A Conception's Right To Life

[Chip]

When that nose is located INSIDE your body and its owner is living off of you, then the owner of the house should have control over who lives there.

If you have a baby living inside of you and off of your body systems, then you too should have the right to control your body and it's contents.

Again with the implied parasite sophistry.

I reiterate, that a newly conceived person is not a parasite.

It fails the parasite test in three ways:

1. It is of the same species as the mother.

2. It was created by the mother.

3. And, it is a blood relative of the mother.

Thus the newly conceived person is simply not a parasite.

End of discussion on the matter.

Thus, like it or not, if the woman kills her newly conceived offspring for non-life-or-death-self-defense reasons, she has committed murder by abortion, unjustifiably violating her newly conceived offspring's foundational right to life.

The time to "control your body and its contents" is before conception occurs.

Timing is everything ... and will someday soon mean the difference between remaining free or serving time for murder.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Rights are endowed according to the realities of rights.

Your link leads to a series of links leading back to the same link. If you have some "right to rights" concept maybe you could simply write it down for us to read.

Rights are rights whether they are respected or not.

If one is talking about a legal right, then you are correct.

A disrespect for rights does not mean that the person disrespecting them has via an act of abusive disrespect thereby lowered the stature of rights to the status of a mere "gift" he chooses not to bestow.

Have it your way, but you are still dead and you still have no right to life. An unenforceable right is no right at all. Only a man-made legal right falls within the parameters of your argument.

As for the foundational right to life, you doubt it's a right only so you can support the convenience of murder by abortion. That's pure utilitarianism in all its diabolically evil ugliness.

I think abortion is a really bad idea, but I think religious totalitarianism is even worse. God didn't give us free will so that we could enslave women to be baby machines against their will. Until a child is viable outside the womb its life is in the hands of the mother. I don't like some of the choices mothers make, but I'm not God and neither are you.

Great hearts long ago recognized the reality of the foundational right to life when they listed it first thusly: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

And some of the "great hearts" who said that owned slaves, denied women equality or the right to vote or own property. Subjugation of women is what we're talking about, your heart-rending pleas for the lives of the unborn ring hollow in a culture that denies pregnant women the right to universal medical care, a culture that happily allows more than a quarter of its children to live below the poverty line, and has no universal medical care for its children either. Maybe it would be good for you to stop trying to force women to have babies no one wants and start trying to get care for the ones who are already here.

That pretty much says that the right to life exists and is ours from the moment of our creation, our conception, and that it is not a gift given and taken by other human beings at whim, but an endowed condition that is ours from the moment of the beginning of our very existence and for the rest of our life.

You sound like Ronald Reagan, the man who believed that life began at conception and ended at birth. Force women to have them but take no care of them when they are born.

If this issue was a trial with testimony, I'd likely believe their testimony over yours, for obvious reasons.

If this was a trial you'd have to prove your point instead of appealing to the dead for support.

Wrong.Wrong. You were fantasizing away the foundational right to life, nothing more.

It's sad when people have had their rights trampled for so long that they actually begin to side with their abusers, eventually being abusively damaged into thinking that they never had any rights.

Well it's good that you can speak for what I was thinking, maybe you could write my posts for me and all the other women in the world so that we would behave the way you want us to. It's called subjugation.

I am talking about the existence of that right, whether specific law recognizes it or not.

Where does your "right" come from if not from man-made law? Outside of man-made law can you enforce your "right"? No, I don't think so. Is it a right if it cannot be enforced?

Our rights exist whether or not they are recognized by explicit law ... and our rights exist despite abusive attempts to legislate them away.

Yes! Despite your attempts to legislate away a woman's right to control her own body you have not succeeded. Where do the rights exist if not in law? Outside of law they don't exist, they're not etched in stone somewhere, there is no god enforcing them. Where does the right come from if not as a gift from our fellows who recognize that we're all in this together and we need to cooperate? It's a gift civilized people give to each other.

Though I'm not Palerider, your jungle sophistry is merely meaningless diatribe concocted to support the murder or newly conceived people.

If it's not the jungle that makes people ignore the rights of others in the expression of brutal self-interest, what would you call it? It's not civilization is it?

I recognize that by "enforceable" you mean that their violation is either preventable or results in recompense.

Consider then, ... you have the right to own a gun ... but a thief breaks in and steals that gun. The thief disappears and he and your gun are never found. You're not insured, so you suffer a violation of your right to own a gun and without recompense.

By your "logic", you suddenly think you never had the right to own that gun in the first place, merely because that right was violated without recompense.

Pure and utter nonsense.

Your analogy breaks down in the place where I am still alive to buy another gun, therefore I still have the right to own a gun. If someone kills you your right to life obviously doesn't exist or you'd still be alive--wouldn't you?

Your sophistry of "violation negates pre-existence" is so obviously utterly nonsensical, I'm surprised you can present it with a straight face.

The next thing we know you'll be arguing that if a kidnapper steals your child and murders him that you therefore never had the right to be a parent in the first place.

Your point is completely unbelievable.

This analogy breaks down just like the last one, I am still alive and can parent another child. You're dead and can't do anything--what good is your "right"?

You would also do well to remember that might does not make rights.

In a civilized situation that would be true, but if you look around the world today you'll find that might is the only thing that makes rights--our laws work because we use might to enforce them. I'm not saying that I think this is the way things should be, I'm simply recognizing what IS in the world.

How convenient -- you'll grant law a very small exemption to your sophistrical contrivance, knowing, as you do, that the law recognizing the scientific reality that a newly conceived person, a newly conceived unique individual human being, begins to live a the moment of conception and is thus rationally thereby endowed with the right to life at that moment, has yet to hit the books.

The goal of your sophistrical contrivance was obvious from the beginning.

Your posts are better without the histrionics, Chip. I'm not granting anything, I agree that life begins at conception--leave science out of it or you'll make a mess of your own argument. I simply don't agree with your attempt to own women's bodies and deny them the right to be secure in them. You put the baby first and I put the woman first, kill the woman and you kill the baby, until the baby is viable I think the woman should be the one to determine its future. I don't care if you don't like it, I don't like women being owned by men who don't give a damn about the baby after birth but--by GOD!--they will force the women to bear the babies. Why do those very same men then turn their backs on the babies they have forced women to bring into the world? Your selective indignation shames you.

Why is it that the men on these abortion threads never talk about post-natal care? Never talk about universal health care for children and pregnant women? Never talk about publicly funded daycare so that the mothers can work and actually earn a living? What about education for all children?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Again with the implied parasite sophistry.
I reiterate, that a newly conceived person is not a parasite.
It fails the parasite test in three ways:1. It is of the same species as the mother.2. It was created by the mother.3. And, it is a blood relative of the mother.Thus the newly conceived person is simply not a parasite.End of discussion on the matter.

Thus, like it or not, if the woman kills her newly conceived offspring for non-life-or-death-self-defense reasons, she has committed murder by abortion, unjustifiably violating her newly conceived offspring's foundational right to life.

The time to "control your body and its contents" is before conception occurs.

Timing is everything ... and will someday soon mean the difference between remaining free or serving time for murder.

Using the narrow definition to obviate my valid point is just a debating trick.

Yes, it will be important to put women in jail, thus orphaning their other children which you can ignore as well. It worked for Ceausescu didn't it? The problem is unwanted children and you trying to make it all some woman's problem while you keep your money. It sounds like hypocrisy to me, but I'm just a woman so what do I know, right?

 

[Hobo1]

If we concede the point that everyone has a right to life, then we are faced with two critical questions: 1) who has the right to define the meaning of life and 2) under what circumstances does a person loose the right of life.

Answers to these questions can come from many different places. Some people can find the answer in their religious beliefs. Others put their trust in the established legal system. Others may find some divine inspiration, others may feel they have inspired wisdom within their brains.

The basic problem here is the source of your wisdom and your conclusions often contradict with other people's source and conclusions. Out of all the sources for wisdom, does one source holds the trump card?

There are many circumstances where different authorities must make determinations about when something is alive or dead; and when someone has lost his right to live. Is a fetus in the mother's womb alive, is it simply a integral organic part of the mother? Is a human that can no longer breath or eat still alive, or has he entered the first stage of death? Has the human who has severely violated the rules of our justice system lost the right to live when he is legally condemned to death?

Equally intelligent and intellectual people may argue that 1)the rule of God, or 2)the rule of Law, or 3)the rule of a priori philosophy or 4)some other logical argument should be applied. Different cultures choose different sources as the apex of wisdom. However, in the United States, our culture is controlled and order is maintained thought a written the rule of law.

So as long as the US Constitution remains as the supreme law of our land, and the judicial system established by that Constitution continues to function, then both questions about the right to life will remain as currently interpreted. Of course people of our nation have the freedom of speech to disagree with both the definition of life and with the conditions under which that that right is lost. Unless and until the laws of the land are changed, everyone must obey by those laws.

Right now in the United States of America, and in the foreseeable future, a fetus or embryo in the mother's womb does not constitute an individual life. And since that appendage in the mother's womb is not a life, it cannot possibly possesses any right to life. Q.E.D.

 

[Lagboltz]

Hobo, your post is reeking with wisdom. It is a refreshing overview of the issue at hand. As you say, in the US, written law is the predominant paradigm, and that is why the US has such an large percentage of lawyers compared to other countries. Now there is a movement to overturn Roe vs. Wade through legal arguments and people have a right to do that. The underlying reason that people may want to overrule the law could lie in religious belief, philosophy, etc., but as you say, their beliefs have to manifest through law. My beliefs and motivations are also outside the law but here I must argue the law too. I hope the courts see through any future manipulation of the words and meanings of law and come to the same decision of Roe vs. Wade if it is ever brought to court again.

 

[top gun]

What I have trouble understanding is the absolute NEED to control other's. Don't women have free will the same as the rest of humanity? Didn't God make them too? Why the Hell do people have to try to regulate their decisions? God didn't appoint men to run women's lives, women should have the right to make choices about their own bodies--even if I don't like it.

Well your understanding and logic are appreciated my many I can tell you that.

And you are right this all boils down to control and whether people admit it or not also personal religious beliefs. People often won't say it's personal religious beliefs because that come back comes quick and is unrefutablely... Hey I'm not of your religious persuasion and in America we have freedom to choose or not choose a religious belief.

So with that being taken away in the relentless ambition to still control women and all their private bodily functions they would try to attach the same personhood to a fertilized egg (a couple cells... cells) that could not grow nor survive without another particular person's life support... to that of a fully functioning born person.

I'm not advocating abortion. I'm just saying if it's true you cannot force someone to take care of themselves and carry a healthy child to term for 9 long months... then making it where the woman must take drastic dangerous methods into her own hands or the hands of some quack is not acceptable.

At least not to me as a father of two girls.

Thanks for your input...

 

[Hobo1]

I remember the US prior to Roe vs Wade in the era of coat hanger wire abortions and numerous other horrifying stories when a woman could not get a legal abortion.

I have traveled through many countries like Saudi Arabia where abortions are strictly illegal, yet women endure the more sadistic and painful procedures to abort unwanted pregnancies. These include excruciatingly painful pushing and the shoving of the mother's abdomen to dislodge the fetus and force a miscarriage.

Just remember, there is not a country or a province in this world where abortions occur on a very regular basis. Its legality or illegality is not a consideration to a desperate woman who is willing to undergo any trauma to abort the baby.

Those who wish to abolish Roe vs. Wade will have the blood and unnecessary death of many young women on their hands if their efforts are successful in outlawing abortions. Oh, yea, the fetus always perishes with the mother.

 

[Chip]

Your link leads to a series of links leading back to the same link. If you have some "right to rights" concept maybe you could simply write it down for us to read.

Wrong. The link to The Realities of Rights does not "lead to a series of links leading back to the same link", as if the alleged linking was meaningfully of any value.

It stands alone on its own merit.

It presents the reality of rights and you would do well to grasp and respect it.

Have it your way, but you are still dead and you still have no right to life.

That's right, once you are dead, you cease to exist, and thus you have no rights of any kind.

But, that does not mean you had no rights, including the right to life, prior to your death.

Your if-then syllogism is illogical.

An unenforceable right is no right at all.

False.

A right is a right whether it is "enforceable" by your utilitarian moral relativistic intepretation and use of the word "enforceable" or not.

You only argue from that utilitarian moral relativisitic perspective so that you can excuse any action you choose to make.

For you it's individualism do or die ... no matter who else dies in the process.

In my field, psychology, such an "attitude" is often associated with narcissists and sociopaths.

I think abortion is a really bad idea

Why Mare?

Why do you think abortion is a really bad idea?

but I think religious totalitarianism is even worse.

Religious totalitarianism is topically irrelevant.

I realize why you see Christian fundamentalists lurking behind every corner of every issue where your take the utilitarian moral relativistic position, but your paranoia in this regard, though its etiology is understandable, is, also, irrelevant.

God didn't give us free will so that we could enslave women to be baby machines against their will.

Our free will exists, but using it to commit murder by abortion is wrong ... and that's not a matter for rational conjecture.

Your histrionic use of the term "baby machines" is topically irrelevant as well.

Women who engage in sex know the risks they take of conceiving a person.

A consequence of sex is conception.

It is not "enslavement of women", as you histrionically purport to ask them under justified penalty of law not to murder their newly conceived offspring.

Your perspective on the matter is obvious projection of unresolved issues stemming from feeling "enslaved" to society's definition of what a man is.

Until a child is viable outside the womb its life is in the hands of the mother.

Says who? A dwindling pack of utilitarian moral relativists?

Science recognizes the newly conceived to be a unique individual human being, a person by definition.

Our species has evolved to where the overwhelming vast majority recognizes the foundational right to life we all possess. That recognition is an aspect of our civilization.

Allowing anyone, including the offspring's mother, to arbitrarily murder that person at any stage of that person's growth, is, understandably, immoral with respect to our evolved civilization.

You may fear by oppositional defiant disorder based association that your very indiviualism is threatened by the larger collective whole of society ...

... But your irrational fear, whether justified or not, is not justifiable grounds to allow the mother to murder her offspring.

I don't like some of the choices mothers make,

Why, Mare?

Why don't you like them?

but I'm not God and neither are you.

Irrelevant histrionics, Mare.

Why do you suppose that much of the sociological behavior of murder is presently punishable by law?

Was it because "God" said murder was wrong and not to be tolerated?

Was it because "you" or "I" said murder was wrong and not to be tolerated?

Who said murder was wrong and not to be tolerated?

Someone or someones did?

Who made that decision, Mare?

The correct answer is also the correct answer to who has the authority to decide that no one, no one at all, has the right to murder newly conceived people.

Subjugation of women is what we're talking about,

No it's not. That's merely your histrionic moral relativistic utilitarian erroneous twist.

The topic is the scientific reality that the newly conceived is a person, that said person possesses the foundational right to life, and therefore that murdering that person via abortion is wrong.

You may not like the fact that sometimes we, through are own behavior or otherwise, are placed in a position of having to endure the consequences in order to do the right thing.

My question to you is why do you favor doing the wrong thing over the right thing with regard to respecting the very life of the newly conceived person over the mother having to endure some difficulty for awhile?

Do you have an historic problem with enduring hardship in general?

Do you usually generally favor murdering someone over enduring hardship?

your heart-rending pleas for the lives of the unborn ring hollow

Only to moral relativistic utilitarians ... a dwindling breed.

in a culture that denies pregnant women the right to universal medical care, a culture that happily allows more than a quarter of its children to live below the poverty line, and has no universal medical care for its children either.

Irrelevant.

No matter what you may think women and children are denied in our culture, that simply does not excuse murder by abortion.

Maybe it would be good for you to stop trying to force women to have babies no one wants and start trying to get care for the ones who are already here.

Because I am not a utilitarian moral relativist, I'm not narcissistically focused on getting what I want at the expense of the very lives of newly conceived people.

Our culture's social problems need to be solved without resorting to murder.

You sound like Ronald Reagan, the man who believed that life began at conception and ended at birth.

No I don't, not to those with accurate perception, anyway.

The truth is that I have not once stated explicitly or implicitly that "life ends at birth" in any sense of the phrase.

I am true pro-life, as opposed to Reagan who was only anti-abortion. The terms are different, and understandably so.

You may want to erroneously link me with Reagan because it serves your moral relativistic utilitarian purpose, but, you are in obvious error.

You would also be better served to reduce your transference and displacement in the matter.

 

[Chip]

Yes!

You have responded here to my statement that "Our rights exist whether or not they are recognized by explicit law ... and our rights exist despite abusive attempts to legislate them away.".

Good for you.

Now that you agree, please stop vacillating on the matter.

Despite your attempts to legislate away a woman's right to control her own body you have not succeeded.

I realize that to you its all about "control".

You transfer and displace those who have controlled you in the past, and you do so to the dysfunctional degree that you are arguing for the behavior you're trying to avoid "control" over, the behavior which is murder.

You may want to reflect on that for a moment.

Anyone who wants to murder another person needs to gain some sort of "control over their own body" so that they don't commit the heinous sociological behavior of murder.

If you have problems with people thusly controlling their own body, if you have problems, therefore, with society asking people to control their bodies under justified penalty of law, you could very easily be branded a sociopath.

You may wish to consider the damage done to your reputation by your unresolved past damage that motivates your utilitarian moral relativism.

I'm not granting anything, I agree that life begins at conception--leave science out of it or you'll make a mess of your own argument.

Oh, then I should only leave "your" opinion as the decider that a person begins to live at conception???

How narcissistic of you, Mare.

I realize that you want to leave science out of it, because you, being the utilitarian moral relativist that you are, despise authorities in general in a oppositional defiant disorder manner and specifically when they disagree with your narcissistic point of view.

But a society of individuals needs rational appeal to reliable methods of discerning fact based truth upon which society appeals to support its civilization.

You may narcissistically see individualism as superior to such concepts of collective intelligence, but the reason we're not still runing around in the stoneage, when, by the way, women were very subjugated, is because the overwhelming vast majority, our civilized society, chooses not to let the individualism of neanderthal narcissists rule over the masses as you advocate.

The rational appeal to science as modern, evolved humanity's method of determing the fact based truth of reality in this matter is, understandably, superior to your individualism's narcissistic whim.

Thus the only one of us who is making a mess of their argument is you, Mare, which you do by excluding science in the matter.

I simply don't agree with your attempt to own women's bodies and deny them the right to be secure in them.

Your statement is in histrionic error.

No one attempts to "own" another's body merely by asking them under penalty of law not to murder a newly conceived person.

There is simply no "insecurity" to the mother in pregnancy in and of itself, except when the mother's life is truly threatened by the newly conceived person.

You put the baby first and I put the woman first,

Inexact and irrelevant.

I put the life of the newly conceived person over the convenience of the woman.

You put the convenience of the woman over the very life of her newly conceived offspring.

That is an exact and thus relevant statement in the matter.

until the baby is viable I think the woman should be the one to determine its future.

What you mean here is that until the newly conceived person is able to be born, you think that it is okay for that person to be murdered if the woman agrees.

A truly evolved and civilized society disagrees with you, Mare.

I don't care if you don't like it, I don't like women being owned by men

Well, there you go, displaying your transference and displacement of those who have "owned" you and your "freedom" in the past, and showing your penis self-hatred of "men" stemming from your transsexuality issues.

Your histrionics are understandable ... though they are topically irrelevant.

who don't give a damn about the baby after birth but--by GOD!--they will force the women to bear the babies.

Yes ... your controlled-by issues are obvious ...

... And so is your misanthropy.

But neither of these are rational ground upon which to base an accurate argument.

Why do those very same men then turn their backs on the babies they have forced women to bring into the world?

Deadbeat dads are a separate topic, Mare, irrelevant to this one.

The existence of deadbeat dads in no way justifies muderous abortion.

That you are blinded by your internalized rage to the reality of it has been made obvious by your own presentation.

Your selective indignation shames you.

Your projection here is truly a shame.

You'd be the pot calling the kettle black here ... except I don't qualify as a kettle other than in your erroneous world of transference and displacement.

Why is it that the men on these abortion threads never talk about post-natal care? Never talk about universal health care for children and pregnant women? Never talk about publicly funded daycare so that the mothers can work and actually earn a living? What about education for all children?

Again, topically irrelevant.

None of this in any way shape or form excuses murderous abortion.

If you want to talk about these matters, create a separate thread on them, and we can address them to resolution.

They are, however, understandably, irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Wrong. The link to The Realities of Rights does not "lead to a series of links leading back to the same link", as if the alleged linking was meaningfully of any value.t stands alone on its own merit.It resents the reality of rights and you would do well to grasp and respect it.
That's right, once you are dead, you cease to exist, and thus you have no rights of any kind.But, that does not mean you had no rights, including the right to life, prior to your death.Your if-then syllogism is illogical.False.A right is a right whether it is "enforceable" by your utilitarian moral relativistic intepretation and use of the word "enforceable" or not.You only argue from that utilitarian moral relativisitic perspective so that you can excuse any action you choose to make.For you it's individualism do or die ... no matter who else dies in the process.In my field, psychology, such an "attitude" is often associated with narcissists and sociopaths.hy Mare?Why do you think abortion is a really bad idea?Religious totalitarianism is topically irrelevant.I realize why you see Christian fundamentalists lurking behind every corner of every issue where your take the utilitarian moral relativistic position, but your paranoia in this regard, though its etiology is understandable, is, also, irrelevant.Our free will exists, but using it to commit murder by abortion is wrong ... and that's not a matter for rational conjecture.Your histrionic use of the term "baby machines" is topically irrelevant as well.Women who engage in sex know the risks they take of conceiving a person.A consequence of sex is conception.It is not "enslavement of women", as you histrionically purport to ask them under justified penalty of law not to murder their newly conceived offspring.
Your perspective on the matter is obvious projection of unresolved issues stemming from feeling "enslaved" to society's definition of what a man is.
Says who? A dwindling pack of utilitarian moral relativists?Science recognizes the newly conceived to be a unique individual human being, a person by definition.Our species has evolved to where the overwhelming vast majority recognizes the foundational right to life we all possess. That recognition is an aspect of our civilization.Allowing anyone, including the offspring's mother, to arbitrarily murder that person at any stage of that person's growth, is, understandably, immoral with respect to our evolved civilization.You may fear by oppositional defiant disorder based association that your very indiviualism is threatened by the larger collective whole of society ...... But your irrational fear, whether justified or not, is not justifiable grounds to allow the mother to murder her offspring.Why, Mare?Why don't you like them?Irrelevant istrionics, Mare.Why do you suppose that much of the sociological behavior of murder is presently punishable by law?Was it because "God" said murder was wrong and not to be tolerated?Was it because "you" or "I" said murder was wrong and not to be tolerated?Who said murder was wrong and not to be tolerated?Someone or someones did?Who made that decision, Mare?
The correct answer is also the correct answer to who has the authority to decide that no one, no one at all, has the right to murder newly conceived people.No it's not. That's merely your histrionic moral relativistic utilitarian erroneos twist.The topic is the scientific reality that the newly conceived is a person, that said person possesses the foundational right to life, and therefore that murdering that person via abortion is wrong.You may not like the fact that sometimes we, through are own behavior or otherwise, are placed in a position of having to endure the consequences in order to do the right thing.My question to you is why do you favor doing the wrong thing over the right thing with regard to respecting the very life of the newly conceived person over the mother having to endure some difficulty for awhile?Do you have an historic problem with enduring hardship in general?
Do you usually generally favor murdering someone over enduring hardship?
Only to moral relativistic utilitarians ... a dwindling breed.Irrelevant.
No matter what you may think women and children are denied in our culture, that simply does not excuse murder by abortion.Because I am not a utilitarian moral relativist, I'm not narcissistically focused on getting what I want at the expense of the very lives of newly conceived people.Our culture's social problems need to be solved without resorting to murder.
No I don't, not to those with accurate perception, anyway.The truth is that I have not once stated explicitly or implicitly that "life ends a birth" in any sense of the phrase.I am true pro-life, as opposed to Reagan who was only anti-abortion. The terms are different, and understandably so.You may want to erroneously link me with Reagan because it serves your moral relativistic utilitarian purpose, but, you are in obvious error.You would also be better served to reduce your transference and displacement in the matter.

I disagree with you. The opinions expressed were my own. Since you are going to break the ethical code of your claimed profession and diagnose publicly over the internet with no actual personal time with the victim of your diagnoses, then it would seem that we have little more to discuss.

If I'm a sociopath why would you even bother to respond to me? Your denigrating posts here are very similar to the vitriolic excoriation to which you subjected me on Siho's hate thread. She claimed a major in biology, you claim to be a therapist or counselor of some sort, but your lack of knowledge in areas of sexual identity beg the question of your competence or even your claim.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You have responded here to my statement that "Our rights exist whether or not they are recognized by explicit law ... and our rights exist despite abusive attempts to legislate them away.".Good for you.
Now that you agree, please stop vacillating on the matter.I realize that to you its all about "control".You transfer and displace those who have controlled you in the past, and you do so to the dysfunctional degree that you are arguing for the behavior you're trying to avoid "control" over, the behavior which is murder.You may want to reflect on that for a moment.Anyone who wants to murder another person needs to gain some sort of "control over their own body" so that they don't commit the heinous sociological behavior of murder.If you have problems with people thusly controlling their own body, if you have problems, therefore, with society asking people to control their bodies under justified penalty of law, you could very easily be branded a sociopath.You may wish to consider the damage done to your reputation by your unresolved past damage that motivates your utilitarian moral relativism.Oh, then I should only leave "your" opinion as the decider that a person begins to live at conception???How narcissistic of you, Mare.I realize that you want to leave science out of it, because you, being the utilitarian moral relativist that you are, despise authorities in general in a oppositional defiant disorder manner and specifically when they disagree with your narcissistic point of view.
But a society of individuals needs rational appeal to reliable methods of discerning fact based truth upon which society appeals to support its civilization.You may narcissistically see individualism as superior to such concepts of collective intelligence, but the reason we're not still runing around in the stoneage, when, by the way, women were very subjugated, is because the overwhelming vast majority, our civilized society, chooses not to let the individualism of neanderthal narcissists rule over the masses as you advocate.The rational appeal to science as modern, evolved humanity's method of determing the fact based truth of reality in this matter is, understandably, superior to your individualism's narcissistic whim.Thus the only one of us who is making a mess of their argument is you, Mare, which you do by excluding science in the matter.Your statement is in histrionic error.No one attempts to "own" another's body merely by asking them under penalty of law not to murder a newly conceived person.
There is simply no "insecurity" to the mother in pregnancy in and of itself, except when the mother's life is truly threatened by the newly conceived person.Inexact and irrelevant.I put the life of the newly conceived person over the convenience of the woman.You put the convenience of the woman over the very life of her newly conceived offspring.That is an exact and thus relevant statement in the matter.What you mean here is that until the newly conceived person is able to be born, you think that it is okay for that person to be murdered if the woman agrees.A truly evolved and civilized society disagrees with you, Mare.Well, there you go, displaying your transference and displacement of those who have "owned" you and your "freedom" in the past, and showing your penis self-hatred of "men" stemming from your transsexuality issues.Your histrionics are understandable ... though they are topically irrelevant.Yes ... your controlled-by issues are obvious ...... And so is your misanthropy.But neither of these are rational ground upon which to base an accurate argument.Deadbeat dads are a separate topic, Mare, irrelevant to this one.The existence of deadbeat dads in no way justifies muderous abortion.That you are blinded by your internalized rage to the reality of it has been made obvious by your own presentation.Your projection here is truly a shame.You'd be the pot calling the kettle black here ... except I don't qualify as a kettle other than in your erroneous world of transference and displacement.Again, topically irrelevant.
None of this in any way shape or form excuses murderous abortion.If you want to talk about these matters, create a separate thread on them, and we can address them to resolution.They are, however, understandably, rrelevant to the topic at hand.

Whoa! Now I realize it, YOU are a POP Psychologist. Your cheap shot attempts to diagnose my situation with no knowledge of GID or of me personally, your public attacks here using your supposed degree in (something), all give lie to your arguments.

An internally raging, but vacillating, narcissitic, misanthropic, sociopath, dysfunctionally displacing and transfering control issues over the behavior of murder, coupled with unresolved past damage that motivates your utilitarian moral relativism, and you despise authorities in general in an oppositional defiant disordered manner and specifically when they disagree with your narcissistic point of view of individualism of neanderthal narcissists rule, and displaying your transference and displacement of those who have "owned" you and your "freedom" in the past, and showing your penis self-hatred of "men" stemming from your transsexuality issues and shame. (That's good sh1t, Chip, you ought to write that down.)

I think I got it all, Chippo, Christ on a crutch! Why do you even post to someone who is as totally (see above) as I am? If I'm all that stuff and you're still arguing with me, then tell me which one of us is the crazier?

One has to admit that you got a lot of pop psych buzz-words in that one post, you tended to repeat yourself though so I didn't put them all in a second or even third time like you did.

Leaving science out it was intended to keep you from trying to bend science to support your religion, that's all, if you want to post scientific proof of all the stuff you called me or that your moral position is correct then I'm okay with that--but it's hard to prove morals with science. I still disagree with you.

 

[top gun]

I remember the US prior to Roe vs Wade in the era of coat hanger wire abortions and numerous other horrifying stories when a woman could not get a legal abortion.

I have traveled through many countries like Saudi Arabia where abortions are strictly illegal, yet women endure the more sadistic and painful procedures to abort unwanted pregnancies. These include excruciatingly painful pushing and the shoving of the mother's abdomen to dislodge the fetus and force a miscarriage.

Just remember, there is not a country or a province in this world where abortions occur on a very regular basis. Its legality or illegality is not a consideration to a desperate woman who is willing to undergo any trauma to abort the baby.

Those who wish to abolish Roe vs. Wade will have the blood and unnecessary death of many young women on their hands if their efforts are successful in outlawing abortions. Oh, yea, the fetus always perishes with the mother.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Your personal knowledge explaining the true situation around the world is very insightful and something others should take into consideration when speaking on this topic.

 

[top gun]

One persons rights cease at the end of his fist and the beginning of another's nose.

Since unborn living humans so often have noses it is logical to apply that.

While this is a good rule of thumb there are multiple and contradictory parallels to be drawn in the circumstance of trying to force someone to carry and deliver a child.

Not the least of which would be... Nothing or no one has a right to forcibly use a woman's body against her will.

 

[Chip]

Whoa! Now I realize it, YOU are a POP Psychologist. Your cheap shot attempts to diagnose my situation with no knowledge of GID or of me personally, your public attacks here using your supposed degree in (something), all give lie to your arguments.

An internally raging, but vacillating, narcissitic, misanthropic, sociopath, dysfunctionally displacing and transfering control issues over the behavior of murder, coupled with unresolved past damage that motivates your utilitarian moral relativism, and you despise authorities in general in an oppositional defiant disordered manner and specifically when they disagree with your narcissistic point of view of individualism of neanderthal narcissists rule, and displaying your transference and displacement of those who have "owned" you and your "freedom" in the past, and showing your penis self-hatred of "men" stemming from your transsexuality issues and shame. (That's good sh1t, Chip, you ought to write that down.)

I think I got it all, Chippo, Christ on a crutch! Why do you even post to someone who is as totally (see above) as I am? If I'm all that stuff and you're still arguing with me, then tell me which one of us is the crazier?

One has to admit that you got a lot of pop psych buzz-words in that one post, you tended to repeat yourself though so I didn't put them all in a second or even third time like you did.

Irrationally and erroneously attempting to demean me with topically substantiveless ad hominems to thereby dismiss my authority in the matter will have no effect on me, Mare, nor will it change the truth of my statements.

Acceptance, Mare, is really for the best.

Leaving science out it was intended to keep you from trying to bend science to support your religion,

As you know, I have no religion, though you insist upon your delusion that I do.

As you know, the science in the opening post is real, accurate and irrefutable, though you obviously wish that it was not.

Your attempt to keep science out of the discussion is because the very science itself is the clinching premise in the argument against murderous abortion, no matter what excuses for murderous abortion you might conjure for your sophistry.

The reason it bothers you, Mare, is because despite your argument's portrayl of you being narcissistic, ODD, and at least a bit sociopathic ... ultimately, deep down, you're not all that selfish in real life ... you just have this thing about being "controlled", which you can't seem to sit alone with, without sucking others, such as the "woman" in this topic, into your drama as co-victim.

that's all, if you want to post scientific proof of all the stuff you called me.

Psychology is as much art as it is science, Mare.

I trust my judgment from both perspectives.

or that your moral position is correct

One does not appeal to science for moral guidance. The appeal to science is for the facts of truth, which I've accurately done.

One appeals to one's heart for moral guidance, and when it comes to involving others, one appeal's to that place in one's heart where we accept that we are not alone.

You have, obviously, appealed only to that part of your mind that sees controlling people everywhere, that part of your mind that thinks its revenge is justified.

I still disagree with you.

I didn't expect you to suddenly agree with me, Mare. Your history would indicate that you are not likely to change your mind.

But, I did expect you to read ... and, you did.

And, what you read, was the truth.

Because what you read is the truth that differs from your thoughts, you will never be the same again, as the truth will begin to set you free ... whether you want it to or not.

Again, acceptance is really for the best.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Irrationally and erroneously attempting to demean me with topically substantiveless ad hominems to thereby dismiss my authority in the matter will have no effect on me, Mare, nor will it change the truth of my statements.Acceptance, Mare, is really for the best.As you know, I have no religion, though you insist upon your delusion that I do.As you know, the science in the opening post is real, accurate and irrefutable, though you obviously wish that it was not.Your attempt to keep science out of the discussion is because the very science itself is the clinching premise in the argument against murderous abortion, no matter what excuses for murderous abortion you might conjure for your sophistry.The reason it bothers you, Mare, is because despite your argument's portrayl of you being narcissistic, ODD, and at least a bit sociopathic ... ultimately, deep down, you're not all that selfish in real life ... you just have this thing about being "controlled", which you can't seem to sit alone with, without sucking others, such as the "woman" in this topic, into your drama as co-victim.Psychology is as much art as it is science, Mare.I trust my judgment from both perspectives.
One does not appeal to science for moral guidance. The appeal to science is for the facts of truth, which I've accurately done.One appeals to one's heart for moral guidance, and when it comes to involving others, one appeal's to that place in one's heart where we accept that we are not alone.You have, obviously, appealed only to that part of your mind that sees controlling people everywhere, that part of your mind that thinks its revenge is justified.
I didn't expect you to suddenly agree with me, Mare. Your history would indicate that you are not likely to change your mind.But, I did expect you to read ... and, you did.And, what you read, was the truth.Because what you read is the truth that differs from your thoughts, you will never be the same again, as the truth will begin to set you free ... whether you want it to or not.Again, acceptance is really for the best.

I've heard of aversion therapy, but what do you call this? Abuse therapy? It reminds me of Army food, a dish called "chipped beef on toast" for which there was a somewhat more colorful nickname among the troops. With that nickname in mind I thought that perhaps you'd like to name your new abuse therapy technique something appropriate like "Chit on a Chingle".

Your verbal diarrhea not withstanding I note that you have reduced all the reasons that more than 3 billion women might have for an abortion down to a single word: convenience. With all your pop psych training, and all your science, and all your experience, don't you think that's just a bit simplistic?

I have to admit to having enjoyed your pop psychological analysis of me since it's hardly what an ethical therapist would resort to without any real substance. Get your training with Siho at Whattsa Matta U?

There's no point you dragging science into this in an attempt to shore up your moralistic viewpoint. Lives end all the time in science, there's no moral valuation placed on dying. Moralizing is left to the churches, lawyers, and individuals--not codified in science texts.

Ad hominems? You are practically the Queen of the Ad Hominems:
An internally raging, but vacillating, narcissitic, misanthropic, sociopath, dysfunctionally displacing and transfering control issues over the behavior of murder, coupled with unresolved past damage that motivates your utilitarian moral relativism, and you despise authorities in general in an oppositional defiant disordered manner and specifically when they disagree with your narcissistic point of view of individualism of neanderthal narcissists rule, and displaying your transference and displacement of those who have "owned" you and your "freedom" in the past, and showing your penis self-hatred of "men" stemming from your transsexuality issues and shame.
and you're giving me grief about them. I've been very reserved in my responses to you.