drunkenmaster on February 10, 2009 at 7:39 PM

Your side’s claim to victory is the same as Hamas’ claim that Israel lost because they didn’t wipe them out completely and walked away.

While I’ve never been on the DailyKos site, I well aware of their reputation-you pro-lifers are the right version of liberal extremists. Point fingers all you want, you know in your heart I’m right. :)

This thread is dead so this is my last post here-so you get to declare victory again as the final word.

Maybe if I get time I might come back but don’t go declaring victory because someone just walked away from the argument. *rolls eyes*

thinkagain on February 10, 2009 at 4:37 PM

Walked away. Forfeited. Admitted defeat. A distinction without a difference.

Besides, you Daily Kos types can always find time to scream. It’s what you do.

drunkenmaster on February 10, 2009 at 5:31 AM

Good lord, you on a mission from god or something? I didn’t respond because I’m busy and frankly got bored of the subject.

Maybe if I get time I might come back but don’t go declaring victory because someone just walked away from the argument. *rolls eyes*

“I’m sure you think my two-year-old adopted son would be better off rotting in a landfill somewhere”-Squiggy

When I neither said nor inferred any such thing. I took offense to that comment and I have little respect or patience for people that slander me in such ways-as would you or anyone else so don’t try to get sanctimonious with me.

Uh, yes you did say that. Your faux self-righteousness comes across as childish.

And just for your edification,

Squiggy on February 9, 2009 at 8:19 PM

appears to destroy all of your arguments. I notice you didn’t respond to him (her?) this time. Is it because you can’t? If you do – try reasoned arguments instead of unhinged rants.

You said abortion was better than being unwanted. She gave you a specific example where you were wrong. For this, you call her a “retard,” a “generic pro-life dingbat who’s never picked up a philosophy book in his life,” a “crazy,” and say she has an “inability to reason.”

Wrong about what? So if some adoptions work out well that means abortions should be banned? What if the mother decides she does not wish to give her potential child an uncertain future?

She made an egregious accusation and assumption:

“I’m sure you think my two-year-old adopted son would be better off rotting in a landfill somewhere”-Squiggy

When I neither said nor inferred any such thing. I took offense to that comment and I have little respect or patience for people that slander me in such ways-as would you or anyone else so don’t try to get sanctimonious with me.

Do note I am pro-choice, I am not trying to stop any woman from making independent decisions, whether she wants abortion, adoption or to keep the child.

Pro-lifers want to deny a woman’s right to choose and would force her to have a child against her will. So if you had to choose, who’s world would you rather live in, one that offers you individual freedoms (mine) or another that dictates what you must do with your own body?

All while you seem incapable of grasping that the issue is not whether a zygote can be termed fully human, but rather that the unborn can be deprived of life at any point right up until birth with no consequence.

*slow clap* Bravo, way to re-phrase the same argument at the crux of this debate. Well if we can call a zygote ‘fully human’ then we cannot “deprive it of life” (terminate it), since its no longer a thing, a clump of cells, a non-entity, n’est-ce pas?

Don’t waste time arguing about how human a zygote is, when you’re perfectly willing to destroy a baby at 38 weeks of development — long past the zygote stage.

I support abortion not infanticide-another one of you people making assumptions about my views without asking first. The present rules/regulations governing abortion are satisfactory for me.

How incredibly ignorant is it to declare that a baby with its own heartbeat, fingerprints, brainwaves, internal organs, and sex is nothing more special than say, skin cells or a tumor?

tom on February 9, 2009 at 2:23 PM

How ignorant and devious is it to twist my words until they’re unrecognizable? I said a zygote-a fertilized egg cell is not any more special than other cells. But I see in the warped pro-lifer’s mind, a single cell is identical to a baby. lol Yup its just one cell that was always the fully formed baby that gets bigger like a balloon. God help us if you people ever get to dictate our biology curriculum.

I took offense to your intimation that my son would be better off if his birth mother had murdered him.

I made no such comment and took offense at your libelous smear, which you’re continuing to reiterate without any evidence. I’ve been defending the pro-choice position here and nothing more-don’t read into things that are not there.

thinkagain on February 9, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Really? You might want to try reading your own rantings every now and then.

And I quote:

Adoption brings in the thorny issue of having a child and abandoning it. Is it fair to bring a child into the world and let it grow up wondering who its real parents are? Aborting a fetus may cause a little pain and suffering, but its nothing compared to a whole lifetime of it.
thinkagain on February 6, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Ergo, you lie. Either that, or your attention span is so short you can’t keep track of your own words.

I noticed you made absolutely no reference to women and the right to determine what happens to their own bodies. Because of course to a pro-lifer’s world, such issues are irrelevant trifles and don’t factor into their equation that demands every fertilized egg leads to a newborn and to hell with all other considerations.

Okay – here you go – The life of the mother far outweighs the life of the “fetus”. If having the baby will physically harm the mother, it’s “bye bye baby”. Happy now?

Having said that, the life of the “fetus” far outweighs the mothers right to fit in a size two dress for the prom. It is not just “a lump of tissue”. It is a tiny little human being, and anyone who seriously argues different is insane. You can rant and scream “PRO-CHOICE” all you want, but if you have to use idiotic lies then your argument is indefensible.

One final thought before I write you off forever – your attitude (and the attitude of your angry sisters) is one of total self. Nothing and no one matters to you except you. You can do anything at all and it’s fine. Up to and including paying someone to rip your child to pieces with a vacuum cleaner – and then suing the “clinic” when the child is accidentally born alive (luckily, the fetus was humanely placed into a trashbag and allowed to bleed to death um, termination).

Enjoy your insanity (and don’t forget the tubal ligation).

Squiggy on February 8, 2009 at 6:52 PM

Excuse me for my lack of politically correctness I think you prefer to be called ‘mentally challenged’ instead of ‘retard’. Either way your impaired ability to reason is self-evident.

I took offense to your intimation that my son would be better off if his birth mother had murdered him.

You remind me of one of the crazies on the street who walks up to strangers accusing them of killing their wife or burning down their house. I made no such comment and took offense at your libelous smear, which you’re continuing to reiterate without any evidence. I’ve been defending the pro-choice position here and nothing more-don’t read into things that are not there.

The rest of your rant really doesn’t merit any response so I won’t bother. I’m sure you’re one of those generic pro-life dingbats who’s never picked up a philosophy book in his life…so I won’t waste any more of my precious time on you.

thinkagain on February 9, 2009 at 12:11 PM

You said abortion was better than being unwanted. She gave you a specific example where you were wrong. For this, you call her a “retard,” a “generic pro-life dingbat who’s never picked up a philosophy book in his life,” a “crazy,” and say she has an “inability to reason.”

All while you seem incapable of grasping that the issue is not whether a zygote can be termed fully human, but rather that the unborn can be deprived of life at any point right up until birth with no consequence.

Don’t waste time arguing about how human a zygote is, when you’re perfectly willing to destroy a baby at 38 weeks of development — long past the zygote stage.

How incredibly ignorant is it to declare that a baby with its own heartbeat, fingerprints, brainwaves, internal organs, and sex is nothing more special than say, skin cells or a tumor?

Bottom line, the embryo is not a potential human, but an actual human, and baby is a general term which is applied to the baby as embryo, as fetus, as neonate (infant), and even by adults and physicians for toddlers, and even by sweethearts for their lover.

William2006 on February 8, 2009 at 11:48 PM

That’d be like saying an 6 year old child is not a potential adult but an adult by virtue of being human. You can generalize anything until it becomes meaningless which is essentially what you did in your post. At least you’re cognizant of the fact that the embryo does develop through various stages but don’t tell me a zygote is identical to a fetus and a 2 year old because it is human.

Those stages do matter a great deal-otherwise you could say a raw egg is the same as hard-boiled one because they’re both eggs. They are fundamentally different states and have gone through physical and chemical changes, just as a zygote divides from a single cell into billions of specialized cells that form all the tissues and organs in the body.

The fact that its a human cell doesn’t make it any more special than other cells in our body (like blood, hair etc). Though it could develop into a fetus and eventually a baby, doesn’t mean that we should now be ascribing the same rights and privileges we give to fully grown adults-by the way at the complete expense of the mother’s rights who is carrying it.

I noticed you made absolutely no reference to women and the right to determine what happens to their own bodies. Because of course to a pro-lifer’s world, such issues are irrelevant trifles and don’t factor into their equation that demands every fertilized egg leads to a newborn and to hell with all other considerations.

Life must be difficult for you noble fetus-warriors with all those pesky trouble-making, free-thinking women wanting abortions and demanding their rights be recognized, getting in the way. If only they could realize their proper role is to be baby-making machines with the goal to flood the country with unwanted children (to counter-balance those illegal aliens). I mean its so logical, why can’t they understand?

Squiggy on February 8, 2009 at 6:52 PM

Excuse me for my lack of politically correctness I think you prefer to be called ‘mentally challenged’ instead of ‘retard’. Either way your impaired ability to reason is self-evident.

I took offense to your intimation that my son would be better off if his birth mother had murdered him.

You remind me of one of the crazies on the street who walks up to strangers accusing them of killing their wife or burning down their house. I made no such comment and took offense at your libelous smear, which you’re continuing to reiterate without any evidence. I’ve been defending the pro-choice position here and nothing more-don’t read into things that are not there.

The rest of your rant really doesn’t merit any response so I won’t bother. I’m sure you’re one of those generic pro-life dingbats who’s never picked up a philosophy book in his life…so I won’t waste any more of my precious time on you.

… If there were a bunch of human embryos (potential babies … )

thinkagain on February 6, 2009 at 4:18 PM

You used the term “potential babies” to describe human embryos.

They are “potential babies” in the same way they are “potential children,” and “potential teenagers,” and “potential adults,” and so on.

They are NOT, however, potential human beings.

As a human embryo, they are already a member of the human race and a human being, a living human organism, merely involved in their earliest stage of life, their earliest stage of development, that of the human embryo, which, for reference, in in vivo, sexual reproduction, begins upon the man’s sperm’s penetration of the zona pellucida of the female’s oocyte, and continues until the end of the eighth post ovulatory week, and is followed by the fetal stage, which continues from the post ovulary ninth week, till term or birth.

Human life s a series of overlapping developmental stages which continue into adulthood, they don’t end at birth.

Also, the fetal stage is expected to take approximately 40 weeks, but it often is accomplished in less, such as 34 weeks, 36 weeks, and even earlier. Therefore, that is only a reference point. While baby is inside the womb, she is referred to as an embryo – from meeting of sperm and oocyte in normal sexual reproduction, till the end of the eight week, and as a fetus, from the ninth week, till term or birth, approximately 40 weeks. However, if one baby is still inside the womb at 39 weeks, while that baby’s mother’s friend’s baby is born at 39 weeks, the fetal stage ends for that born baby merely because she is born, not because she is any different from the baby who is the same age but has yet to be born. Both are members of the human race, both are clinically referred to as fetuses at that stage (39 weeks), but the only difference is one has left the womb during that stage, making them a neonate (clinical term) while the other is still a fetus, in the prenatal stage.

Bottom line, the embryo is not a potential human, but an actual human, and baby is a general term which is applied to the baby as embryo, as fetus, as neonate (infant), and even by adults and physicians for toddlers, and even by sweethearts for their lover.

Here’s another shot of the fetus…bet you wouldn’t have known its a cat embryo if I didn’t tell you.

thinkagain on February 8, 2009 at 12:15 PM

And that means what? It doesn’t change the fact that a human embryo is a person, however young. A cat embryo is still a cat, no matter whether you call it a “fetus” or a kitten. And you call me the “frigging retard”.

You need to get over your hatred of people who have learning disabilities. You might want to get to know some of those “retards”. They’re people too. And they like having been allowed to live too (just like you I bet).

And by the way hatemonger, what is my “movement”? I’m not in a “movement”. (You don’t have to be part of a “protest group” to believe killing children is bad.) I took offense to your intimation that my son would be better off if his birth mother had murdered him. Maybe you would be better off if your mother had had an abortion, but my boy is happy and healthy, and his grown sisters love him. We’re blessed, and you call that “being a bunch of confused, small-minded raging hicks and troglodytes”. I pity you.

If you think the world has too many people, then get your tubes tied. Or, even better (from your people-hating point of view) if you were to jump off a building then you wouldn’t be contributing to the destruction of the planet at all. Great idea, huh? I bet someone, somewhere will shed a tear.

I’m going to make a guess – you either live in Berkley or you’re in some “women’s studies” class somewhere. Those are the only places where someone of your hatred and ignorance could come to the conclusion that she’s the smartest person in the room. Outside of (maybe) the KKK or Islamo-fascist groups, those are the places where the worlds biggest idiots congregate.

…And you can be tripley damn sure that a 23-week human fetus is not only human, it is a viable life. Those on this thread trying to equate this particular incident with the ‘woman’s right to choooooose’ and ‘clump of cells’ mantra are, yes, evil.
NTXLass on February 8, 2009 at 5:55 AM

A human fetus is human? You have a rare gift for redundancy, don’t let that talent go to waste. See the pics in my post above, a 23 week old fetus is barely human looking let alone viable-you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

What else would you call it when you deny a person their innate right to determine what happens to their own body? The Nazi-reference is completely appropriate and fitting.I’m well aware of Goodwin’s law and it does not apply in this case.

The pro-life movement/mafia is a veiled form of fascism that attacks a woman’s freedom, will and control over her own body. I have yet to see some spark of brilliance from your camp that shows why an embryo’s (a cluster of cells) concerns outweigh/eliminate the rights of a grown adult, thinking woman making independent decisions and that would justify such barbarian measures.

Un-freaking-believable.

I’m sure you think my two-year-old adopted son would be better off rotting in a landfill somewhere.

Stop hyperventilating you frigging retard. Its people like you that give your movement its well-deserved reputation of being a bunch of confused, small-minded raging hicks and troglodytes who are unable to distinguish between a fertilized egg cell, a fetus or a baby.

Though some of you have a slightly larger vocabulary and are able to articulate your ignorance better.

If it’s not a child, you’re not pregnant.

Squiggy on February 8, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Here’s your 2 day old ‘child’ and first trimester. 99.9% of all abortions are performed within this stage or within an additional week (20 wks).

Here’s another shot of the fetus…bet you wouldn’t have known its a cat embryo if I didn’t tell you. Point being that in its early stages the human embryo is not much different that some other animals, hence your argument that its child is obviously ridiculous.

So the pro-lifers deranged nightmare of abortion clinics being infanticide factories slaughtering 9 month old babies like cattle is their own sick delusion borne out of misinformation and brainwashing.

Adoption brings in the thorny issue of having a child and abandoning it. Is it fair to bring a child into the world and let it grow up wondering who its real parents are? Aborting a fetus may cause a little pain and suffering, but its nothing compared to a whole lifetime of it.
thinkagain on February 6, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Un-freaking-believable.

I’m sure you think my two-year-old adopted son would be better off rotting in a landfill somewhere.

To make such an absurd statement demonstrates you have no understanding of what a fetus actually is.
thinkagain on February 8, 2009 at 4:11 AM

If it’s not a child, you’re not pregnant.

Oh, and “thinkagain”? You might try doing that just once, and also research “Godwin law”.

Under reasons for abortion…I have seen several other polls, including one from Gallup, that put the number in favor of banning that 96% in the solid majority.

Your response was obscure. Please clarify what you mean about this 96% supporting banning and provide reliable sources. This is the second time you’re repeating this baseless and weird claim without evidence.

1) The citations on which I was commenting are from respected organizations of medical professionals, who are a hell of a lot more informed on the matter than the American population as a whole.

Exactly what were you trying to prove in this rant??

2) I have not once in this thread advanced a single religious argument against abortion.

You’re a pro-life Christian right? Where else do you get your morals from?

3) If you have a problem with morality-based lawmaking…

Lol-you’re stating the obvious here but what we define as ‘moral’ or good differs greatly as the division over abortion and euthanasia demonstrate.

The developmental distinction between a fetus and a baby is no different than the distinction between a child and an adult. You are arguing semantics and location, not science.

CDeb on February 6, 2009 at 4:37 PM

To make such an absurd statement demonstrates you have no understanding of what a fetus actually is. It also shows the pro-life position to be one based largely on the argument from ignorance (specifically ‘personal incredulity’) fallacy.

I’d like you to prove how a zygote or fetus is physically identical to a fully formed baby/child or adult. And no, a “potential” person does not make a clump of cells an actual person. Just like us being potential killers does not make us actual killers. It may seem like a subtle distinction but only to a coarse unsophisticated mind, since there is a world of difference between the two.

Tell me also why the rights/decisions a woman has/makes over her own body are eliminated and superseded by the alleged “rights” of a clump of cells or fetus that she’s carrying? And spare me your ‘a fetus is defenseless’ cry-baby appeals, that’s insufficient.

In a pro-lifer’s paradise the moment a woman becomes pregnant her womb becomes their sole property. Her rights are immediately suspended, she is muzzled and abortion is strictly forbidden. Her views don’t matter, the only concern is that she gives birth, dutifully and without question or face their wrath, which is moralistic and well-meaning and divinely sanctioned.

Anyone that disagrees with the pro-life mafia is clearly evil, worse than the Nazis and must be pressured, demonized, threatened and bullied into submission and silence. Jesus would approve.

Thinkagain and Tommy need to be “aborted” from HotAir…they just clog up the drain with their sewage of moral relativistic thinking.

MechEng5by5 on February 6, 2009 at 10:50 PM

Do you want HotAir to become the right-wing version of fringe lunatic sites like DailyKos or Huffpo? You and your kin do not hold a monopoly here and while there may be numerous pro-lifers posting, in reality your group is actually a small minority in this country.

Over 77% of the population supports abortion (is pro-choice), so don’t have any delusions about who the real majority is here-most of the population shares my perspective, not yours.

Its interesting that you do support ‘abortion’…for those who disagree with you. Clearly you’re a ‘moral’ individual, one who shares the morality of fascists. Unlike you I support your (and everyone’s) right to free speech even though we disagree on this issue.

We should treat this right with the utmost respect since its presently in real danger of being eliminated by Islamofascists. Once that goes so too will our other freedoms followed by our secular democratic civilization.

Lastly you should look up terms you don’t understand before using them inappropriately. If I was a moral relativist, I wouldn’t take a position in this discussion.

An unwanted child is not considered human. A wanted child (or one whose wantedness cannot be determined by questioning the mother) is considered human. That, in a nutshell, describes the California law on this topic. Hence, a person’s humanity in this one regard is determined solely by the intent of another person to humanize them.

It’s why I equate abortion with its handsister slavery, since, under slavery, the humanity accorded one person (the slave), up to and including death, is determined by another person (the slaveowner).

unclesmrgol on February 7, 2009 at 12:56 PM

I agree that defining personhood as a function of whether you are wanted is nonsense. Many adults wouldn’t currently qualify.

Slaves were a function also of their race, which is an inherent quality. A terrible criteria, but the “wantedness” criteria is even less defensible.

thinkagain on February 6, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Meanwhile several nurses who cared for Schiavo testified to the opposite. One nurse whom I watched said that Terri would lift her butt and scoot forward for her when a bedpan was placed under. That is not vegetative.

A post mortem can show horrendous damage yet in England a number of hydrocephalus children with the center of their brains displaced by fluid so they had one inch of less of brain layer on the inside skull were tracked and some ended up as teachers, while the brain evidence showed vegetable. Scientists studying these people could not explain their functionality

Terri was a devout Catholic and attended Mass every weekend with her aunt (not her husband). Her family is equally devout and within their beliefs euthanesia does not compute. Her husband speaking for her was a biased witness, especially with the conflicts the two had before she collapsed

The juge sum of money received in lawsuit was to care for her (alive) and instead was spent on the death lawyers including the final lawyer who previously had sat on the board of the nursing home and who was obsessed with euthanesia (he claimed he could hear through his brain the voice of mute comatose patients begging him to end it all). Money granted for her care went to the killers

Hardly heroic

It isn’t logically consistent with abortion rights. From the standpoint of the fetus being killed by the mother or murdered by a third party doesn’t make a difference.

dedalus on February 7, 2009 at 10:17 AM

There’s nothing very logical in the law, but it is consistant with abortion rights. Consider the following line of reasoning. PP mantra: Every child a wanted child. Under reproductive rights as defined in Roe V. Wade, the mother is the only one who can determine whether a child is wanted or not, and is free to act on that determination to the detriment of the child, up until birth (and beyond, in some states such as Illinois).
An unwanted child is not considered human. A wanted child (or one whose wantedness cannot be determined by questioning the mother) is considered human. That, in a nutshell, describes the California law on this topic. Hence, a person’s humanity in this one regard is determined solely by the intent of another person to humanize them.

It’s why I equate abortion with its handsister slavery, since, under slavery, the humanity accorded one person (the slave), up to and including death, is determined by another person (the slaveowner).

While sex is for procreation may be true for animals, it isn’t for humans-we do it primarily for enjoyment and bonding with others. To avoid facing morality, those with false morals the consequences of sex (baby/stds) we use contraception.

thinkagain on February 6, 2009 at 4:18 PM

FIFY

I’m touched that you commended Anna.

Using contraception is the epitome of irresponsibility. Okay, maybe I should say using a condom is like taking a shower with a raincoat on. With the raincoat on we can bond with many others. Did you ever see the Verizon commercial? Didn’t someone make a condom commercial suggesting that without a condom you have that network – or are possibly having sex with as many people?

I want to ask you [thinkagain] directly, why do pro-choicers and neutralists base their thinly veiled arguments upon separating love from life? They way your post reads, you present yourself as a sage authority. I’m sitting at your feet waiting for you to explain. I’m confused because I have the sense that a condom is the absolute separation of love from life. I have the understanding that a birth control pill is actually an abortive method that will destroy a fertilized egg (a life) as well as accomplishing the separation of love from life.

How thin one’s bond must be if one or both partners are bonding with others for enjoyment. Or, is multiple bonding equal to hedonism? If it is hedonism, then why advocate condoms, birth control, adoption or licensing? If instead you wrote “…primarily for enjoyment and bonding with a spouse” then you might be interesting rather than seemingly immoral and ill-informed. Natural family planning (NFP) involves no contraception and provides a bond of life and love.

FIFY

Note again that the opinion of the Court does not put any conditions on the development of the fetus, other than it exist.

unclesmrgol on February 7, 2009 at 12:42 AM

Thanks. I didn’t know the law regarding fetal homicide and that similar laws exist in over 30+ states. It isn’t logically consistent with abortion rights. From the standpoint of the fetus being killed by the mother or murdered by a third party doesn’t make a difference.

DING DING

You are correct.

tommylotto on February 6, 2009 at 7:06 PM

Nice! Finally a supreme authority offers us confirmation of proper morality. Thank you for sharing your Cliff Notes about the players bent on debating abortion and those that morally cannot consider it.

Why do you think you are equipped to present a case for being neutral? There is no room for a moderator or some intellectual cafone peeling back the layers of this onion by suggesting when life begins is a valid argument. People that lead moral lives have no “ultimate goal” to suggest when life begins; they know when it begins and it isn’t anything that any neutralist or pro-choicer cares to face. The ultimate goal for people with morals is to educate the lost and wandering, the poor and unwashed that creating life happens long before you roll over or pull your pants back up.

I don’t need a fact-book or to waste my time researching it, but I would suggest to you that there are far more people that have seceded from positions of neutrality and pro-choice to promote pro-life. I dare someone to prove me wrong.