Life Begins at Conception, Says Department of Health and Human Services

[Jazzhead]

Just for the record, as a woman who believes in equality and respect for women, I am done arguing with you....... a typical sexist liberal who wants women in bondage, and tries to bully people on the internet into believing liberal swill.  Carry on..........

Belief in individual liberty is "liberal swill"?   

[INVAR]

@Jazzhead's position is amoral, sexist, and bullying.

Immoral, amoral, deceitful, wicked, evil, despotic, and under the guise of being an angel of light.

He is just a willful tool for the god of this age.

[Jazzhead]

Immoral, amoral, deceitful, wicked, evil, despotic, and under the guise of being an angel of light.

He is just a willful tool for the god of this age.

But my little dog Baxter loves me.   

[Hoodat]

Of course life begins at conception (actually,  at implantation, which is a significant difference).   The question is who as a legal matter has dominion over a fetus that is not yet viable.

A baby two months after birth is just as non-viable as a baby two months before birth.  Leave them alone, and both will die.

The woman or the state?   I say the woman, you say the state.

Not true.  You say the state, in the form of tyrants wearing black robes.  You staunchly oppose society formulating its own policy in regard to this, preferring instead the mandates of an tyrannical court who bases its decision purely on fiat with zero regard for the Constitution of the United States of America.

The fundamental problem I have with social conservatism is that it is so cocksure of its moral position that it would force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

If the pregnancy was unwanted, then why did the woman engage in a practice that leads to pregnancy?  Can't have it both ways.   At some point, we must be held accountable for our actions.  Men certainly are.  Why not women?

The way to advance that moral position is persuasion, not coercion.   It's the better, more effective way.

The better, more effective way is to allow the members of a society to collectively determine the moral position under which that society will be bound.  This of course is something that you vehemently oppose, which is typical of tyrants.  You believe that your moral position should be imposed upon society instead - not allowing society to formulate its own voice with the establishment of its own laws.

It is also, philosophically, the more conservative way because it respects individual liberty and does not deploy the government gun.

The government gun?  Seriously?  It is you that is holding the government gun here, prohibiting the people of each state to formulate its own laws in this regard.  You do the exact same thing with same-sex marriage, rejecting state law in favor of an overpowering federal judiciary holding a gun to the head of California.

[Hoodat]

I am of no importance.  I maintain simply that a woman has dominion over the decision to reproduce.

Once a woman becomes pregnant with a separate unique human life living inside of her, she has reproduced.  Yes, it was her decision.  And yes, she has already made that choice.

Yet that is not what you advocate at all.  You are advocating that AFTER a woman has reproduced, she should have the 'liberty' [sic] to kill the product of that reproduction - a unique singular human life with its very own unique DNA.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Jazzhead's position is amoral, sexist, and bullying.

Getting this message heard is and has been the quintessential challenge for the pro-life position.  A softer, more humane approach than the one illustrated in the above quoted post may be more successful.  Finger pointing and virtue signaling have proven time and again to shut down meaningful, substantive dialogue and make enemies of those we are trying to befriend.

If we are essentially and profoundly right, then they are essentially and profoundly wrong.  And this is no place to be if we truly want to make changes and save lives.

Explaining, not preaching, the affects of abortion on a woman's body and soul is a place to start. Tangible support along with attainable options beyond abortion are also needed ---  and are our responsibility to provide. 

Recognizing that in today's world changing one heart, one mind and helping one of God's gifts into the world may be more effective than trying to erase 44 years of "settled law" in the next speech, the next campaign promise, the next election.  These are important, but not enough.

I am suggesting a change in strategy, not objective.  Change enough hearts and minds --- one at a time --- and it won't matter what the Supreme Court says.

[Hoodat]

What makes your think I support abortion?

Because contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America, you vehemently advocate that the right of the State of Georgia be denied in formulating their own abortion laws according to the will of the people that live there.  It is the type of tyranny that you support in order to maintain your previously stated position that "abortion must remain legal".

Typically, people who do not support abortion also do not ever utter statements like that.

It's a horrible choice.  But it must, until viability or quickening or the point where fetal pain can be felt,  be a legal choice.

Speaking of legal choice, do you have a legal basis for that?  Or is your basis simply black-robed tyranny?

It is not the state's place, in a Constitutional republic that respects the right of the individual, to force a woman to reproduce.

No one is forcing a woman to reproduce.  But then you know that already.  Yet here you are once again lying about it.

Should she have kept her legs shut if she wasn't ready to have a baby?   Of course - but so what.

So what?  The consequence of that action can lead to the creation of human life.  (i.e. reproducing)

You are making a moral argument, and backing it up by insisting that your moral condemnation of her mistake instead be a coercive directive backed up by force of law.

And you are making a moral argument and backing it up by insisting that your moral opinion of her situation be backed up - not by the force of law, but by the force of a gun.

And then there are those like myself who love the Constitution and who believe the members of a society should have the right to formulate their own laws.

That is where we disagree.  I say persuade her to do the right thing. Give her some money and support to do the right thing.   Tell her all the terrible consequences to her future psyche if she goes through with an abortion, and what is precious that will be lost even if she has to see her baby born only to be given over to be raised by another.     It'll be more effective coming from you,  spoken in an atmosphere of love and respect,  than it ever will be coming from a punitive state.

That is not at all what you are saying.   You are saying that the State of Arizona should ignore the Constitution, ignore the will of its own people, and ignore its very own laws, and accept the edict of someone wearing a black robe that happens to agree with you.  Every person in America could vote for abortion to be illegal, yet you would still be supporting the tyranny of the court by advocating that 'it must remain legal'.  And how do I know this?  Because you are already ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America - choosing instead that very same tyranny of the court.

[Hoodat]

Belief in individual liberty is "liberal swill"?

What about the liberty of individuals to assemble, petition their government, and elect legislators to formulate laws that represent the will of that group of individuals?  Because when it comes to that type of liberty, you side with tyranny every single time.

[Hoodat]

As of now, abortion is based on when life becomes viable, not when life begins.

No, it isn't.  Abortion is based solely upon the fiat of unelected judges.

(We'll have to see how the administration's change affects the laws on the books.)

Laws are of no consequence here.  (See:  Fiat of unelected judges)

[Hoodat]

You manage to talk around the issue, evade, and use liberal talking points, all the while being deceitful about pro-lifers.

It is the pro-life movement that has been compassionate......... that has persuaded, that has provided for the needs of Moms and babies, that has treated women with respect.

It is you on the left, advocating abortion (yes you do, and on a daily basis here), who are in complete denial of the permanent harm abortion does to women.

Why did you not respond to my comments about the lack of compassion and degradation of women that abortion causes?

Why do you keep talking about the "state" as if people like you haven't used the state to make killing babies legal.

The whole "let women kill their babies" was from the left and the state, and was not done legally.   The whole "reproductive rights" argument is a lie, and yet you believe it and promote it with your heart and soul.

Why not become a compassionate, caring human being, @Jazzhead , and oppose abortion to protect women and children?

Why don't you care about women?  Why don't you care about children?

And most importantly here, why do you lie repeatedly about those of us who do?  Why is it so important to you to malign the movement that respects women?  Pro-life conservatives.

Why??

[Hoodat]

Is not the essence of the debate when the fetus becomes a child? @thackney

Nope.  That point was already decided in 1973 by five men wearing black robes with absolutely zero medical training.  And ever since then, the introduction of any actual scientific data has been denied since States no longer have the right to determine their own abortion laws including Virginia.  So please do not cloud the issue with lies about viability, since viability has absolutely zero to do with the power of the Court.

[Hoodat]

I am not describing viability, the definition is federal law.

No, it isn't federal law.  It is the edict of tyrants wearing black robes.  Federal law (or State law for that matter) is inconsequential.

[Hoodat]

You support the notion of women as chattel.  You are one phony feminist.

You are the one here demeaning women by advocating that they are ignorant and irresponsible, and should not be held accountable for their action because they are adolescents.

Abortion is as terrible as you say it is.  Still, it is a woman's choice, not that state's.

Based on what, exactly?  Your own moral outlook?  Because it is clear that there is no lawful basis for that statement.

[Right_in_Virginia]

No, it isn't.  Abortion is based solely upon the fiat of unelected judges.

Laws are of no consequence here.  (See:  Fiat of unelected judges)

Yes, abortion rights were ultimately upheld by the fiat of unelected judges ... but we wouldn't be talking about abortion if there weren't consequences to the fiat.

Let's be careful not to replace clear thinking with passion @Hoodat    The decades have proven passion alone does not win this argument.

[Suppressed]

If the pregnancy was unwanted, then why did the woman engage in a practice that leads to pregnancy?

Terrible logic.

Driving on a trip can result in you running out of gas, but the running out of gas was not wanted.

Engaging in sexual activity for bonding and/or pleasure can be an intent that can result in an unwanted occurrence.

[TomSea]

I read black ministers say, they feel their race, their daughters are demeaned by having the abortionist go into their bodies the way they do.

If one studies the issues, people of color are receiving a disproportionate amount of the abortions. Something like 1 in 3 of all pregnancies by African American women end in abortion.

I think the US has been a downward slide morally at least, since widespread access to abortion.

[Hoodat]

Terrible logic.

Driving on a trip can result in you running out of gas, but the running out of gas was not wanted.

So the person CHOOSING TO DRIVE bears no responsibility for ensuring that they have enough gas to make the trip?  Really?

Engaging in sexual activity for bonding and/or pleasure can be an intent that can result in an unwanted occurrence.

My bad.  I assumed we were all grown-ups here.  Clearly there are some such as yourself that approach this as some middle schooler thinking that there is nothing wrong with having unprotected sexual intercourse.

Can't wait to see some lawyer use that defense.

"Yes, your Honor.  My client fired the gun directly into the chest of the victim.  But he didn't intend for the victim to die."

[musiclady]

Belief in individual liberty is "liberal swill"?

There is nothing about abortion that has a single thing to do with "individual liberty."

Stop advocating and bullying others into believing in the enslavement and debasement of women, and then we'll talk...........

You are a puppet for women hating leftists, and copy and paste their lies @Jazzhead.

Give it up.

Lies always lose in the end.  And you're on the losing side in every aspect of the deceit you spew.

Stop pretending, and face the truth that what you are advocating is the murder of children and eternal harm to the women you are encouraging to commit the murder.

[INVAR]

Can't wait to see some lawyer use that defense.

"Yes, your Honor.  My client fired the gun directly into the chest of the victim.  But he didn't intend for the victim to die."

We live in the age of Idiocracy, so it would be foolish to assume that such an argument would fail to win in court.

Today it will win hands-down.

Common sense and logic no longer applies or exists in the minds of a vast majority of both our rulers and the population.

[musiclady]

So the person CHOOSING TO DRIVE bears no responsibility for ensuring that they have enough gas to make the trip?  Really?


My bad.  I assumed we were all grown-ups here.  Clearly there are some such as yourself that approach this as some middle schooler thinking that there is nothing wrong with having unprotected sexual intercourse.

Can't wait to see some lawyer use that defense.

"Yes, your Honor.  My client fired the gun directly into the chest of the victim.  But he didn't intend for the victim to die."

One of the basic problems both @Suppressed and @Jazzhead  have is their utter disrespect for women.

The leftist arguments for abortion presume that women are stupid and helpless.

It is the OPPOSITE of caring about, respecting and honoring women that leads to the leftist arguments for abortion.

And we can see them at play right here on this thread......

[musiclady]

Immoral, amoral, deceitful, wicked, evil, despotic, and under the guise of being an angel of light.

He is just a willful tool for the god of this age.

It's interesting to see how the guise of an angel of light plays itself out in the arguments of the pro-abortion left.

They argue that they care about women, when they don't.  They argue that they care about the welfare of children, by wanting them killed if they are "unwanted."   They argue that pro-lifers and Christians who defend life want women to be "chattel." (Dumbest argument I've EVER seen).

They argue that black is white, and bad is good, and up is down, and left is right.

Angels of light presenting demonic arguments with accusations that morality is evil.

[roamer_1]

The abortion issue should be about creating the conditions for abortion to be unnecessary, or as rare as possible.   Instead, it has become an existential struggle of women seeking to protect their right to self-determination against encroachment by the state in the name of religion. 

That's plain crap. There has never been a time when woman has been more 'emancipated', in all history. If what you say is true, then right now would be the easiest time for a woman to keep her baby...

But, what you say not being true,this culture CLOSELY resembles the libertine state of nations just about to fall to their doom. And one of those hallmarks is most certainly when women no longer care for their own children. The stench of it doesn't ever go away, and yet you defend it.

Stated simply, women cannot gain full equality with men if the state forces them to reproduce.   That is a choice that can only be made by women themselves.   For that reason,  pro-lifers cannot win this battle - and if they truly want to save lives, the paradigm must shift from coercion to persuasion.

LOL! Women will NEVER reach equality with men, because equality is the wrong metric. Woman is DIFFERENT from man, and your measurements are wholly invalid.

And in the mean time, the things of women  the things that women have traditionally cared for and about, suffer and languish. Feminism has done more to destroy women than any other thing.

Equality my ass. And to use that as the reasoning to murder children... What a barren and decrepit argument.

[musiclady]

Stop hyperventilating.  Calm down.  And stop lying about my position:  I DO NOT SUPPORT ABORTION. 

You think criminalizing abortion is consistent with American values of individual liberty as protected by our Constitution.   I disagree - when the fetus is not yet viable the woman must have the freedom to decide for herself.  It is her body,  and she has dominion over her body, not the state.  How can you be a "feminist" and believe otherwise?

Note that NOTHING I have stated above prevents you and other pro-lifers from doing your utmost to persuade a woman in dire circumstances to do the right thing.  IT CAN BE DONE.  What are you so afraid of?  Make your moral arguments, lend your sympathy, support and compassion.  My point is simply and only that you cannot demand that your moral argument be imposed at the point of a government gun.

You support the degradation and eternal harm of women, the wiping out of the African-American community, and argue against protecting the lives of the unborn.

If I seem to be "hyperventilating" to you, it is only because the lies you present harm women and kill children, and you are pretending to be the "good guy" here.

What you are, is either a deceiver, or the deceived, and it either case I need, rather than to become angry with you because you are lying, to pray for your cleansing through the blood of Jesus Christ.

[Hoodat]

The abortion issue should be about creating the conditions for abortion to be unnecessary, or as rare as possible.   Instead, it has become an existential struggle of women seeking to protect their right to self-determination

Uh, no.  It is about the right of a woman to evade the consequences of exercising their right to self-determination.

against encroachment by the state in the name of religion.

Actually, it is in the name of the people to shape their own society within the confines of their own State government - which is something you oppose.

btw, I know atheists who oppose abortion.

Stated simply, women cannot gain full equality with men if the state forces them to reproduce.

No one is forcing a woman to reproduce.  No one.  The decision is theirs on whether they will allow a man to ejaculate inside of them.  They are empowered.  No one is forcing them to open their legs.  It is their choice, and theirs alone.  So stop lying about forcing women to reproduce.

Secondly, once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduce.  No state forced that upon her.  It was her own self-willed decision that allowed that.

That is a choice that can only be made by women themselves.

The woman already made a choice.  Her choice led to reproduction - the creation of a singular human life.

For that reason,  pro-lifers cannot win this battle

The battle here is a Constitutional one.  Do we live by the Constitution?  Or do we ignore the Constitution while imposing our will on the people?   In regard to the second choice, you are no different from the 'religious zealots' you demonize.

I am pro-life.  But unlike you, I would never advocate a court that takes away the right of States to legalize abortion.

[musiclady]

Nope.  That point was already decided in 1973 by five men wearing black robes with absolutely zero medical training.  And ever since then, the introduction of any actual scientific data has been denied since States no longer have the right to determine their own abortion laws including Virginia.  So please do not cloud the issue with lies about viability, since viability has absolutely zero to do with the power of the Court.

Excellent point, @Hoodat !