9th vs. 10th Amendment

[flockofseagulls104]

and your source of this is...

never mind, you don't have one backed up with facts.

https://www.lifenews.com/2021/02/26/pla ... abortions/

OK, get your google going. Find the hundreds of responses saying this is wrong, made up, out of context or just to be ignored because it's from a pro-life source. Can't trust anything unless it's from an approved, bonafide leftist source. We all know that. The canned responses are out there, I'm sure. If you have any trouble, ask my stalker. He'll know how to find them. The left never lets anything go unanswered, and they will make sure it comes to the top of any internet search.

Oh, don't worry now. bob is on the job. They will set us all straight, since they know everything about it, whatever it is.

I'd like to ask you a question and I promise I'm not looking to pick a fight - just asking for information's sake. You have accused me and others of parroting what you call liberal/left-wing talking points and disparage sources that I and others cite when we attempt to explain our positions and/or refute yours. And yet, you seem to do the same thing from the other side - echoing the standard conservative talking points and using questionable source material to explain and/or refute. So my question is - how and why are your methods different than mine?

Please quote me anyplace that parroted the thoughts on the abortion issue above that I spent a considerable amount of time thinking, writing and editing.

Most of the time, when I link to things, it is to display what others have presented as FACTS that support what I have decided my opinion has come to be. That I am not just parroting other people's OPINIONS. Or to demonstrate that other people SHARE my opinion, much to the disbelief of the self-appointed bored experts on the given subject. Or just to illustrate my point that for every expert you can cite, I can find another expert who 'proves' exactly the opposite. Or to present the ORIGINAL source of the subject, if that can be found, not quoting some dumb, biased (on either side) pundit's summary of it.

I take great pains to state that my views are MY opinions, and that I KNOW THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DON'T KNOW, unlike the e-bigots that DON'T KNOW THAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DON'T KNOW. And neither do the 'experts' they find on google that they find to 'refute' my considered opinions. Also, find me someone, anyone, that uses that phrase 'KNOWING WHAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DON'T KNOW'. That is MY description of the bobs and stalkers of the world, who present THEIR opinions as fact.

I have tried many ways, since I have returned here, to try and find ways to reasonably debate issues that are important to me within this group. All of them have amounted to, as tlynn, I think, described it, 'pissing in the wind'. Has anyone on the other side tried to do that? Or even tried to participate in a reasoned debate, or brook any compromise with ANYONE who didn't subscribe exactly to their point of view?

I tried very hard with you, krox. I did not insult you or patronize you. I read your posts and tried to answer them thoughtfully. I think I even made some concessions to you. I only let my Jerseyness come out for the people who ask for it first. But you started to patronize me and make it personal, in my opinion, so I have, unfortunately, counted you out of the 'middle of the road', and into the 'leaning left' with closed mind category. I don't know, maybe I'm jaded and wrong about that, but this kind of environment kinda does that to you.

I don't think anyone who reads my posts can possibly come to the conclusion that I don't have a mind of my own. If I didn't, I would go along with everyone else on this bored, just to avoid the hassle and constant insults. I try and make my posts as clear, accurate and reasoned as possible. That is why I go back and edit them so often. I don't kneejerk, except when the e-bigots get my shackles up. My responses to their trolls are usually on a much higher grade level then theirs. Especially BJs.

[a1mamacat]

One of the reasons I continue to post here is that it allows me to think about these issues and express MY opinions on them. I know there are not many people here, and I think most of you don't care what I think. And some of you will vehemently oppose, mock and critique it automatically.

Here is what I think about the abortion issue.

In my view, any designation that this 'mass of cells' becomes a baby at this point or at that point is only an arbitrary point made specifically for purposes of a political or moral argument being supported or opposed. Counter arguments for any 'designated point' can and will be made. For me, once an egg is fertilized, it becomes a human life. Because, in the absence of anything to stop it, it will be born into this world as a human being.

Because it is a human being, for me, it (he or she) has rights. He or she, at this point, cannot make decisions for his or herself and is totally and completely dependent on his or her mother. Any other human being who is totally dependent upon another human being has rights. For instance, a child that has already been born cannot be killed because of the interests and desires of that child's parents. Those parents would be rightfully charged with murder. The same is true for a severely handicapped human being that is completely dependent on someone else.

Again, it all comes down to the decision made by a fully sentient and post-pubescent woman and a fully sentient and post-pubescent man. If they make the conscious decision to engage in sex, they take the chance that they could produce a baby for which they will be responsible. And in my view, they should be responsible, in making that decision, for any human life they produce, whether it was intended or not. There are many ways in which to reduce the likelihood that that will happen, but however low that likelihood is, they need to be mindful that there is a chance it will happen. But you may say, if a baby is born to people who did not intend to produce a baby, that baby will not be 'wanted' and lack the love and support it needs and deserves. The fact is, and it's irrefutable. If you make the decision to have sex, a human life, for which you will be held responsible, may well be the result. And you cannot pass that responsibility on to anyone else, or any other entity. IMO, If you are going to do sex education in public schools, instead of teaching gender fluidity and all this other stuff to prepubescent children in schools, this is the major topic that should be taught above all that other stuff. Responsible parents should, of course, teach their children this.

That being said, there are occasions where a human life is produced where it was not the result of a conscious choice by two people, a man and a woman. Those must be dealt with separately, and I don't know what the best way to handle those situations is. Should the mother be forced to carry a baby for 9 months which was forced upon her either by rape or incest, being constantly reminded of the ugly, evil act that was committed against her? No, aboslutely not. But the human that was conceived by this evil act: Is he or she condemned to death because of a crime he or she had nothing to do with? I have trouble with this as well.

So what it comes down to, IMO, is that in some states it may be the case where people will be held responsible for their decisions, and the easy remedy, to do away with an unborn child, will be made more difficult and more expensive. Like all other aspects of our lives, there will undoubtedly be underground and black-market alternatives that spring up, and these will not be regulated, of course, and will not be safe. If the truth be told, I would say that these options existed before Roe v Wade, and they existed during Roe v Wade and will continue to exist. I have no way of knowing, but human nature makes it likely that it is true.

In other states, the decision to have sex without being ultimately responsible for an 'unintended' outcome will be supported by a relatively easy and inexpensive solution, without regard for the human life which will be regarded as the 'unintended' outcome. The presumed black-market sources for abortions will also continue to exist there, as well.

I know I will be picked to pieces on some of these points, or all of them. I also know some of you will personally insult me because that is what you do. But this is MY view on this issue, and obviously, I don't have a definitive answer. If I did, I wouldn't just be posting it on the WWTBAM bored.

My question to you is..

Why do you contend that your viewpoint is more valid than the viewpoint of the women who believe otherwise, and why do you feel you have the right to make their decisions?

[flockofseagulls104]

One of the reasons I continue to post here is that it allows me to think about these issues and express MY opinions on them. I know there are not many people here, and I think most of you don't care what I think. And some of you will vehemently oppose, mock and critique it automatically.

Here is what I think about the abortion issue.

In my view, any designation that this 'mass of cells' becomes a baby at this point or at that point is only an arbitrary point made specifically for purposes of a political or moral argument being supported or opposed. Counter arguments for any 'designated point' can and will be made. For me, once an egg is fertilized, it becomes a human life. Because, in the absence of anything to stop it, it will be born into this world as a human being.

Because it is a human being, for me, it (he or she) has rights. He or she, at this point, cannot make decisions for his or herself and is totally and completely dependent on his or her mother. Any other human being who is totally dependent upon another human being has rights. For instance, a child that has already been born cannot be killed because of the interests and desires of that child's parents. Those parents would be rightfully charged with murder. The same is true for a severely handicapped human being that is completely dependent on someone else.

Again, it all comes down to the decision made by a fully sentient and post-pubescent woman and a fully sentient and post-pubescent man. If they make the conscious decision to engage in sex, they take the chance that they could produce a baby for which they will be responsible. And in my view, they should be responsible, in making that decision, for any human life they produce, whether it was intended or not. There are many ways in which to reduce the likelihood that that will happen, but however low that likelihood is, they need to be mindful that there is a chance it will happen. But you may say, if a baby is born to people who did not intend to produce a baby, that baby will not be 'wanted' and lack the love and support it needs and deserves. The fact is, and it's irrefutable. If you make the decision to have sex, a human life, for which you will be held responsible, may well be the result. And you cannot pass that responsibility on to anyone else, or any other entity. IMO, If you are going to do sex education in public schools, instead of teaching gender fluidity and all this other stuff to prepubescent children in schools, this is the major topic that should be taught above all that other stuff. Responsible parents should, of course, teach their children this.

That being said, there are occasions where a human life is produced where it was not the result of a conscious choice by two people, a man and a woman. Those must be dealt with separately, and I don't know what the best way to handle those situations is. Should the mother be forced to carry a baby for 9 months which was forced upon her either by rape or incest, being constantly reminded of the ugly, evil act that was committed against her? No, aboslutely not. But the human that was conceived by this evil act: Is he or she condemned to death because of a crime he or she had nothing to do with? I have trouble with this as well.

So what it comes down to, IMO, is that in some states it may be the case where people will be held responsible for their decisions, and the easy remedy, to do away with an unborn child, will be made more difficult and more expensive. Like all other aspects of our lives, there will undoubtedly be underground and black-market alternatives that spring up, and these will not be regulated, of course, and will not be safe. If the truth be told, I would say that these options existed before Roe v Wade, and they existed during Roe v Wade and will continue to exist. I have no way of knowing, but human nature makes it likely that it is true.

In other states, the decision to have sex without being ultimately responsible for an 'unintended' outcome will be supported by a relatively easy and inexpensive solution, without regard for the human life which will be regarded as the 'unintended' outcome. The presumed black-market sources for abortions will also continue to exist there, as well.

I know I will be picked to pieces on some of these points, or all of them. I also know some of you will personally insult me because that is what you do. But this is MY view on this issue, and obviously, I don't have a definitive answer. If I did, I wouldn't just be posting it on the WWTBAM bored.

My question to you is..

Why do you contend that your viewpoint is more valid than the viewpoint of the women who believe otherwise, and why do you feel you have the right to make their decisions?

For every woman who is 'pro choice' (pro-abortion) there are women who are just as passionately pro-life (anti-abortion). With valid reasons of their own. Why do you believe you can just ignore them?

[a1mamacat]

One of the reasons I continue to post here is that it allows me to think about these issues and express MY opinions on them. I know there are not many people here, and I think most of you don't care what I think. And some of you will vehemently oppose, mock and critique it automatically.

Here is what I think about the abortion issue.

In my view, any designation that this 'mass of cells' becomes a baby at this point or at that point is only an arbitrary point made specifically for purposes of a political or moral argument being supported or opposed. Counter arguments for any 'designated point' can and will be made. For me, once an egg is fertilized, it becomes a human life. Because, in the absence of anything to stop it, it will be born into this world as a human being.

Because it is a human being, for me, it (he or she) has rights. He or she, at this point, cannot make decisions for his or herself and is totally and completely dependent on his or her mother. Any other human being who is totally dependent upon another human being has rights. For instance, a child that has already been born cannot be killed because of the interests and desires of that child's parents. Those parents would be rightfully charged with murder. The same is true for a severely handicapped human being that is completely dependent on someone else.

Again, it all comes down to the decision made by a fully sentient and post-pubescent woman and a fully sentient and post-pubescent man. If they make the conscious decision to engage in sex, they take the chance that they could produce a baby for which they will be responsible. And in my view, they should be responsible, in making that decision, for any human life they produce, whether it was intended or not. There are many ways in which to reduce the likelihood that that will happen, but however low that likelihood is, they need to be mindful that there is a chance it will happen. But you may say, if a baby is born to people who did not intend to produce a baby, that baby will not be 'wanted' and lack the love and support it needs and deserves. The fact is, and it's irrefutable. If you make the decision to have sex, a human life, for which you will be held responsible, may well be the result. And you cannot pass that responsibility on to anyone else, or any other entity. IMO, If you are going to do sex education in public schools, instead of teaching gender fluidity and all this other stuff to prepubescent children in schools, this is the major topic that should be taught above all that other stuff. Responsible parents should, of course, teach their children this.

That being said, there are occasions where a human life is produced where it was not the result of a conscious choice by two people, a man and a woman. Those must be dealt with separately, and I don't know what the best way to handle those situations is. Should the mother be forced to carry a baby for 9 months which was forced upon her either by rape or incest, being constantly reminded of the ugly, evil act that was committed against her? No, aboslutely not. But the human that was conceived by this evil act: Is he or she condemned to death because of a crime he or she had nothing to do with? I have trouble with this as well.

So what it comes down to, IMO, is that in some states it may be the case where people will be held responsible for their decisions, and the easy remedy, to do away with an unborn child, will be made more difficult and more expensive. Like all other aspects of our lives, there will undoubtedly be underground and black-market alternatives that spring up, and these will not be regulated, of course, and will not be safe. If the truth be told, I would say that these options existed before Roe v Wade, and they existed during Roe v Wade and will continue to exist. I have no way of knowing, but human nature makes it likely that it is true.

In other states, the decision to have sex without being ultimately responsible for an 'unintended' outcome will be supported by a relatively easy and inexpensive solution, without regard for the human life which will be regarded as the 'unintended' outcome. The presumed black-market sources for abortions will also continue to exist there, as well.

I know I will be picked to pieces on some of these points, or all of them. I also know some of you will personally insult me because that is what you do. But this is MY view on this issue, and obviously, I don't have a definitive answer. If I did, I wouldn't just be posting it on the WWTBAM bored.

My question to you is..

Why do you contend that your viewpoint is more valid than the viewpoint of the women who believe otherwise, and why do you feel you have the right to make their decisions?

For every woman who is 'pro choice' (pro-abortion) there are women who are just as passionately pro-life (anti-abortion). With valid reasons of their own. Why do you believe you can just ignore them?

No one is ignoring them. They choose to carry the foetus. They have that choice.

It is the women who do not want to carry the foetus who are being ignored.

[flockofseagulls104]

My question to you is..

Why do you contend that your viewpoint is more valid than the viewpoint of the women who believe otherwise, and why do you feel you have the right to make their decisions?

For every woman who is 'pro choice' (pro-abortion) there are women who are just as passionately pro-life (anti-abortion). With valid reasons of their own. Why do you believe you can just ignore them?

No one is ignoring them. They choose to carry the foetus. They have that choice.

It is the women who do not want to carry the foetus who are being ignored.

My point, whether you agree with it or not, but it is factually and scientifically irrefutable, is that the vast majority of them DID have a choice.

[a1mamacat]

For every woman who is 'pro choice' (pro-abortion) there are women who are just as passionately pro-life (anti-abortion). With valid reasons of their own. Why do you believe you can just ignore them?

No one is ignoring them. They choose to carry the foetus. They have that choice.

It is the women who do not want to carry the foetus who are being ignored.

My point, whether you agree with it or not, but it is factually and scientifically irrefutable, is that the vast majority of them DID have a choice.

So, if I understand your point, you should only have sex if you want to have a child? I think you view is very refutable, speaking as a woman who has been assaulted, coerced, and had to deal with the aftermath. The vast majority of women have dealt with situations that were not “choice”. Ask your sister, daughters, wife, mother, aunts. You will be educated.

[Bob Juch]

For every woman who is 'pro choice' (pro-abortion) there are women who are just as passionately pro-life (anti-abortion). With valid reasons of their own. Why do you believe you can just ignore them?

It's not 50/50 as you state; it's more like 70/30 pro-choice.

[flockofseagulls104]

I will swear on a stack of bibles, I have never heard ANYONE suggest this anywhere, so krox, I am not parroting anything.

Saucy, I also made a point that it is a choice of two people, a male and female, that is required to create another human being.
And it is the burden, imposed by biology, that the woman has to carry that child for 9 months. That is extremely unfair.

On the other side of the equation, the male, heretofore, if they are the irresponsible type, and there are many of those, could get off without shouldering any responsibility to that unborn child.

I don't know if there is a medical procedure, and if there isn't, I hope someone can come up with one, that can determine the dna of a fetus in a non invasive way without doing any harm to the mother or the fetus.
If a pregnant woman is abandoned by the male who fathered the child, I am all in favor of creating a law that will require that the person the mother identifies as the father will be required to take a dna test, and if it is confirmed, that they be held legally responsible for the well being of that child, as well as the mother, in whatever financial or physical way it can be determined is necessary.

[flockofseagulls104]

No one is ignoring them. They choose to carry the foetus. They have that choice.

It is the women who do not want to carry the foetus who are being ignored.

My point, whether you agree with it or not, but it is factually and scientifically irrefutable, is that the vast majority of them DID have a choice.

So, if I understand your point, you should only have sex if you want to have a child? I think you view is very refutable, speaking as a woman who has been assaulted, coerced, and had to deal with the aftermath. The vast majority of women have dealt with situations that were not “choice”. Ask your sister, daughters, wife, mother, aunts. You will be educated.

Did you read my post? I think not.

Anyone is free to have sex anytime they want. But, like everything else you do in life, you have to understand the risks.
Remember the mantra 'responsible sex'? That had to do with the risk of acquiring AIDS. People still had sex even at that risk. Responsible people made adjustments. Well, one of the risks of having sex is producing another human being. Responsible people can, and should, understand that risk. It affects more than them. The women that disagree with 'pro-choice' believe that.

Perhaps if my idea above is feasible, it will help even out the burden and responsibility of the possible consequences.

[a1mamacat]

My point, whether you agree with it or not, but it is factually and scientifically irrefutable, is that the vast majority of them DID have a choice.

So, if I understand your point, you should only have sex if you want to have a child? I think you view is very refutable, speaking as a woman who has been assaulted, coerced, and had to deal with the aftermath. The vast majority of women have dealt with situations that were not “choice”. Ask your sister, daughters, wife, mother, aunts. You will be educated.

Did you read my post? I think not.

I did read your post, which is why I responded. The takeaway I got for it is that two adults, engaging in sex, are agreeing that a pregnancy is possible. If that is not your contention, it is not clear. Two people, woman on birth control, male using condom, or having has a vasectomy can still have an egg fertilized. Should this woman, having taken all possible measures to NOT become pregnant have to still carry the foetus? What about people with genetic issues, like Huntingtons, or women who are receiving treatments for cancer, or fertility clients who have 6 viable foetuses and only want 2 children? Why are they being subjected to others beliefs?

[flockofseagulls104]

So, if I understand your point, you should only have sex if you want to have a child? I think you view is very refutable, speaking as a woman who has been assaulted, coerced, and had to deal with the aftermath. The vast majority of women have dealt with situations that were not “choice”. Ask your sister, daughters, wife, mother, aunts. You will be educated.

Did you read my post? I think not.

I did read your post, which is why I responded. The takeaway I got for it is that two adults, engaging in sex, are agreeing that a pregnancy is possible. If that is not your contention, it is not clear. Two people, woman on birth control, male using condom, or having has a vasectomy can still have an egg fertilized. Should this woman, having taken all possible measures to NOT become pregnant have to still carry the foetus? What about people with genetic issues, like Huntingtons, or women who are receiving treatments for cancer, or fertility clients who have 6 viable foetuses and only want 2 children? Why are they being subjected to others beliefs?

I also stated I don't have the solution. I stated MY opinions on the subject. So, it seems you believe the act of abortion is the ONLY answer that will solve everything and everyone should just get over it?

It's late. I'm going to bed now.

[a1mamacat]

Did you read my post? I think not.

I did read your post, which is why I responded. The takeaway I got for it is that two adults, engaging in sex, are agreeing that a pregnancy is possible. If that is not your contention, it is not clear. Two people, woman on birth control, male using condom, or having has a vasectomy can still have an egg fertilized. Should this woman, having taken all possible measures to NOT become pregnant have to still carry the foetus? What about people with genetic issues, like Huntingtons, or women who are receiving treatments for cancer, or fertility clients who have 6 viable foetuses and only want 2 children? Why are they being subjected to others beliefs?

I also stated I don't have the solution. I stated MY opinions on the subject. So, it seems you believe the act of abortion is the ONLY answer that will solve everything and everyone should just get over it?

It's late. I'm going to bed now.

Your opinion is noted.

Access to the option of abortion is the issue, not the answer to every situation.

Sleep well. You will never have the question of what to do.

[Bob78164]

So, if I understand your point, you should only have sex if you want to have a child?

I think the correct statement of that position is that WOMEN should only have heterosexual sex if they want to have a child. Men remain free to have as much sex as they can manage without risking having to go through childbirth involuntarily. --Bob

[triviawayne]

True. If the intent was down to this situation only it would be a different game. But PP hasn’t made hundreds of millions of dollars saving womens’ lives. Just ending innocent lives who posed no threat at all (other then loss of a convenience) to the mothers.

and your source of this is...

never mind, you don't have one backed up with facts.

His fundamental point is that most abortions are not necessary to save the life and health of the mother. He trivializes the real consequences of this life-altering experience by calling it "convenience" but the fundamental point is correct.

His statement that Planned Parenthood, a not-for-profit, makes hundreds of millions of dollars -- well, I'll be fascinated to see if he can support that claim with evidence. --Bob

his fundamental point is he wants it both ways. He doesn't want abortion unless it fits in to a "reason" he deems is OK to have one.

If you are against abortion because of the loss of human life, then it is not OK to be for it in any situation. If you are against abortion because of the loss of human life, you have no credibility when you are for the death penalty at the same time.

First we see the whataboutism by bringing up conjoined twins, now it's about money made by planned parenthood.

[flockofseagulls104]

If you are against abortion because of the loss of human life, then it is not OK to be for it in any situation. If you are against abortion because of the loss of human life, you have no credibility when you are for the death penalty at the same time.

Wayne, your logic is screwed up. In what you say, the reverse is also applicable.

If you do not consider a fetus a human life, why should we care if it is killed? What is the arbitrary line that this mass of cells has to cross to be considered a human life? Who gets to determine that?
If you are against the death penalty because you don't think it is right for society to end a person's life, what about the child whose life is ended through the act of abortion?

[flockofseagulls104]

Saucy,
I think my point is that in every contentious issue, there are valid points and reasons on all sides of an issue. And there are extremes.

What we seem to be missing is people who can be reasonable and recognize the valid points on the other side of the issue. And be willing to make reasonable compromises to their positions to find a solution or at least a countermeasure that will not make either side completely happy, but end up with something both sides can live and deal with.

Our culture, because of the way 'journalism' now operates and because of social media, is completely dominated by the extremes on any side of any issue. There seems to be a scarcity of reasonable people who will listen to any points made on the opposing side. This bored, as I've come to determine, is a microcosm of that.

You know what my opinion is. I am coming to learn what yours is. I am not in charge of anything. But I am willing to listen to what your opinion is, and if I think you have a valid point, I would be willing to come up with compromises, like the one I suggested, to 'ease your pain', as long as it is in line with my core beliefs.

But if you come at it with the hostile attitude that my opinions are completely invalid, that I am a threat to the future of our democracy, that I have no mind of my own, etc etc etc, there will be no opportunity for any discussion. It will be back and forth insults and crap hurled at each other. Which is what happens on this bored and what is happening beyond it.

We've got to come up with a new paradigm. Again, I have no solution for that. I've tried a few things on this bored, and you see how that's worked out.

[Estonut]

If you are against abortion because of the loss of human life, then it is not OK to be for it in any situation. If you are against abortion because of the loss of human life, you have no credibility when you are for the death penalty at the same time.

Wayne, your logic is screwed up. In what you say, the reverse is also applicable.

If you do not consider a fetus a human life, why should we care if it is killed? What is the arbitrary line that this mass of cells has to cross to be considered a human life? Who gets to determine that?
If you are against the death penalty because you don't think it is right for society to end a person's life, what about the child whose life is ended through the act of abortion?

There's also the issue of totally innocent vs. irredeemably evil.

[triviawayne]

If you are against abortion because of the loss of human life, then it is not OK to be for it in any situation. If you are against abortion because of the loss of human life, you have no credibility when you are for the death penalty at the same time.

Wayne, your logic is screwed up. In what you say, the reverse is also applicable.

If you do not consider a fetus a human life, why should we care if it is killed? What is the arbitrary line that this mass of cells has to cross to be considered a human life? Who gets to determine that?
If you are against the death penalty because you don't think it is right for society to end a person's life, what about the child whose life is ended through the act of abortion?

I think you misread me there, we're saying the same thing. if a person does not feel it is OK to end a life in the first trimester, while at the same time that person supports the death penalty (ending a life in the 120th trimester), they have no credibility. The far-right is against abortion, and for the death penalty...they make no friggin sense.

[earendel]

I honestly believe that part of the problem is terminology. We toss around the words "embryo", "fetus", "child", "person", "human", as if they all meant the same thing, when they do not. If a person comes into existence at the moment of fertilization, then should it be counted in the census, which calls for the counting of "all persons"? What about religious beliefs that don't support the idea that the fetus doesn't become a person until it draws its first breath (Judaism, for instance)?

And although no one has brought it up yet, what about in-vitro fertilization and frozen embryos? If a fertilized ovum is a person at the moment of fertilization, what about the "surplus" fertilized ova that are left over from the in-vitro process? Are frozen embryos to be considered as "persons" so that they can't be discarded?

What about contraceptives that affect the fertilized ovum - IUDs, for instance (although there is some debate about this), or Plan B (that prevents attachment of the fertilized ovum)? Given that Justice Thomas has already said that it might be time to look at Griswald v. Connecticut, how long before some state legislatures take action against these?

There are many more questions that are being asked - we're only beginning to see the results of the Supreme Court decision.

[BackInTex]

and your source of this is...

never mind, you don't have one backed up with facts.

His fundamental point is that most abortions are not necessary to save the life and health of the mother. He trivializes the real consequences of this life-altering experience by calling it "convenience" but the fundamental point is correct.

His statement that Planned Parenthood, a not-for-profit, makes hundreds of millions of dollars -- well, I'll be fascinated to see if he can support that claim with evidence. --Bob

his fundamental point is he wants it both ways. He doesn't want abortion unless it fits in to a "reason" he deems is OK to have one.

If you are against abortion because of the loss of human life, then it is not OK to be for it in any situation. If you are against abortion because of the loss of human life, you have no credibility when you are for the death penalty at the same time.

First we see the whataboutism by bringing up conjoined twins, now it's about money made by planned parenthood.

I backed it up with facts.

I didn’t say I was against abortion in certain situations and ok with it in others.

And being against killing innocent children but support the execution of murders is not conflicting.

And how is the conjoined twins example whataboutism? Just asking how the “my body my choice” argument plays there. If you can’t support your argument say so, or don’t post. Just don’t cop out like Juch does.

[BackInTex]

I honestly believe that part of the problem is terminology. We toss around the words "embryo", "fetus", "child", "person", "human", as if they all meant the same thing, when they do not. If a person comes into existence at the moment of fertilization, then should it be counted in the census, which calls for the counting of "all persons"? What about religious beliefs that don't support the idea that the fetus doesn't become a person until it draws its first breath (Judaism, for instance)?

And although no one has brought it up yet, what about in-vitro fertilization and frozen embryos? If a fertilized ovum is a person at the moment of fertilization, what about the "surplus" fertilized ova that are left over from the in-vitro process? Are frozen embryos to be considered as "persons" so that they can't be discarded?

What about contraceptives that affect the fertilized ovum - IUDs, for instance (although there is some debate about this), or Plan B (that prevents attachment of the fertilized ovum)? Given that Justice Thomas has already said that it might be time to look at Griswald v. Connecticut, how long before some state legislatures take action against these?

There are many more questions that are being asked - we're only beginning to see the results of the Supreme Court decision.

These are good questions that we will not all agree on the answers to. Nor will we agree on the laws based on the answers to those question.

[wbtravis007]

I honestly believe that part of the problem is terminology. We toss around the words "embryo", "fetus", "child", "person", "human", as if they all meant the same thing, when they do not. If a person comes into existence at the moment of fertilization, then should it be counted in the census, which calls for the counting of "all persons"? What about religious beliefs that don't support the idea that the fetus doesn't become a person until it draws its first breath (Judaism, for instance)?

And although no one has brought it up yet, what about in-vitro fertilization and frozen embryos? If a fertilized ovum is a person at the moment of fertilization, what about the "surplus" fertilized ova that are left over from the in-vitro process? Are frozen embryos to be considered as "persons" so that they can't be discarded?

What about contraceptives that affect the fertilized ovum - IUDs, for instance (although there is some debate about this), or Plan B (that prevents attachment of the fertilized ovum)? Given that Justice Thomas has already said that it might be time to look at Griswald v. Connecticut, how long before some state legislatures take action against these?

There are many more questions that are being asked - we're only beginning to see the results of the Supreme Court decision.

These are good questions that we will not all agree on the answers to. Nor will we agree on the laws based on the answers to those question.

I’ve always totally gotten the position of someone who believes that life begins when sperm meets egg that, if anything is done to interfere with nature taking its course after that, or even if some trap like an IUD was set before the meeting of sperm and egg, that’s murder. In a way, I respect more those people who espouse the sperm-meets-egg view who say that it doesn’t matter whether you’re 13 and were raped— you must carry the baby or be tried for murder. Tough titty but the milk still flows.

At least those people are consistent.

So, NiT, do you draw a line anywhere on any of the points that ear made? I’m asking what you think the law should be.

[triviawayne]

His fundamental point is that most abortions are not necessary to save the life and health of the mother. He trivializes the real consequences of this life-altering experience by calling it "convenience" but the fundamental point is correct.

His statement that Planned Parenthood, a not-for-profit, makes hundreds of millions of dollars -- well, I'll be fascinated to see if he can support that claim with evidence. --Bob

his fundamental point is he wants it both ways. He doesn't want abortion unless it fits in to a "reason" he deems is OK to have one.

If you are against abortion because of the loss of human life, then it is not OK to be for it in any situation. If you are against abortion because of the loss of human life, you have no credibility when you are for the death penalty at the same time.

First we see the whataboutism by bringing up conjoined twins, now it's about money made by planned parenthood.

I backed it up with facts.

I didn’t say I was against abortion in certain situations and ok with it in others.

And being against killing innocent children but support the execution of murders is not conflicting.

And how is the conjoined twins example whataboutism? Just asking how the “my body my choice” argument plays there. If you can’t support your argument say so, or don’t post. Just don’t cop out like Juch does.

1. No, you backed it up with standing by your comment

2. Yes you did, comment #17

3. If you consider an unborn person a life and abortion murder, than using the death penalty to kill an adult is also murder...one that you seem to be OK with. It is the very definition of a conflict

4. This thread is about abortion and when life begins, not about those in already alive. And before you attempt to muddy the water further with your nonsense, #3 is not the same as it is regarding your argument that murder = bad = not ok vs. ok.

I don't need to stop posting just because you can't comprehend what is written. If you don't like my posts, don't read them. That is called freedom of choice, something you are clearly against.

What does Juch have to do wtih this, another attempt to deflect the real issue?

[Bob78164]

3. If you consider an unborn person a life and abortion murder, than using the death penalty to kill an adult is also murder...one that you seem to be OK with. It is the very definition of a conflict

4. This thread is about abortion and when life begins, not about those in already alive. And before you attempt to muddy the water further with your nonsense, #3 is not the same as it is regarding your argument that murder = bad = not ok vs. ok.

I think BiT's position is that fetuses are INNOCENT human life whereas murderers, due to their own actions, have brought upon themselves punishment that may include the death penalty.

For my own part, my opposition to the death penalty stems from my recognition that we simply can't get that decision right reliably enough. The Innocence Project has demonstrated that to my satisfaction. If there were some way to know with absolute certainty that people suffering the death penalty really did commit the crimes for which they were convicted, I'd have much less trouble with it (although it still would concern me greatly that the punishment of similarly situated defendants differs greatly depending on the color of their skin). But I can't think of a workable legal regime in which the death penalty is limited to cases where we're really, really sure the defendant is guilty, so I would choose to err on the side of making sure that our mistakes are correctable.

It's a misstatement to say that the abortion debate is about when "life" begins. Fetuses are indisputably alive (although incapable of supporting their own existence independently), so that's an argument you can't win. Sperm cells and unfertilized egg cells are also alive. The issue isn't whether a fetus is alive. It's whether a fetus is entitled to the rights of a human being. And that is fundamentally a moral question that is not susceptible to scientific analysis. It's a straight-up value judgment, and I don't see room for compromise. --Bob

[flocks lawyer]

3. If you consider an unborn person a life and abortion murder, than using the death penalty to kill an adult is also murder...one that you seem to be OK with. It is the very definition of a conflict

4. This thread is about abortion and when life begins, not about those in already alive. And before you attempt to muddy the water further with your nonsense, #3 is not the same as it is regarding your argument that murder = bad = not ok vs. ok.

I think BiT's position is that fetuses are INNOCENT human life whereas murderers, due to their own actions, have brought upon themselves punishment that may include the death penalty.

For my own part, my opposition to the death penalty stems from my recognition that we simply can't get that decision right reliably enough. The Innocence Project has demonstrated that to my satisfaction. If there were some way to know with absolute certainty that people suffering the death penalty really did commit the crimes for which they were convicted, I'd have much less trouble with it (although it still would concern me greatly that the punishment of similarly situated defendants differs greatly depending on the color of their skin). But I can't think of a workable legal regime in which the death penalty is limited to cases where we're really, really sure the defendant is guilty, so I would choose to err on the side of making sure that our mistakes are correctable.

It's a misstatement to say that the abortion debate is about when "life" begins. Fetuses are indisputably alive (although incapable of supporting their own existence independently), so that's an argument you can't win. Sperm cells and unfertilized egg cells are also alive. The issue isn't whether a fetus is alive. It's whether a fetus is entitled to the rights of a human being. And that is fundamentally a moral question that is not susceptible to scientific analysis. It's a straight-up value judgment, and I don't see room for compromise. --Bob

My client told me that he is astonished.
He said this is a relatively reasonable post that actually has some points he can agree with. Some not so much. But it is phrased in a way that could actually invite debate, if he was inclined to do so.
He asked me to inquire if you feel OK?

- burt (below average lawyer, esq)