Buttigieg Defends Abortion by Suggesting the Bible Says ‘Life Begins with Breath’

[Smokin Joe]

I know you disagree with my position, but please don't mischaracterize it.    Roe v. Wade didn't "grant" a natural right, it merely extended the Constitution's protection to secure from governmental coercion a woman's right to decide for herself whether and when to reproduce.

Our natural rights as individuals aren't limited to those enumerated in the Constitution (freedom of speech, religion, etc).    Our natural rights also include those of privacy and self-determination, which have been recognized by the SCOTUS as secured by the Constitution.    The Constitution's guarantee of the states' rights to organize and regulate their militias has been interpreted by the SCOTUS to also extend to protection of the natural and individual right of self defense.

So what you offensively term a "Holocaust" is not government-driven genocide but merely the sum total of millions of individual decisions by women to decide their futures for themselves.   If you don't like those decisions,  then persuade and support these women in their time of crisis.    Just leave the State out of it.   So says the Constitution.

Here is where my fundamental disagreement with you starts: At the point a woman is pregnant, she HAS reproduced.

The time for a decision about reproduction is before insemination.

After that, she is no longer just making some decision about bumping uglies with Mr. Right or Mr Close Enough or Mr. Turkey Baster, she is making a decision about whether a human life should continue.

You're already on the slippery slope, because you and the rest of the baby killers out there can't decide when to quit. Being 'mostly born' isn't safe any more, ("Partial birth abortion"--where the brains are sucked out of the base of the kid's skull while the rest of the kid is out of the birth canal), nor are you even protecting the survivors of procedures who have been "born". They're out, they are alive, but now, a survivor, once out of the woman entirely can be neglected to death--something that would get you or I a short stay in gen pop at any prison, because even mother rapers and father stabbers have standards about who or what they will associate with, and killing babies is frowned upon by the vast majority there.

Any time there is a pregnancy, she isn't deciding whether to reproduce or not, that's already done. What she is doing is making the call to end a human life, something we regard as "killing", and in that contest, the killing of a helpless innocent, which neatly fits the definition of murder.

There are quite a number of ways to prevent pregnancy, from pills to implants to shots, to IUDs to abstinence and barrier methods (condoms, diaphrams), and spermacides.

That's a choice of whether or not to reproduce. 

Killing the baby is not a 'choice', it's murder.
There is no Right, no Natural Right to murder. In fact, it is such a proscribed behaviour, it's in the big Ten Comandments.
No matter what judicial rabbit (dead or alive) the black robes pull out of their hats, there is one final Judge who will rule on the issue. Let the unrepentant beware.

[Jazzhead]

You again mischaracterize my position, @Smokin Joe .      I have never advocated late term abortions,  indeed I have never advocated abortion at all, but rather defend only the woman's natural right.   I share your abhorrence with the procedure,  although I am not so dishonest as to label it "murder".

 I advocate only for the right of a woman to decide for herself whether and when to reproduce.  But that right doesn't last indefinitely.   Once the fetus is viable,  I agree with Hoodat that the state may reflect the wishes of its majority and restrict and even ban abortion.    But until viability,  the attitude of the state must be agnostic -  it is not a "baby", it is part of the mother's body and within her dominion and control.   

[XenaLee]

You again mischaracterize my position, @Smokin Joe .      I have never advocated late term abortions,  indeed I have never advocated abortion at all, but rather defend only the woman's natural right.   I share your abhorrence with the procedure,  although I am not so dishonest as to label it "murder".

 I advocate only for the right of a woman to decide for herself whether and when to reproduce.  But that right doesn't last indefinitely.   Once the fetus is viable,  I agree with Hoodat that the state may reflect the wishes of its majority and restrict and even ban abortion.    But until viability,  the attitude of the state must be agnostic -  it is not a "baby", it is part of the mother's body and within her dominion and control.

Right.   Let's not call it what it is.   And let's call those that do call it what it is "dishonest".

Interesting that you use the term "viability"... since.... no baby or infant is viable without the care of another human until the baby is old enough to feed itself.   

Viable - viable: [ vi´ah-b'l ] able to maintain an independent existence; able to live after birth.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/viable

[roamer_1]

But until viability,  the attitude of the state must be agnostic - 

The child is entirely viable - Leave it alone and see.

it is not a "baby", it is part of the mother's body and within her dominion and control.

Bullcrap, plain and simple. Of course it is a baby. And everyone knows it.

[Hoodat]

Once the fetus is viable,  I agree with Hoodat that the state may reflect the wishes of its majority and restrict and even ban abortion.

There is no viability clause in the Constitution.  Either a woman has a constitutional right to kill her unborn child or she does not.  Likewise, either States have a right to regulate abortion or they do not.

But until viability,  the attitude of the state must be agnostic

The attitude of the state should be to rely on the Constitution as THE basis of law.  Period.  Agnosticism, religion, etc., has absolutely NOTHING to do with this, nor does your personal opinion on whether a living organism having different DNA from the "mother" is really part of the "mother".  Your opinion is one of many distributed among the members of a society.  And it is entirely up to those members to come together and "choose" how their State society will be shaped through their elected legislators.

[Hoodat]

Bullcrap, plain and simple. Of course it is a baby. And everyone knows it.

@roamer_1

One cannot convincingly deny it's a baby when one refers to the woman carrying it as "the mother".

[OfTheCross]

Right.   Let's not call it what it is.   And let's call those that do call it what it is "dishonest".

Interesting that you use the term "viability"... since.... no baby or infant is viable without the care of another human until the baby is old enough to feed itself.

vi·a·ble (vī'ă-bĕl),
Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside of the uterus.


https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/viable

[roamer_1]

vi·a·ble (vī'ă-bĕl),
Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside of the uterus.


https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/viable

Says the definition written after the fact, by abortionists.
LOL!

[Hoodat]

Show me where that 'viability' can be found in the Constitution, and maybe then it will mean something.

[Sanguine]

vi·a·ble (vī'ă-bĕl),
Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside of the uterus.


https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/viable

I don't think this definition means what you think this definition means.  Fetus and baby are synonymous, and no baby/fetus is capable of living outside the womb without care.  And, obviously if they can live outside the womb with care, they are viable. This is a classic distinction without a difference.

[Jazzhead]

Show me where that 'viability' can be found in the Constitution, and maybe then it will mean something.

Show me where "fetus" can be found in the Constitution, or indeed any indication in the Constitution that a fetus in the womb has the rights of a citizen.

[Jazzhead]

I don't think this definition means what you think this definition means.  Fetus and baby are synonymous, and no baby/fetus is capable of living outside the womb without care.  And, obviously if they can live outside the womb with care, they are viable. This is a classic distinction without a difference.

Viable refers to biological viability - can the fetus live unattached to the mother's womb and placenta?   As for living outside the womb "without care", I know some teenagers who don't satisfy your definition.   

[Sanguine]

Show me where "fetus" can be found in the Constitution, or indeed any indication in the Constitution that a fetus in the womb has the rights of a citizen.

That's a losing argument.  The words "child", "woman" and "man" are also not found in the Constitution.

[Sanguine]

Viable refers to biological viability - can the fetus live unattached to the mother's womb and placenta?   As for living outside the womb "without care", I know some teenagers who don't satisfy your definition.

If they're not viable they won't live upon birth. What are you trying to say?

And, as for teenagers, you do understand that we are not allowed to kill them either, right? 

Both of your points make the case against abortion.   

[roamer_1]

And, as for teenagers, you do understand that we are not allowed to kill them either, right? 

Right. But sometimes... 

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

One cannot convincingly deny it's a baby when one refers to the woman carrying it as "the mother".

Indeed... And the language they use, trying to blunt the point, makes no difference in the stark reality.

Living children, sacrificed to lust and to escape the consequences thereof...
It is no different than the sacrifice to Molech, with the exception of the optics.
The result remains the same.

[roamer_1]

Ye shall not cause thy children to pass through the fire.

[Sanguine]

Ye shall not cause thy children to pass through the fire.

Yes, that is exactly what it is.

[Sanguine]

If they're not viable they won't live upon birth. What are you trying to say?

And, as for teenagers, you do understand that we are not allowed to kill them either, right? 

Both of your points make the case against abortion.   

Where'd you go @Jazzhead?

[jafo2010]

I think the founding fathers would have rather harsh words, and harsh actions for those killing babies because it is a woman's right to choose.  They would as I do consider it murder.

Women have self aborted in the USA for a long time prior to Roe vs Wade.  My maternal grandmother told me if a woman was pregnant in the 20s 30s 40s, and did not want the child, they merely went to the local drug store and got a reed to self abort.  She indicated it was a common practice for women.  Until she mentioned it, I had no idea.

Funny thing, when I mentioned it to my mother, the conversation, she quickly indicated 'she had no business telling you that'.  The secrets from prior generations.

[Smokin Joe]

You again mischaracterize my position, @Smokin Joe .      I have never advocated late term abortions,  indeed I have never advocated abortion at all, but rather defend only the woman's natural right.   I share your abhorrence with the procedure,  although I am not so dishonest as to label it "murder".

 I advocate only for the right of a woman to decide for herself whether and when to reproduce.  But that right doesn't last indefinitely.   Once the fetus is viable,  I agree with Hoodat that the state may reflect the wishes of its majority and restrict and even ban abortion.    But until viability,  the attitude of the state must be agnostic -  it is not a "baby", it is part of the mother's body and within her dominion and control.

I agree that a woman has a natural right to decide with whom and where and when she wants to reproduce. That isn't at issue.
What is at issue, here, is the act of eliminating the result of reproduction, and calling that a "choice" to reproduce or not. It's like deciding to be childless when the little nippers are in kindergarden. That same child will not be able to walk and feed itself for years. Again, with the definitions, "viability" can be construed to permit killing the child right up until it can get a job and support itself. Ideally, the legal profession should clarify the meaning of words, but modern attorneys pushing agendae have gone off into using words as tools of obfustication.

It isn't hard, counsellor, If you have a chicken egg, and it is not fertilized, you may have breakfast, at worst, something to go bad in the barn or get thrown at someone's car.
If it has been fertilized, you'll get a chicken.

If you have a human egg, and it is not fertilized, it goes out with the menses. If you have a human egg and it is fertilized, and implants in the uterine wall, you get a human.

That's when life begins, all need for nurturing aside. If you nurture an unfertilized egg, you get an infection...or a mess, but not a human.

[roamer_1]

It isn't hard, counsellor, If you have a chicken egg, and it is not fertilized, you may have breakfast, at worst, something to go bad in the barn or get thrown at someone's car.
If it has been fertilized, you'll get a chicken.

If you have a human egg, and it is not fertilized, it goes out with the menses. If you have a human egg and it is fertilized, and implants in the uterine wall, you get a human.

That's when life begins, all need for nurturing aside. If you nurture an unfertilized egg, you get an infection...or a mess, but not a human.

If you have an eagle egg, or a condor, messin with the life within is a federal felony with mandatory prison time...

Weave that thought in there somewhere.
 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Every year, medical advances make babies viable outside the womb earlier in the pregnancy.  According to the viability theory excuse, life is actually beginning earlier as time goes by.  Eventually, either life will begin at conception, or they'll have to find some other excuse.

Life begins when it begins.  It's not up to us.  It's not up to judges.  It doesn't matter if it eases your conscience to put some arbitrary time frame on it.  Life is life, not what we want it to be.

[XenaLee]

Right. But sometimes... 

Lol! 

[Hoodat]

Show me where "fetus" can be found in the Constitution, or indeed any indication in the Constitution that a fetus in the womb has the rights of a citizen.

I have never made that claim.