Wait On That Abortion

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

They don't kill babies they abort a fetus.

That's the same thing. Here's why:

1 sperm + 1 egg becomes 1 fertilized zygote (a singular human cell that has a distinctly different genetic code than the mother and the father).

That zygote will immediately begin the process of replicating and growing. Without interference it will eventually become a human infant in 9 months, which is why people invented the procedure of abortion in the first place.

This also leads to the inescapable scientific conclusion that life begins at conception based on:

the unique DNA, the immediate and sustained growth in volume and complexity, and the fact that prior to conception, no one organism can exist in two pieces.

Progression is:
Zygote -> Blastocyst -> Embryo -> Fetus -> Infant

As anyone knows who has seen CSI or the O.J. Simpson Trial, among other examples, a unique DNA series corresponds to a unique individual. If you find a DNA sample at a crime scene that does not match your current list of suspects, the correct conclusion is that you need to keep looking for a yet unknown individual.

So, unfortunately for the pro-abortion crowd, the fetus, by definition, is someone else's "body". Stating it again, in any human, all non-reproductive cells have 46 chromosomes (the bundles that DNA is arranged in), and, of those non-reproductive cells, all of them match the code of DNA in each other.

The two exceptions are
1) a pregnant female since the child in her womb has his/her own DNA series and
2) God forbid, a cancerous mutation in an adult of either sex.

The unique DNA, the "blueprint" for our construction, signals a unique individual. Legalisms will not obscure or circumvent that truth. Every abortion that has ever taken place was the taking of a life. Sometimes that might have been necessary to save a mother's life. But to whatever extent it was not necessary and was "chosen", it was a pre-meditated murder committed by the would-be mother with the doctor as an accessory.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That's the same thing. Here's why:

1 sperm + 1 egg becomes 1 fertilized zygote (a singular human cell that has a distinctly different genetic code than the mother and the father).

That zygote will immediately begin the process of replicating and growing. Without interference it will eventually become a human infant in 9 months, which is why people invented the procedure of abortion in the first place.

This also leads to the inescapable scientific conclusion that life begins at conception based on:

the unique DNA, the immediate and sustained growth in volume and complexity, and the fact that prior to conception, no one organism can exist in two pieces.

Progression is:
Zygote -> Blastocyst -> Embryo -> Fetus -> Infant

As anyone knows who has seen CSI or the O.J. Simpson Trial, among other examples, a unique DNA series corresponds to a unique individual. If you find a DNA sample at a crime scene that does not match your current list of suspects, the correct conclusion is that you need to keep looking for a yet unknown individual.

So, unfortunately for the pro-abortion crowd, the fetus, by definition, is someone else's "body". Stating it again, in any human, all non-reproductive cells have 46 chromosomes (the bundles that DNA is arranged in), and, of those non-reproductive cells, all of them match the code of DNA in each other.

The two exceptions are
1) a pregnant female since the child in her womb has his/her own DNA series and
2) God forbid, a cancerous mutation in an adult of either sex.

The unique DNA, the "blueprint" for our construction, signals a unique individual. Legalisms will not obscure or circumvent that truth. Every abortion that has ever taken place was the taking of a life. Sometimes that might have been necessary to save a mother's life. But to whatever extent it was not necessary and was "chosen", it was a pre-meditated murder committed by the would-be mother with the doctor as an accessory.

You are wrong however it is a great cut and paste job.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

You are wrong however it is a great cut and paste job.

Cut and paste from where? I assure the post is original.

Thanks for enumerating the points where my argument is misguided.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Cut and paste from where? I assure the post is original.

Thanks for enumerating the points where my argument is misguided.

I'll sum it up quickly.

1. Abortion is legal. Your arguments are irrelevant because of this. The race is over and the claim of foul was disallowed by the stewards. Continued debate is a gross waste of taxpayer money.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

I'll sum it up quickly.

1. Abortion is legal. Your arguments are irrelevant because of this. The race is over and the claim of foul was disallowed by the stewards. Continued debate is a gross waste of taxpayer money.

So when Roe v Wade is overturned by a future Supreme Court, you're fine with that as well? Good.

Because it will be overturned, as it must be, since it is obvious that life begins at conception and the current sad state of affairs must be discontinued. The current liberal worshiping at the feet of the Warren Burger court notwithstanding, science is proving the legalism view obsolete.

This is akin to the Catholic Church sticking to their "Earth is at the center of the universe, and by extension the solar system" argument in the face of Galileo disproving that, and being excommunicated. It's laughable. Power and the force of law aside, if the law seems nonsensical, it calls the entire government role into question.

Abortion will again be illegal, as it should be, and this embarrassing and tragic episode, fatal to 40,000,000+ persons, will be over.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by joeydb

So when Roe v Wade is overturned by a future Supreme Court, you're fine with that as well? Good.

Because it will be overturned, as it must be, since it is obvious that life begins at conception and the current sad state of affairs must be discontinued. The current liberal worshiping at the feet of the Warren Burger court notwithstanding, science is proving the legalism view obsolete.

This is akin to the Catholic Church sticking to their "Earth is at the center of the universe, and by extension the solar system" argument in the face of Galileo disproving that, and being excommunicated. It's laughable. Power and the force of law aside, if the law seems nonsensical, it calls the entire government role into question.

Abortion will again be illegal, as it should be, and this embarrassing and tragic episode, fatal to 40,000,000+ persons, will be over.

It won't be overturned. Remember before ROE Wade it was legal in some states. It will revert to a state's rights issue which quite frankly I don't have a problem with. Yes, I'm Pro-Choice, but I'm a big proponent of state's rights...and I myself would never have an abortion to the point where we didn't even have the test on our fetus at the time for Down's Syndrome. We both said if that's what we have, that's the way it is...but I don't represent everyone nor should I.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

It won't be overturned. Remember before ROE Wade it was legal in some states. It will revert to a state's rights issue which quite frankly I don't have a problem with. Yes, I'm Pro-Choice, but I'm a big proponent of state's rights...and I myself would never have an abortion to the point where we didn't even have the test on our fetus at the time for Down's Syndrome. We both said if that's what we have, that's the way it is...but I don't represent everyone nor should I.

That's true regarding state's rights, and I also support state's rights and think that many issues currently under the federal umbrella do not need to be so.

But, I must point out, if life does begin at conception, abortion becomes synonomous with murder. Murder is outlawed everywhere in the United States at the local level, in addition to the state level in many cases.

When did laws prohibiting murder become anything less than absolute? We can't call the case for abortion a self-defense situation UNLESS the life of the mother is legitimately in jeopardy.

The main detrement to the Burger court decision is that it did not prove that life begins anywhere BUT conception. It argued viability, and an implied right to privacy that does not exist in the Constitution. Privacy and secrecy in covering up a crime of murder is no great virtue - in fact, we authorize wiretaps all the time to root out the terrorists and the mafia. The inescapable fact remains that life beginning at conception precludes morally any use of abortion - legal or not.

When you consider the Democratic Party's "Pro-Choice" stance, it was laughable that during the Bill Clinton 1992 and 1996 campaigns, the party asserted themselves as "the party for the children". Not the ones systematically destroyed through abortion.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Abortion will again be illegal, as it should be, and this embarrassing and tragic episode, fatal to 40,000,000+ persons, will be over.

If you value 40,000,000 lives so strongly, I strongly suggest you stop railing against any programs that help those in poverty, without jobs, public health, trying to defund Planned Parenthood, etc. You can't continue to pick and choose when you respect life as a "person", and when you do not. It appears that for many, respect and concern for "life" ends at birth.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

If you value 40,000,000 lives so strongly, I strongly suggest you stop railing against any programs that help those in poverty, without jobs, public health, trying to defund Planned Parenthood, etc. You can't continue to pick and choose when you respect life as a "person", and when you do not. It appears that for many, respect and concern for "life" ends at birth.

How about instead of abortion, people who can't afford to have children simply do not get pregnant in the first place? Why is that so unthinkable?

It is up to those individuals to exercise discipline and good planning in order to avoid the situation where an "unwanted pregnancy" occurs.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

This also leads to the inescapable scientific conclusion that life begins at conception based on:

You logic (nicely copied, well done) also leads to the "inescapable" conclusion that when you masturbate, you're committing murder (as life doesn't begin from non-life without a big bang)

Progression is:
Zygote -> Blastocyst -> Embryo -> Fetus -> Infant

Yes - and when are abortions done, Joey? At what point in the the above process?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes - and when are abortions done, Joey? At what point in the the above process?

Abortions performed at any point in the above process constitutes murder.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Abortions performed at any point in the above process constitutes murder.

In other words, you say you don't know, and also that you don't even care to learn, the technicalities of what you are discussing, even while you profess to offer "scientific" evidence, while simultaneously saying your personal opinion should determine the lives of others.

Sorry - making your mind up before hearing all available evidence is not scientific. Forming an opinion while denying factual evidence is not scientific. Forming an opinion, rather than letting the evidence direct you to a logical conclusion, is not scientific.

Abortion is legal. Get out of strangers uteruses and their private doctor-patient relationships. You and your proposed government have no business interfering in the most personal aspects of people's lives, and forcing people to have children. Women's uteruses and the years of their lives, and the lives of their family, are not yours to do with as you please. This isn't communist China.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

In other words, you say you don't know, and also that you don't even care to learn, the technicalities of what you are discussing, even while you profess to offer "scientific" evidence, while simultaneously saying your personal opinion should determine the lives of others.

Sorry - making your mind up before hearing all available evidence is not scientific. Forming an opinion while denying factual evidence is not scientific. Forming an opinion, rather than letting the evidence direct you to a logical conclusion, is not scientific.

Abortion is legal. Get out of strangers uteruses and their private doctor-patient relationships. You and your proposed government have no business interfering in the most personal aspects of people's lives, and forcing people to have children. This isn't communist China.

Sorry for you, the logic is sound. Once the DNA sequence is formed at conception, growth begins. That individual, as fragile as he or she may be, may not be destroyed without a murder being committed.

The legal status is irrelevant to that position I have just stated. If Warren Burger and his court got it wrong in 1973, I am under no obligation to overlook what I know to be true in order to support that decision. Others may do so - I don't have to.

Far from interfering, I propose to reverse the 1973 decision and actually get the government out of personal reproductive issues, except for the fact that abortion will be correctly classified as a murderous act -- to be prevented, charged or sentenced in the same way as other murders are.

"Forcing people to have children" only happens where unprotected relations are involved. People always have the choice to determine what preventative measures they do (or don't) take. The consequences of their actions are to be borne (no pun intended) by them.

[Riot]

The legal status is irrelevant to that position I have just stated.

Fortunately, our Supreme Court says you are entitled to your opinion, and also fortunately for those that value personal freedom, your opinion is not our law.

Far from interfering, I propose to reverse the 1973 decision and actually get the government out of personal reproductive issues, except for..

Whoa. No. "except for" means you are sticking your big communist government nose into other people's lives. That is not "getting government out", nor is it not "interfering"

... the fact that abortion will be correctly classified as a murderous act -- to be prevented, charged or sentenced in the same way as other murders are.

So do you support the governors in some states who are trying to make it legal to murder an abortion provider? Yes or no?

I can't think of a more communist big governnment takeover of personal freedoms than what you propose - you forcing people to bear children. Appalling.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Fortunately, our Supreme Court says you are entitled to your opinion, and also fortunately for those that value personal freedom, your opinion is not our law.



Whoa. No. "except for" means you are sticking your big communist government nose into other people's lives. That is not "getting government out", nor is it not "interfering"



So do you support the governors in some states who are trying to make it legal to murder an abortion provider? Yes or no?

I can't think of a more communist big governnment takeover of personal freedoms than what you propose - you forcing people to bear children. Appalling.

Sorry Riot -- it is not "pro reproductive rights" to allow murders in the form of abortions to continue.

As for your love of "communism", I am the one opposed to the redistribution of wealth, remember? Your leftist friends own that term lock, stock and barrel.

And I will do my damndest to make sure that not one dollar of mine goes to any abortion anywhere. So it's not just my opinion -- it's my money too.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

So do you support the governors in some states who are trying to make it legal to murder an abortion provider? Yes or no?

.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Abortions performed at any point in the above process constitutes murder.

Thank God such an absurd thought hasn't caught hold in our legal system yet.

The ironic thing is that abortion rates are rather steady worldwide, whether they're technically legal or not -- women will get abortions one way or another if they really want them. Might want to brush up on Brazil.

So the long and short of it is that women are going to terminate unwanted pregnancies either way. If it's legal, it's more likely to be safe. If it's illegal, it's more likely to be unsafe.

So you're going to have "dead" DNA strings either way. Whether you're gung-ho about adding more dead, injured, or maimed women to the fray is really what we're arguing here when we cut out all the rest of the crap and it's all said and done.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Thank God such an absurd thought hasn't caught hold in our legal system yet.

The ironic thing is that abortion rates are rather steady worldwide, whether they're technically legal or not -- women will get abortions one way or another if they really want them. Might want to brush up on Brazil.

So the long and short of it is that women are going to terminate unwanted pregnancies either way. If it's legal, it's more likely to be safe. If it's illegal, it's more likely to be unsafe.

So you're going to have "dead" DNA strings either way. Whether you're gung-ho about adding more dead, injured, or maimed women to the fray is really what we're arguing here when we cut out all the rest of the crap and it's all said and done.

I think I've demonstrated that since the 1973 decision did not factor in where life begins, or any logic delineating where it "must have begun by" or "could not have started yet", the decision is absurd and arbitrary. After all, a question of where life begins would have some uncertainty, but in that case, the responsible individual (or in this case, Supreme Court Justices) should err on the side of caution. Even if life "might" have started by conception in another individuals mind (I have no doubts, but others might), the responsible action is to say, "Abortion at that point or after could be a murder, so we cannot allow that."

As an analogy, if we suspected, but were not sure, that the population of an endangered species -- the humpback whale, the california condor, the siberian tiger, etc. -- were at a critically low level in population, the responsible action would be to stop hunting them. Why? Because if we're wrong, the worst that happened is that their numbers increase. But if we're right about the population being low and do nothing, they go extinct.

Strangely, many PETA members on the web have supported abortion while opposing hunting and the consumption of animal products. Go figure.

Environmentalists, in the face of mounting evidence against global warming, assert along the lines of "But if it's happening and we do nothing, we're screwed." Their recommended action is to err on the side of what they see as caution. We could always reverse course if it's not true.

Taking a life is a one way street, so every facet of what's going on needs to be understood, and only if it's PROVEN that a human life is not terminated can any action like that take place. That's conservatism, not politically, but in terms of judgment based on the facts we have or can get.

I've heard the whole "back alley" argument before as we all have. The issue is that a crime (like murder) cannot be upheld and supported by the government in a just society. Crime is always in the alleys, out of view, hidden, because in the light of day the non-criminals will object.

Other countries can do what they want - what their citizens decide. But as an American, I want my country to protect life. If people want to go to Brazil to commit a murder, be my guest.

[joeydb]

I fully realize how polarizing and emotional this issue is. I just wanted to be as forceful and clear as others have been with their points of view. The discussion has been lively and energetic, as it should be with a subject of this importance.

As an aside, I consulted a couple of Latin to English dictionaries and websites, and the two definitions I found for "fetus" were "little child" or "offspring".

[Mike]

I may have missed it here, but could someone provide the link to the proposed bill regarding justified homicide of one who kills a fetus?
Here in Vermont, I see that we already have laws regarding causing an abortion. I do have to wonder if this state proposal is preparing for a possible overturn in Roe v Wade

And, I wholeheartedly agree that we should do something about non-functioning adults who proceed to have child after child. Perhaps forced sterilazation could cut down on the number of abortions.