed on women that have had 3 or more abortions.

This is a greater than acceptable number of serial abortions but it is not typical. 92% of all other abortions are performed for women that do not use abortion as birth control.

Laws should not be made based on the atypical cohort of any group.
Click to expand...

Even with those who have had 3 or more abortions, we don't know their stories. I went to college w/ a woman who got pregnant 3 times, each time she was on the pill. After the birth, her doctor would prescribe a different pill. She gave the first one up for adoption and kept the other two. The point being that even with 3 unplanned pregnancies, the woman could have been on b/c.
 
Rickeroo said:
I agree. The sister's multiple abortions have messed up her 'plumbing' and she has various difficulties in that area. It's not illegal to be a pig.
Click to expand...

My point was that a cohort of 8% shouldn't drive the laws that effect the other 92% and as Scrabaholic says the situations of the 8%are not known, well, except for one sister-in-law.
 
Looking over the posts it's pretty clear that sensible people understand abortions should not be uncontrolled but neither should they be banned. It should be possible for intelligent, realistic regulations to be made. Unfortunately, the Christian Right has money enough to buy a seat at every abortion discussion and bring intelligent discussion to a standstill while they lie about personhood, murder, C-sections, God, women's responsibility, and women's morality. They have been able to manipulate the discussion so anyone who disagrees with their agenda is immoral and against their religion.

If the Christian Right's position was identified as unconstitutional, as it is, their voices could be silenced and intelligent people could get on with the regulations that make sense instead of the mess of insane Christian Right laws which do nothing to reduce the number of abortions but do force women to carry a pregnancy to term because of almost non-existence of clinics and in some cases contraceptives.

The Christian Right's goal is unconstitutional:
1. they clearly are trying to establish their dogma as federal law in violation of Amendment I
2. forcing women to carry all pregnancies to term against their will is in violation of Amendment VIII
3. taking away the freedom of women to make decisions is in violation of Amendment XIV
4. focusing laws only on women in relation to pregnancy is discriminatory.
 
Lursa said:
Those things cant be predicted...so does anyone...strangers, the govt...have the right to make laws that would force women to risk that against their will? It's not about women 'not being able to serve corporate masters', it's about being too sick from pregnancy that KEEPS her from that job and her family and her other commitments. When her health is affected, so is her ability to work and support her current family or save for a new one.
Click to expand...

I'm not really arguing for illegality of abortion. It's not feasible with current social attitudes. I view most abortions (except life of the mother / rape ) to be very weakly justified, and cause more harm than good. Society at large thinks abortion for any reason is a good thing. They think that putting a child in daycare while both parents work the same hours is a good thing. They think single motherhood is a good thing. Being an alcoholic isn't illegal either. All these things, in my view, should be abhorred. But it's not illegal to be trash and to act in a self-destructive, trashy manner. People can be trash if they want to and it's perfectly legal - but that doesn't make their trashiness right.
 
Rickeroo said:
I'm not really arguing for illegality of abortion. It's not feasible with current social attitudes. I view most abortions (except life of the mother / rape ) to be very weakly justified, and cause more harm than good. Society at large thinks abortion for any reason is a good thing. They think that putting a child in daycare while both parents work the same hours is a good thing. They think single motherhood is a good thing. Being an alcoholic isn't illegal either. All these things, in my view, should be abhorred. But it's not illegal to be trash and to act in a self-destructive, trashy manner. People can be trash if they want to and it's perfectly legal - but that doesn't make their trashiness right.
Click to expand...

Single mothers and ppl who put their children into daycare are not necessarily trash.
 
Rickeroo said:
I'm not really arguing for illegality of abortion. It's not feasible with current social attitudes. I view most abortions (except life of the mother / rape ) to be very weakly justified, and cause more harm than good. Society at large thinks abortion for any reason is a good thing. They think that putting a child in daycare while both parents work the same hours is a good thing. They think single motherhood is a good thing. Being an alcoholic isn't illegal either. All these things, in my view, should be abhorred. But it's not illegal to be trash and to act in a self-destructive, trashy manner. People can be trash if they want to and it's perfectly legal - but that doesn't make their trashiness right.
Click to expand...

Since it's not your entire life that's affected, your future, it's not up to you to judge that for other women. That's what you are doing...judging women. You arent going to pay their consequences, suffer their sacrifices. Not all women want to be or like being mothers. That's a fact. Just because you love it and get so much out of it doesnt mean all other women do.

No one is justifying irresponsible behavior. But there are no negative effects of abortion on society. If you know of some, please list them.
 
Angel said:
Had you read my moral argument in the linked threads, you would know that the point you make here in this post is wasted on me. My moral argument is a principled argument for the women's autonomy, existential freedom, right to choose, etc. In other words, you're preaching to the choir here and missing the point of this thread: the point of this thread is the muddled legal thought involved the the abortion discussion and the resultant muddleheaded arguments from Pro-Abortion advocates like our Four Horsewomen and perhaps you too. Tell us, is the fetus a human being or not?
Click to expand...

~~~~~~
So, you're telling us that your life had no meaning until you were born.
 
Angel said:
"Protection of unborn children"

This is how federal law defines that critter in mommy's belly:

18 U.S. Code 01841. Protection of unborn children
(d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a "child in utero," and the term "child in utero" or "child who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

18 U.S. Code SS 1841 - Protection of unborn children | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Are we all paying attention?

"a member of the species homo sapiens"

or as the federal law reads in another place:

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall...be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

I say, are we paying attention?

"a human being"​
Click to expand...


This Code is an attempt to establish personhood of the fetus and use it to prosecute women and doctors for "murdering a person". It does not change the legal and medical terminology of fetus.

Using the words child, human being, person and Homo sapiens in US Code 01841 was rammed through Congress soon after Bush was elected largely with the evangelical vote and both the House and Senate turned Republican. It was defeated when first introduced in 1999 by conservative anti-abortion Republican, Lindsey Graham. It was introduced again in 2003 by Rep. Melissa Hart R, PA who is "Roman Catholic and holds pro-life views. She is opposed to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research" (from Wikipedia) and voted into law in 2004.

2003 also saw the introduction and passing of the: propaganda laden; Partial -Birth Abortion Ban Act, which prohibited doctors from using the safest technique for aborting malformed late term fetuses that were threatening the life of the mother and/or fetuses that were already dead or would die shortly after birth. The Act was an attempt to stop all late term abortions. All it did was keep doctors from preforming their jobs using the techniques that were in the best interests of the patient.

The anti abortion movement had high hopes that the Bush administration would overturn Roe v Wade. It didn't happen but the Code 01841 gave conservative Christians another opportunity to call women murderers. Legal and medical terminology, the terminology that actually matters, did not change. " (T)hat critter in mommy's belly" is still a zygote or an embryo or a fetus; not an unborn baby or person.​
 
weaver2 said:
This Code is an attempt to establish personhood of the fetus and use it to prosecute women and doctors for "murdering a person". It does not change the legal and medical terminology of fetus.

Using the words child, human being, person and Homo sapiens in US Code 01841 was rammed through Congress soon after Bush was elected largely with the evangelical vote and both the House and Senate turned Republican. It was defeated when first introduced in 1999 by conservative anti-abortion Republican, Lindsey Graham. It was introduced again in 2003 by Rep. Melissa Hart R, PA who is "Roman Catholic and holds pro-life views. She is opposed to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research" (from Wikipedia) and voted into law in 2004.

2003 also saw the introduction and passing of the: propaganda laden; Partial -Birth Abortion Ban Act, which prohibited doctors from using the safest technique for aborting malformed late term fetuses that were threatening the life of the mother and/or fetuses that were already dead or would die shortly after birth. The Act was an attempt to stop all late term abortions. All it did was keep doctors from preforming their jobs using the techniques that were in the best interests of the patient.

The anti abortion movement had high hopes that the Bush administration would overturn Roe v Wade. It didn't happen but the Code 01841 gave conservative Christians another opportunity to call women murderers. Legal and medical terminology, the terminology that actually matters, did not change. " (T)hat critter in mommy's belly" is still a zygote or an embryo or a fetus; not an unborn baby or person.
Click to expand...
Yes, I recall this seven-month-old thread and that post in particular, though as you've mangled the quote it's almost unreadable. My point in that post was that the legal culture, in the course of its rationalizations and legal fictions concerning abortion, blatantly contradicts itself in its own statutes. It's absurd, but the pro-abortion camp embraces the absurdity of it. I wonder, do you even see the contradiction and absurdity codified in the cited statute? I bet not.
 
Angel said:
Yes, I recall this seven-month-old thread and that post in particular, though as you've mangled the quote it's almost unreadable. My point in that post was that the legal culture, in the course of its rationalizations and legal fictions concerning abortion, blatantly contradicts itself in its own statutes. It's absurd, but the pro-abortion camp embraces the absurdity of it. I wonder, do you even see the contradiction and absurdity codified in the cited statute? I bet not.
Click to expand...

It's worth bringing up since the discussion includes word usages and meanings.

Your original post was very long. I left out parts. Feel free to put them back in. It won't change the meaning.

Code 01841 redefined zygote, embryo, fetus to mean unborn baby and therefor a human being. It was an attempt to force the Supreme Court into defining personhood and pinpoint the beginning of personhood at fertilization. All the rest of your post: "legal culture", "rationalizations", "legal fiction" that "blatantly contradicts itself" and contradictory absurdities is just angels dancing on the head of a pin.
 
weaver2 said:
Your original post was very long. I left out parts. Feel free to put them back in. It won't change the meaning.

Code 01841 redefined zygote, embryo, fetus to mean unborn baby and therefor a human being. It was an attempt to force the Supreme Court into defining personhood and pinpoint the beginning of personhood at fertilization. All the rest of your post: "legal culture", "rationalizations", "legal fiction" that "blatantly contradicts itself" and contradictory absurdities is just angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Click to expand...
Are you not seeing that you're making my point. If someone kills a pregnant woman, he's committed a double homicide. If that same woman had had an abortion before she was murdered, the law does not view it as homicide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom