I nearly fell into this trap earlier. GM has been baiting people ( in a nice way).... He's going to tell you abortion affects other people too (the 8 weeknold cluster of cells he calls a child)
If you want to have a popt
Originally Posted by MemphisBrownie
Quote
(the 8 weeknold cluster of cells he calls a child)
As a pro-choice person, this clump of cells argument in the way it's been described here is the most deceiving, disgusting, beta argument ever. Have the testicular fortitude (I say this because it is primarily men on here) and accept what you are doing and promoting. You are willing to kill a human life based on your current situation. That's it...Nothing more and I accept the various reasons why a women want to kill human life. People using the guise of clump cells are justifying it to themselves to feel better in the political space.
I get there are circumstances regarding a pregnancy that should be taken into consideration and we should be sensitive to those situations. But we had someone on here not too long ago, an apparent healthcare professional, state....'well how do we know those clump of cells won't become a frog?'. Maybe the amphibian in question is incorrect but the point stands. These are, unfortunately, the views of some healthcare folks, they are not omniscient and can be driven by political motives as much as anyone.
If you want to have a pop at me for using that term - fine. I think it'd be equally applicable to call out the people calling a fetus smaller than a dime a "child". I have no qualms about my being pro-choice. I have a major issue with others forcing their religious beliefs on others and using politics to achieve that aim. There are too many unwanted kids in the world as it is.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
If you want to have a pop at me for using that term - fine. I think it'd be equally applicable to call out the people calling a fetus smaller than a dime a "child". I have no qualms about my being pro-choice. I have a major issue with others forcing their religious beliefs on others and using politics to achieve that aim. There are too many unwanted kids in the world as it is.
You or whomever, I don't really care. I think the cell clump angle is the biggest cop-out, "so I can sleep better at night" argument ever. We all know what happens if that life is not aborted.
I just think people need to sack up and accept what they are doing/promoting.
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
I haven't seen a poster forcing his religious beliefs on others in this thread. Did I miss that? Actually, I have seen posters trash religious people many times when making their arguments.
If you want to have a pop at me for using that term - fine. I think it'd be equally applicable to call out the people calling a fetus smaller than a dime a "child". I have no qualms about my being pro-choice. I have a major issue with others forcing their religious beliefs on others and using politics to achieve that aim. There are too many unwanted kids in the world as it is.
You or whomever, I don't really care. I think the cell clump angle is the biggest cop-out, "so I can sleep better at night" argument ever. We all know what happens if that life is not aborted.
I just think people need to sack up and accept what they are doing/promoting.
Most of them deny it. I have been bring that up for years. It's perfectly OK for them to support and in some cases be proud of killing humans, yet somehow it's just so wrong for us to point that out.
The deal is this. Science tells us that cells are life. Being human cells, it is human life. The law, codified by legislation everywhere calls it life. If a pregnant woman is murdered or killed by some accident with charged cause, it is a double homicide.
Just because some people say "my/her body, my/their choice" is bogus.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
They shouldn’t be compared. You can treat a life altering cancer in all states. Where as some states are attempting to restrict abortion even for the treatment of ectopic pregnancies. So cancer isn’t a death sentence but pregnancy could be.
We should not be forcing 10 year old rape victims to have a child....
Whether it is a "ball of cells" or "potential human life" isn't really relevant. It has no brain, no thoughts, feelings, emotions, dreams, pain or wants at 6 weeks and 3 days.
There is a fully formed human with all those things standing in front of us who is suffering -- and to throw that away is simply despicable.
We should not be forcing 10 year old rape victims to have a child....
Whether it is a "ball of cells" or "potential human life" isn't really relevant. It has no brain, no thoughts, feelings, emotions, dreams, pain or wants at 6 weeks and 3 days.
There is a fully formed human with all those things standing in front of us who is suffering -- and to throw that away is simply despicable.
I agree w/you. I am actually pro-choice. I just don't care for the depths that some sink to in order to win an argument. There are two sides to every story and this is a very personal subject. Respect should be given to differing opinions.
They shouldn’t be compared. You can treat a life altering cancer in all states. Where as some states are attempting to restrict abortion even for the treatment of ectopic pregnancies. So cancer isn’t a death sentence but pregnancy could be.
Murika’.
In fact, no abortion law in any state in America prevents lifesaving treatment for women with ectopic pregnancies and other life-threatening conditions. That was true of abortion laws in 1972, and it’s true of abortion laws in 2022. “All states had at least a life of the mother exception before Roe v. Wade,”
We should not be forcing 10 year old rape victims to have a child....
Whether it is a "ball of cells" or "potential human life" isn't really relevant. It has no brain, no thoughts, feelings, emotions, dreams, pain or wants at 6 weeks and 3 days.
There is a fully formed human with all those things standing in front of us who is suffering -- and to throw that away is simply despicable.
And I suggested that we should force a 10 year old rape victim to have a child?
I think you confuse me with someone that said all abortions should be illegal. There are also multiple threads of though running though this thread.
I have no issues, what so ever, with this young girl getting an abortion.
They shouldn’t be compared. You can treat a life altering cancer in all states. Where as some states are attempting to restrict abortion even for the treatment of ectopic pregnancies. So cancer isn’t a death sentence but pregnancy could be.
Murika’.
to
In fact, no abortion law in any state in America prevents lifesaving treatment for women with ectopic pregnancies and other life-threatening conditions. That was true of abortion laws in 1972, and it’s true of abortion laws in 2022. “All states had at least a life of the mother exception before Roe v. Wade,”
Yup. They develop into nothing more than something that will take the life of the host. The other, by contrast, develops into another human being. The ONLY question is at what point do we define that as being another Human Being? In essence, the mother is just a host for that developing life. She feeds it and breathes for it, sharing blood and hauling away the waste, but it is still a separate organism and is such right from the very beginning. That takes us back full circle to: at what point do we define that as being another Human Being?
Define that and then pass an amendment protecting that life from that moment forward. Permit abortion on anything before it.
/thread
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
I'll try this again for those saying "but that's a baby!" and those who say, "No it's not!". Just because you see it one way doesn't mean that's not simply your opinion and others have cause to see it differently than yourself.....
Originally posted by GM Dawg Quote
Quote
Now if abortion was just about the mothers body I would agree with you guys/gals that disagree with me. However the difference in this situation is that a innocent, helpless baby is involved. You/i/others have no problem with laws that punish mothers for killing their kids after they are born. So why do you/I/ others have the right to force our beliefs on those mothers who don't see anything wrong with it?
Because that is "our belief". Many do not share that belief. And I can't see anyone forcing mothers that share our view being forced into getting abortions. They have the right not to get one. You and I have different beliefs than others. We have that right. However, I don't see it any different than gay marriage. If you don't like it or approve of it, don't get gay married. I break it down to this. Just because I see a fetus as an unborn baby does not give me the right to force my personal opinion on the matter upon others. Factually stated a fetus can not sustain its own life. While I may not agree with it, there is what is called the viability of a fetus. That is the point at which it can sustain its own life. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it but I also understand the concept of why some do.
Quote
BTW you know I don't agree with those who won't stand up for Children. Be they Dems, republicans, or independants, and I admit it seems like most of them are on the right, not the left. I have never denied that. However so many posters want to lump everybody into one group instead of taking everybody as individuals.
I certainly do know that. But it's hard for me to hear people say "Well I agree with this part but not the other part". The fact of the matter is if you advocate anti-abortion there's a lot of trappings that surround that. States that refuse to make exceptions for incest and rape. States that will force children to now give birth. And as you said putting decisions in the hands of people who will not advocate properly caring for these children after they are born.
I was raised that "If you're in for an ounce, you're in for a pound". In this case I think that is quite appropriate. Sure, you get what you wanted but in that same package you're getting a lot of things you didn't want. When you advocate accepting or promoting something, you're also responsible for the repercussions that go along with it. It's too late to pick and choose afterwords.
Now the above is a response I made to GM. What I find astounding is that people wish to describe everyone who doesn't agree with them as "baby killers". It's fine that you believe that. For anyone who has missed the message, on a personal level I'm against abortion too. But anyone who actually thinks those that are "pro choice" believe that they advocate the killing of babies is crazy. I know vers loves to point out how those who promote abortion rights are being mean or however he wishes to describe it but doesn't address this point at all.
All of you have every right to post what you like. I know that. But that is not conducting a discussion whatsoever.
Fetal viability is a very real concept that I understand. I understand why people believe this and it doesn't make my personal belief system cause me to call people baby killers because they believe differently than I do.
fetal viability
The ability of a fetus to survive outside of the womb. Historically, a fetus was considered to be capable of living at the end of gestational week 20 when the mother had felt fetal movement (quickening) and the fetal heart tones could be auscultated with a fetoscope. In actuality, even with prompt and intensive neonatal support, a preterm fetus of less than 23 weeks' gestation has little chance of surviving outside of the womb.
So if you actually believe that calling people baby killers who disagree with you a constructive manner with which to continue this discussion, by all means please do so.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
It seems odd that -- everybody wants to debate metaphysics .... but once there is a "real person" that is suffering -- everybody avoids the issue like the plague.
Florida Teachers’ Training Calls Separation of Church and State a ‘Misconception’
Some teachers and critics are complaining that a new civics training for Florida public school teachers includes Christian dogma, and the statement that it is a “misconception” that “the Founders desired strict separation of church and state,” the Washington Post reported Saturday (In trainings, Florida tells teachers that religion belongs in public life).
According to the report, the training program, which is voluntary and includes a financial incentive for participating, includes fragments of statements that were cherry-picked to present a more religious-conservative and “less bad” view of American history.
Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis said last week, “We’re unabashedly promoting civics and history that is accurate and that is not trying to push an ideological agenda,” suggesting that in Florida, students are “learning the real history, you’re learning the real facts.”
“I think what parents are doing is they are reorienting the school system away from indoctrination and back towards education, where we have a premium on doing what a core part of education should be,” DeSantis said in an interview with the Focus on the Family podcast on June 3, according to the Tampa Bay Times.
DeSantis has been leading the fight against Critical Race Theory (CRT) and the woke agenda in Florida’s schools.
The governor last Thursday issued a press release saying, “While the Biden administration is seeking to award grants to indoctrinate students with ideologies like Critical Race Theory, in Florida we have focused on Civics Excellence, teaching accurate American History without an ideological agenda. Our students and teachers have worked hard to elevate their Civics Excellence and are proving to the nation that Florida is the national model for cultivating great citizens.”
Governor DeSantis released the results of Florida’s 2022 civics assessments, which he says demonstrate “the success of Florida’s approach to educating its students on the history of our country, the exceptional nature of our form of government, and the role they play as citizens of our republic.”
He also announced that “the Florida Civics and Debate Initiative will expand to all school districts for the upcoming school year,” and “2,500 teachers will complete three-day civics professional development trainings by the end of July.”
He stressed that “these efforts all come as Congress considers the misleadingly titled ‘Civics Secures Democracy Act,’ which would allow the Biden Administration to buy off states with $6 billion if they sacrifice American History for Critical Race Theory and Biden’s other political whims of the day.”
For the record, many of the framers of the Constitution, while being Deists, did not believe the United States should be a Christian country. The phrase, “wall of separation between church and state” first appeared in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Jefferson wrote:
Quote
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
The slide toward a more Christian United States was further encouraged by the Supreme Court’s June 27, 6-3 decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, siding with Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach in the public school system of Bremerton, Washington. Kennedy had taken the practice of praying in the middle of the field immediately after each game. The practice was soon joined by the players and others. The school board was concerned the practice would be seen as infringing on the Establishment Clause separating church and state. (First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof). They attempted to negotiate with Kennedy to pray elsewhere or at a later time, but Kennedy continued the practice. His contract was not renewed, leading Kennedy to sue the board. Lower Courts, including the Ninth Circuit, ruled in favor of the school board and their argument regarding the Establishment Clause.
The majority opinion from the Supreme Court found that the Establishment Clause does not allow a government body to take a hostile view of religion in considering personal rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, ruling that the board acted improperly in not renewing Kennedy’s contract.
Joseph Skibell wrote in The Wall Street Journal last Friday (When the Prayers at School Aren’t Yours): “The decision immediately brought back memories of my own school days in Lubbock, Texas, in the 1970s. There were just a handful of other Jews in our large school system and no other Jewish kids in my grade, and I always felt like something of an exotic.”
Just remember what Neil Gorsuch stated as the grounds for his ruling.....
Quote
But Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion for himself and his fellow Republican appointees relies on a bizarre misrepresentation of the case’s facts. He repeatedly claims that Joseph Kennedy, a former public school football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington state who ostentatiously prayed at the 50-yard line following football games — often joined by his players, members of the opposing team, and members of the general public — “offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.”
Just remember they will tell any lie they can to justify their actions. This was never about the coach saying a quiet prayer by himself. He knew it, we knew it and the SCOTUS knew it.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Yup. They develop into nothing more than something that will take the life of the host. The other, by contrast, develops into another human being. The ONLY question is at what point do we define that as being another Human Being? In essence, the mother is just a host for that developing life. She feeds it and breathes for it, sharing blood and hauling away the waste, but it is still a separate organism and is such right from the very beginning. That takes us back full circle to: at what point do we define that as being another Human Being?
Define that and then pass an amendment protecting that life from that moment forward. Permit abortion on anything before it.
/thread
You’re actually speaking to one of the central tenants under RvW which is the definition of a “person” that receives protection under the Constitution. Another area for Congress to define one way or the other, but they failed to do so in that instance. That gives leeway to the Court.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Agree with you 2 on this 100% As I said before, we don't know when life begins, we only have our beliefs. Before we can determine when a fertilized egg becomes a person, someone needs to clearly define what a person is, what human life is
Am I perfect? No Am I trying to be a better person? Also no
How about we promote personal accountability to decrease the number of abortions that are needed? Birth control or abstinence so that we don't have as many abortions. There will always be rapes, incest, pregnancies gone wrong, etc that call for abortions, but the lack of personal accountability in this country is sickening. Everyone screaming about their rights and doing whatever pleases them while not caring one bit about the results of their actions.
I don't know that I saw anyone say we shouldn't. I know I didn't. I think any unmarried person who has sex should use a condom regardless of other forms of contraception. At least until they are in a committed relationship and have STD (including HIV) screening.
But for a lot of women that isn't a possibility. In impoverished areas, many women don't feel like they have the choice to not have sex with or for the dominant male(s) in their lives. They can't get affordable birth control. I mean god forbid (or should I say god's zealots forbid) we support the planned parenthood clinics.
And then, there is a thing called stealthing. A woman could think she is doing everything and still end up pregnant. Stealthing is when a couple is having sex using a condom, then in the middle the guy slips it off without the girl knowing. IF she gets pregnant from that, she bears all the responsibility and the guy goes his merry way
Am I perfect? No Am I trying to be a better person? Also no
How about we promote personal accountability ... the lack of personal accountability in this country is sickening. Everyone screaming about their rights and doing whatever pleases them while not caring one bit about the results of their actions.
Just curious, along those line , what are your thoughts on the mask and vaccine mandates?
Am I perfect? No Am I trying to be a better person? Also no
I wore a mask and I got vaccinated as soon as I could. It irked me when others would not wear their mask when it was required. Once again, selfish behavior.
Btw------in regards to your previous post. I put a ton of blame on irresponsible males for the abortion problems.
Yup. They develop into nothing more than something that will take the life of the host. The other, by contrast, develops into another human being. The ONLY question is at what point do we define that as being another Human Being? In essence, the mother is just a host for that developing life. She feeds it and breathes for it, sharing blood and hauling away the waste, but it is still a separate organism and is such right from the very beginning. That takes us back full circle to: at what point do we define that as being another Human Being?
Define that and then pass an amendment protecting that life from that moment forward. Permit abortion on anything before it.
/thread
Heartbeat laws say it is considered a human being at five weeks. So remove it at five weeks and let it live independently since the mother is just a host; pro-lifers can host, feed, and protect it in a test tube. Better yet, since they can place a fetus in a man to carry now, transplant it into those prolifers forcing women to carry to term. Let them carry to term. Truth is that it cannot be a separate human or a life if it cannot survive outside the womb without the mother. Prolifers have no counterargument to this point if you remove the religious aspects that have been misused solely for hurting and controlling women. The religious argument is nothing more than an emotional argument not backed by fact or science. But women have to suffer because grown ass prolifers wear their vaginas on their sleeves.
You're absolutely incorrect that it cannot be a separate human or a life while being dependent upon a host. Nature is literally rampant with examples of it. Granted, we typically call them parasites, lol, but they are still completely separate organisms.
It may not be developed enough to sustain itself at that point, but it IS a separate organism unto itself at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg and the egg begins cell division. It is its own being that simply receives resources and nourishment from the host/mother. Use science. Look at the definitions of what is an organism. In no way, whatsoever, can you NOT define it as a separate organism and that means that it IS a separate life.
By your flawed argument, an infant isn't a separate life.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
It seems odd that -- everybody wants to debate metaphysics .... but once there is a "real person" that is suffering -- everybody avoids the issue like the plague.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
