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

[Suppressed]

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

LOL!

[Suppressed]

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

Ah, I left it that way intentionally, so we can now go to this... there are sometimes breakdowns, even if you have enough gas.

[musiclady]

LOL!

If you are here arguing FOR the "right" of a woman to kill her unborn child, you are disrespecting and demeaning women.


Period.

[Jazzhead]

Because it is clear that there is no lawful basis for that statement.

Other than the Constitution of the United States. 

[musiclady]

Other than the Constitution of the United States.

OK.  So THIS is the dumbest thing you've ever said on this forum.......


(Though, the "chattel" thing is dopier.......)

[Suppressed]

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).

@musiclady
Please cite where I've done any of those things on this thread.

I've done two things.... added points to ponder, not state an opinion.

I've pointed out where @Hoodat used a fallacious logic in his argument.  If I point out an argument is weak, does it mean I'm automatically on the opposite side?  NO!  I often point out flaws in my own position, so they can be fixed.

Similarly, I posted about how so many fertilized eggs/zygotes pass from the woman's body as a mere blastocyst, with a woman never to know.  This was in the context of the discussion people were having of when life begins, and I brought up how that seems like a terrible waste of life if the soul truly enters at conception!   For the "Life at Conception" side, it brings up the point that if we are truly being pro-life, don't we have a responsibility to try to save all of those little fertilized eggs? 

Yet I've seen nobody out campaigning for developing means for that!


You have been dishonest in your portrayal of my position, as I've not even offered my position...only points to ponder.  I have the utmost respect for women, as anyone with eyes and mind can see.

[Suppressed]

If you are here arguing FOR the "right" of a woman to kill her unborn child, you are disrespecting and demeaning women.


Period.

A) I haven't argued that, at all.

B) Even if I had, it wouldn't be disrespecting and demeaning women...it would be respecting their own choice, just as if I said a murderer could kill.  It would be preposterous to say that was "disrespecting and demeaning" the murderer.  So stop with the fake argument, please.

[INVAR]

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.

You're paraphrasing II Timothy 3, and rightfully so.

A nation that justifies the slaughter of innocents in the womb as 'liberty' and 'freedom' while castigating those opposed to the genocide of an entire generation of infants, is a nation and people that does not deserve to survive.

[musiclady]

A) I haven't argued that, at all.

B) Even if I had, it wouldn't be disrespecting and demeaning women...it would be respecting their own choice, just as if I said a murderer could kill.  It would be preposterous to say that was "disrespecting and demeaning" the murderer.  So stop with the fake argument, please.

B) is where you're dead wrong.   The lie presented by the left is that the killing of a child is "respect" of a woman in any way, shape or form.   As long as you are here arguing that allowing a woman to kill her child is respectful of that woman, totally disregarding the FACT that it does her harm for the rest of her life and puts her in bondage, I will continue to make the case for the disregard of women's well being that is being advocated.

The only "fake" argument is the one that says that abortion is respectful of women.

And it comes directly from the liberals who foisted this horror on us with the fake arguments in Roe v Wade.

[musiclady]

@musiclady
Please cite where I've done any of those things on this thread.

I've done two things.... added points to ponder, not state an opinion.

I've pointed out where @Hoodat used a fallacious logic in his argument.  If I point out an argument is weak, does it mean I'm automatically on the opposite side?  NO!  I often point out flaws in my own position, so they can be fixed.

Similarly, I posted about how so many fertilized eggs/zygotes pass from the woman's body as a mere blastocyst, with a woman never to know.  This was in the context of the discussion people were having of when life begins, and I brought up how that seems like a terrible waste of life if the soul truly enters at conception!   For the "Life at Conception" side, it brings up the point that if we are truly being pro-life, don't we have a responsibility to try to save all of those little fertilized eggs? 

Yet I've seen nobody out campaigning for developing means for that!


You have been dishonest in your portrayal of my position, as I've not even offered my position...only points to ponder.  I have the utmost respect for women, as anyone with eyes and mind can see.

I was combining your arguments with Jazzhead's............. who is on the same side of the debate as you are.

The arguments given are false, but if you don't concur with his "pro-lifers look at women as chattel and want the state to control them" HIDEOUS lie, then I apologize for putting you together in the same anti-woman boat as he is in.

However, your argument about respecting women and giving them a choice is completely bogus.  It is a leftist lie, swallowed by too many unsuspecting folks trying to be nice, when what they are arguing for is degrading.

[Suppressed]

The only "fake" argument is the one that says that abortion is respectful of women.

I don't argue that abortion is respectful of women.


Perhaps I might be convinced to argue, however, that allowing a woman to choose her own path is respectful of women.   Because I believe that I am no smarter than a woman regarding herself.

Now, if she's killing another creature, her own child, that's a different matter, isn't it?

[Suppressed]

I was combining your arguments with Jazzhead's............. who is on the same side of the debate as you are.

@Jazzhead
Nope.  He believes life begins at implantation, I think.

I'm not sure when it does. 

[musiclady]

I don't argue that abortion is respectful of women.


Perhaps I might be convinced to argue, however, that allowing a woman to choose her own path is respectful of women.   Because I believe that I am no smarter than a woman regarding herself.

Now, if she's killing another creature, her own child, that's a different matter, isn't it?

That's a bogus claim as well, because by supporting a woman's "right to choose" abortion (trying to be kind, and all that), you are supporting her right to kill someone else, and not "herself."

The whole "a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body" is a horrid lie.  A baby is NOT her body.

It's a separate human being, designed by God, and no more than you have a right to kill me, if my life makes yours inconvenient, a woman has NO right to kill another human being.

And it's not kind, nor generous, nor open-minded, nor civil, to say she does.

IOW, you cannot argue that you respect women's right to choose without saying you are OK with her killing her child.

It's not a tightrope you can walk, no matter how hard you try.

[Jazzhead]

The lie presented by the left is that the killing of a child is "respect" of a woman in any way, shape or form.   As long as you are here arguing that allowing a woman to kill her child is respectful of that woman, totally disregarding the FACT that it does her harm for the rest of her life and puts her in bondage, I will continue to make the case for the disregard of women's well being that is being advocated.

The only "fake" argument is the one that says that abortion is respectful of women.

And it comes directly from the liberals who foisted this horror on us with the fake arguments in Roe v Wade.

I advocate only for one's individual liberty, protected by the Constitution against encroachment by the state.   A non-viable fetus is within the woman's dominion and control.  Period.  To argue otherwise and then claim one is a feminist is a crock of crap.   

I do not defend abortion, nor do I defend a woman for making a poor or immoral choice.  But it sure as heck needs to be HER choice, not that of the state or hyperventilating religious zealots. 

the FACT that it does her harm for the rest of her life and puts her in bondage

Surely you know the difference between fact and opinion?   

[txradioguy]

Other than the Constitution of the United States.

Nothing in the Constitution gives a woman the "right" to kill an unborn child.

[txradioguy]

That's a bogus claim as well, because by supporting a woman's "right to choose" abortion (trying to be kind, and all that), you are supporting her right to kill someone else, and not "herself."

You notice how they never finish the sentence when they say "right to choose"?  They always leave off one important word right after choose.

And that word is murder.

[Right_in_Virginia]

You notice how they never finish the sentence when they say "right to choose"?  They always leave off one important word right after choose.

And that word is murder.

I've read through this thread and no one here is saying abortion is right.  So, can we stop with this straw man argument?

Can we, as a group, turn our attention and energies to strategies that will make abortion unnecessary and un-PC?  Can we work on how to provide the support needed by the expectant mother---both financial and long term options?

Or are we going to continue the same, outdated war of words that keeps us chasing our collective tail?

[txradioguy]

I've read through this thread and no one here is saying abortion is right.  So, can we stop with this straw man argument?

Can we, as a group, turn our attention and energies to strategies that will make abortion unnecessary and un-PC?  Can we work on how to provide the support needed by the expectant mother---both financial and long term options?

Or are we going to continue the same, outdated war of words that keeps us chasing our collective tail?

Then your reading comprehension sucks.

Jazz has in the past advocated that abortion is a "right" and the made the ridiculous claim it's covered under the 14th Amendment.

Jazzy is very much saying that abortion is a right just a few posts above here.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285911.msg1484681.html#msg1484681

and here as well:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285911.msg1484771.html#msg1484771


Instead of knee jerk reacting because of who is saying something...how about actually taking the time to read what people are saying before you claim that no one on this discussion is advocating for something when it's very clear the opposite is true

Might save you some future embarrassment..

[roamer_1]

Can we, as a group, turn our attention and energies to strategies that will make abortion unnecessary and un-PC?  Can we work on how to provide the support needed by the expectant mother---both financial and long term options?

That's easy. Get a man.

The more this stupid nonsense is subsidized and approved of, the more of it you will get. Single-parent homes and bastard children have exploded since the sexual revolution, and there is only ONE way that will work to restore sanity.

Go back to what works. What's worked literally, for aeons. The 'brave new world' of feminism, sexual equality, and social 'justice' has failed (predictably).

You get more of what you subsidize and endorse.
So endorse LIFE. Endorse marriage- Life long. Endorse family. Entire family, to include grandparents. Allow families to amass wealth, and establish moral truth - Justice will follow.

Do that, and within a decade, most of our social problems will be diminishing.

[txradioguy]

That's easy. Get a man.

The more this stupid nonsense is subsidized and approved of, the more of it you will get. Single-parent homes and bastard children have exploded since the sexual revolution, and there is only ONE way that will work to restore sanity.

Go back to what works. What's worked literally, for aeons. The 'brave new world' of feminism, sexual equality, and social 'justice' has failed (predictably).

You get more of what you subsidize and endorse.
So endorse LIFE. Endorse marriage- Life long. Endorse family. Entire family, to include grandparents. Allow families to amass wealth, and establish moral truth - Justice will follow.

Do that, and within a decade, most of our social problems will be diminishing.

The big problem with that is the feminists and the PC left and a whole host of other sympathetic idiots have now completely turned the definition of "marriage" on it's ear with gay "marriage".

Abortion on demand used as birth control...fatherless homes with women and the Federal government raising kids and now gay "marriage" have all worked hand in glove to destroy traditional families and traditional family values.

[roamer_1]

The big problem with that is the feminists and the PC left and a whole host of other sympathetic idiots have now completely turned the definition of "marriage" on it's ear with gay "marriage".

Abortion on demand used as birth control...fatherless homes with women and the Federal government raising kids and now gay "marriage" have all worked hand in glove to destroy traditional families and traditional family values.

That's right. But it doesn't change a thing. The way forward on this path is certain doom. Anarchy at best, Tyranny at worst. For generations.

The answer remains the same. Go back to what works. STOP. Turn around.
Any other argument is just debating the position of the throttle.

[INVAR]

Perhaps I might be convinced to argue, however, that allowing a woman to choose her own path is respectful of women.   

We are all 'free' to choose our own path to do evil. 

Allowing a 'woman' or anyone for that matter to 'choose their own path to do murder' and whatever other evil they feel entitled to commit, declared 'respectful' is absurd.

It is the consequences that no one wants, and no one wants judged for what they are.  This people want the consequences of 'choice' declared to be right, good, and needing taxpayer funding to perform and medical cures to stop.

This people want to do what feels good without consequences, and then have others pay for those consequences while having the mouths of biblical morality sealed shut by social shaming or government mandate for the evil they do as a 'right' and therefore 'good' and deserving of 'respect'.

[txradioguy]

That's right. But it doesn't change a thing. The way forward on this path is certain doom. Anarchy at best, Tyranny at worst. For generations.

The answer remains the same. Go back to what works. STOP. Turn around.
Any other argument is just debating the position of the throttle.

I'm with you 100%.  The old ways aren't always the bad ways just because some "progressive" wants to rewrite history and try to change facts in the minds of the young and impressionable.


I always love asking Liberals I know how they can support gay "marriage" and the theory of evolution at the same time...since one tends to cancel the other one out. LOL!

[roamer_1]

It is the consequences that no one wants, and no one wants judged for what they are.  This people want the consequences of 'choice' declared to be right, good, and needing taxpayer funding to perform and medical cures to stop.

This people want to do what feels good without consequences, and then have others pay for those consequences while having the mouths of biblical morality sealed shut by social shaming or government mandate for the evil they do as a 'right' and therefore 'good' and deserving of 'respect'.

Shades of Baal and Marduk. Not even shades anymore - It is real and visceral.

[INVAR]

I advocate only for one's individual liberty, protected by the Constitution against encroachment by the state.

Except when it comes to forcing someone to bake a homosexual cake to celebrate perversion. Then you are all for encroachment by the state.

Except when it comes to guns, when you insist that Texas gun culture should not be 'imposed' upon you by upholding the Second Amendment.

Except when it comes to Healthcare and insurance, when our individual liberty must be eradicated to force us to purchase government-mandated and approved services or receive punishment.

Except when it comes to individual wealth, whereby like all Marxists you have decreed that they should be forced to hand over more for the privilege of being permitted to have wealth as a cost of living here.

You advocate for license and tyranny, not liberty.

You advocate for punishment by the state to impose your perversions and your demand to feel safe.

You are not interested in individual liberty except when it comes to behaviors that are anathema to liberty, morality and a civil society.

We got your number pal.

You fool no one, despite your pedantic monologues explaining your re not what everyone already clearly sees you as an advocate for.