A Conception's Right To Life

[Mare Tranquillity]

False.There has been no pontification.There has been presentation of scientific fact.Precisely -- that is what has been presented.
It is the "philosophical" opinion of all but a microscopic few of humanity that muder is wrong.Unjustified abortion can be murder.Therefore murderous abortion is wrong.For now.Roe v. Wade's days are, understandably, numbered.
Best would be to prepare for that inevitability ... by accepting that inevitability.No person has the right to "control" their body to commit murder.The horrific and unjust Roe v Wade will be struck down.Which makes it clear you support murder by abortion.Good, then start educating people about murderous abortion, to stop commiting murderous abortion, and to prepare for the comming change in law that will outlaw murderous abortion under the threat of punishment.Erroneous and irrelevant.It is erreoneous in that "pregnant women and children" are not ignored by our culture.It is irrelevant in that your thereby implied excuse does not justify murderous abortion.Your myopia is irrelevant.If given a choice between carrying a child to term or spending many years in prison, only a ***** would choose the latter.There aren't that many morons out there.The number of abortions will drop immediately upon enactment of the new law.Erroneous.If people choose to break the law, they will go to prison.Their encarceration, publicized in the media, will get the attention of anyone refusing to respect the right to life of newly conceived people.There will only need to be a few scoflaws to end murderous abortion.In addition, when women bear unplanned pregnancies it will indeed make the situation better -- it will mean that newly conceived people won't be murdered.That's a far better situation than before.Men and women who participate in sex will understand the new law and they'll make pre-conception adjustments. They will also, as a pleasant byproduct, become more discriminating about whom they choose as partners, more and more they will choose partners with whom they would make a commitment should pregnancy occur.These are all good things.I've been on boards before where many women post in favor of putting an end to murderous abortion.
There are no "evil men" here abusing "angelic women", Mare. You really would do well to drop that victimization.The reason less women post on this thread is two fold: first, they recognize the reality of the science and the truth of the personhood of the pre-natal person, they have actually given birth, and they no better, from experience, to deny the truth of it, and second, because to a great degree most posters on this and most political discussion boards are men.Absolutely untrue, as evidenced by your posts.
Yes, yes, we know, Mare, we know all about your misandry.You really need to give that male self-hatred a rest, Mare -- it gets really old, not to mention that your illusion is topically irrelevant.

It gets to be a mantra doesn't it, Pop? It seems that you all protest too much, if all the stuff you post is true, then abortion will come to a natural end all on its own, the fact that so many have posted so much and with such vitriol makes me think there's more to the discussion than is in plain site. And religious sources are just as unreliable as single-issue secular sources.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Translation: "I, Mare, lied about Chip's rejection of the science I presented about transsexuals."

Oh yeah, and here is the proof of the pudding, from my post #577 on the Siho's Prop 8 thread:

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.

Bockting, W. O., & Fung, L. C. T. (2005). Genital reconstruction and gender identity disorders. In D. Sarwer, T. Pruzinsky, T. Cash, J. Persing, R. Goldwyn, & L. Whitaker (Eds.), Psychological aspects of reconstructive and cosmetic plastic surgery: Clinical, empirical, and ethical perspectives (pp. 207-229). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins.

Clements-Nolle, K. (2006). Attempted suicide among transgender persons: The influence of gender-based discrimination and victimization. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(3), 53-69

De Cuypere G,TSjoen, G., Beerten, R., Selvaggi, G., De Sutter, P., Hoebeke, P., Monstrey, S., Vansteenwegen A., & Rubens, R. (2005). Sexual and physical health after sex reassignment surgery. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(6), 679-690.

Grossman, A. H., D'Augelli, A. R., & Slater, N. P. (2006). Male-to-female transgender youth: Gender expression milestones, gender atypicality, victimization, and parents' responses. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 2(1), 71-92.

Lev, A. I. (2004). Transgender emergence: Therapeutic guidelines for working with gender-variant people and their families. Binghampton, NY: Haworth Press.

Lurie, S.(2005). Identifying training needs of health-care providers related to treatment and care of transgendered patients: A qualitative needs assessment conducted in New England. International Journal of Transgenderism, 3(2/3), 93-112.

Newfield, E., Hart, S., Dibble, S., & Kohler, L. (2006). Female-to-male transgender quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 15(9), 1447-1457.

Spade, D. (2003). Resisting medicine, re/modeling gender. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal, 18(15), 15-37.

Witten, T. M., & Eyler, A. E. (2007). Transgender aging and the care of the elderly transgendered patient. In R. Ettner, S. Monstrey, & A. E. Eyler (Eds.), Principles of Transgender Medicine and Surgery (pp.343-372). New York: Haworth Press.

American Psychological Association. (2008, August). Resolution on transgender, gender identity, and gender expression non-discrimination. Retrieved [date] from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/transgender.html.

Science is only science if it supports your position, right Pop?

 

[palerider]

Maybe, Pale, but I don't have a delicate male ego either, so your jibes don't hurt me.

So the Court has reversed itself, okay, maybe they'll reverse themselves where the slavery of black people is concerned too--but they haven't.

Sorry again mare, but they did referse themselves with regard to blacks.

Just like the Chippo, you won't address the squalid conditions in which so many unwanted babies spend their short lives. I don't blame you, you've got a good schtick going blaming women and making it all their problem. Does it make you feel all cozy and smug? Here you are smiting the sinners hip and thigh, and it costs you nothing! How convenient is that?

Here, once again, your thinking breaks down in practice. You are prepared to kill human beings because they "MIGHT" grow up and live in squalid conditions, but apparently you are not in favor of killing thosw whom we already know live in squalid conditions. Clearly, it is not the squalid conditions that you are against and not the squalid conditions that you believe are a rational justification for kiling another human being.

 

[palerider]

Do you propose the bombing of abortion clinics, mandatory death sentences for any woman who has an abortion, death by dismemberment for any doctor who perfoms abortions, removal of the word abortion from the dictionary, and farrowing cages to keep all pregnant women in so that they cannot possibly self-abort?

History isn't your strong suit either, is it? Before roe, it was doctors who performed abortions who found themselves at odds with the law. The woman was considered to be another victim. The drugs and instruments used in abortion clinics are easiy traced and tracked like any other controband. In fact, we would be much more successful in closing down illegal abortion clinics today than we would have been prior to roe because of computer technology.

The rest of your statement clearly demonstrates that you don't have a clue what free choice means. Any one of us could at any time make a decision to use practically any implement to kill another person. We are not, in fact kept in farrowing cages because of that fact. We are free to kill anyone we want for any reason at any time. After we do the killing, however, we must face the consequences of our actions. If a woman decides to hire a killer to end the life of her child, she is free to do it. If she carries it out, however, there should be consequences to face as with any other killing.

While you're at it you might want to take away women's right to vote and own property too so that you can control them better. Shoot--they might actually out-vote you on the idea of abortion--wouldn't that be a disaster!

More histrionics. Doesn't it embarass you to not be able to rationally defend your position?

 

[palerider]

It won't work, it never has.

Mare, no laws against killing have ever prevented one individual from killing another. The purpose of the law is not to prevent people from killing, it is to provide a means of punishment for those who do it anyway.

Since it is obvious that murder and manslaughter laws don't prevent the acts, are you suggesting that we strike all murder and manslaughter laws from the books? Hell, the laws against arson, assault, theft, vandalism, speeding and jaywalking don't prevent those acts either. Should we strike them as well. Should we strike all laws that don't entirely prevent the act that they make illegal?

Once more, your thinking breaks down in practice.

 

[palerider]

Will "humane incarceration" include the woman's other children? Her husband?

Can you give me even one example of a place where making abortions illegal prevented them? Nuns in convents had abortions despite the full weight of the Roman Catholic Church. Get a grip.

Can you give me one example of a place where making murder illegal prevented murders? Can you give me one example of a place where making theft illegal prevented theft? Can you give me one example of a place where making assault illegal prevented assaults? Of course you can't, and it is because you don't seem to grasp the relationship between the law and free choice. You can go out and break any law that you want. That is your choice. The law is a means by which we punish those who make those choices.

 

[palerider]

Somebody should be able to show me a working model of how your system will work, I'm sure that there are dozens of countries around the world where they have outlawed abortions. Northern Ireland comes to mind, doesn't it?

If you want to see the working model, simply look at the time before roe. Abortions happened, but those who did it faced the penalties of the law. Today, we would be much more effective in closing illegal abortion clinics because of our ability to track specific drugs and equipment.

Whether you like it or not mare, it is coming. Cases are winding their way through lower courts even now that will force the court to consider not a woman's theoretical right, but specifically what, if anything is losing its life when an abortion is performed. The arguments you and other pro choicers have presented are about as good as the pro choice side can present. How do you believe that such arguments will fare in a court of law against the relentless onslaught of science, case law, and legal precedent that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt the humanity and personhood of the unborn?

Even the justices who decided roe admitted that should the personhood of the unborn be proven, that roe would fall because the unborn child would be entitled to the full protection of the 14th amendment without regard to any right that a woman may invoke because the right to live is the most fundamental right that we have.

 

[palerider]

I'll take that crazy emotional UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT decision over your anti-woman clinic creeper ways and be quite comfortable.

Well, it is good to know that you and those like you whose only rational defense of abortion is "its legal" will be out on the streets the day after roe falls supporting the decision of the court. After all, if you trust the court to that extent, rationally, you must agree with everything they decide.

You're soooo beaten it's killin' you! Hey I personally hope you spend the rest of your life throwing good money after bad and just scream your lungs out. Nothing will change... women have their right. [/COLOR]

Perhaps you should examine the decision you respect so reverently. It gives women the right to terminate a potential human being. Consider yourself challenged to present some credible evidence that unborns are potential human beings. Picture yourself in a court of law and prove your claim.

 

[palerider]

How long a prison term do you see for a woman who murders a baby? Tens years? Her children will grow up with no mother, but I'm sure that won't have any impact on them or society. So more prisons and more children in the care of the State. The Republicans will scream about that one. We're gonna need more orphanages, we don't have enough foster care for the children we have now. I have a friend who works in Child Welfare for the State and they are totally overwhelmed with the kids they already have. Taxes are going to go up and I'm willing to be that the quality of care will still be substandard. Of course it's the children who will suffer and not you, so I guess it's still jake, huh?

You seem to assume that all women, or even a large percentage will have abortions anyway. How about you show me some evidence to support that supposition.

No, it's not, you are proposing to do something that has never been accomplished before and I think that an examination of WHY it has always failed before is completely relevant.

It was done successfully prior to roe mare. The number of illegal abortions per year prior to roe was, according to reliable studies done by the CDC, less than 100,000 and that was in an era when it could be reasonably assumed that abortion was not killing a living human being.

 

[palerider]

Answer my questions, men, if you think you can run the world better, then we expect some answers. What is "humane incarceration" and how does it differ from a standard prison?

Standard prison is humane incarceration. Take a look at jails in mexico, south america, and the islamic world if you want to gain an understanding of what inhumane incarceration looks like.

Would men get the same "humane incarceration"?

Accessory laws would apply the same for abortion as they do now.

We know that the children would get the very best of "humane incarceration" as guests of the State. How many years of "humane incarceration" would you require for a woman who murdered her baby?

Personally, I would prefer to see the doctors who perform abortions face the more serious punishment. After all, he can't claim ignorance of the fact that he was killing a human being with intent. I don't know that I would favor incarcerating a woman at all for a first offense. Perhaps community service and mandantory educaton to teach her the reality of what an abortion is. A second offense, however, would be quite different. At that time, she also could not claiim ignorance to the crime she was committing.

As to the length of punishment for doctors who perform abortions? What is the present punishment for hired killers?

 

[palerider]

I looked up your citation: Approximately 50% of all maternal deaths resulted from illegal abortion during the first half of the 20th century

The deaths were due to the fact that there were no modern antibiotics. The numbers fall off radically after the introduction of antibiotics and even pro choice organizations freely admit this now.

Estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 60s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million, even though abortion procedures were unsafe and often life-threatening, in addition to being illegal

Absolutely false. The highest estimates done by credible agencies put the number at under 100,000.

You didn't actually post all the pertinent information, did you? Fifty percent of all maternal deaths, thousands seriously injured, and you want to go back to that?

They were killed and or injured while trying to kill their children.

Tell me mare, how much sympathy do you have for an abusive husband whose wife kills him rather than letting him kill her? Do you advocate that he had the right to treat her as he wished or do you logically say that he should not have been beating her in the first place and he wouldn't have been killed.

I am sorry, but I simply can't work up a whole lot of sympathy for people who get injured or killed while trying to kill a child.

 

[Chip]

It gets to be a mantra doesn't it, Pop?

Erroneous and irrelevant, complete with ad hominem.

The usual post from Mare.

It seems that you all protest too much,

Erroneous.

Me thinks thou dost project too much.

if all the stuff you post is true,

It is.

then abortion will come to a natural end all on its own,

Erroneous false assumption.

You overlook the number of utilitarian moral relativists who do not care that murderous abortion by definition takes the life of the newly conceived person.

You yourself have posted in support of murdering newly conceived people in deference to utilitarian moral relativist whim, so no wonder you don't want the law to protect newly conceived people from the murderous whim of your kind.

These are the people who currently populate prisons now.

If the sociological violations that landed them in prison were not also illegal, they would have been joined in violation by millions and millions more.

Making a sociological violation illegal drastically reduces the number people commiting that violation.

That is the goal here, Mare, not to be concerned with the "welfare" of potential violators, but to be understandably more concerned with preventing as many violations of the right to life of the newly conceived as possible.

The law is required to keep these lowest common denoninators -- utilitarian moral relativists -- from doing whatever they want at the expense of people's very life.

And the law with threat of freedom-restraining incarceration succeeds in so doing, as these LCD utilitarian moral relativists fear losing their freedom to do whatever they want more than anything, sadly, more than respecting the life of others.

the fact that so many have posted so much

Only attests to the fact that so many utilitarian moral relativists had to be put in their erroneous place.

and with such vitriol

Erroneous.

"Vitriol" is your transference and displacement fantasy, Mare, along with some of your usual projection as well.

makes me think there's more to the discussion than is in plain site.

Erroneous.

All the cards are on the table.

This is really all there is to the matter.

Your paranoia, that something's "hidden", only attests to your difficulty in accepting the truth of the matter.

And religious sources are just as unreliable as single-issue secular sources.

Erroneous.

When it comes to determining that a person exists and is alive, religion is not a determiner of those facts. Religion is incapable of making that factually accurate truthful determinating, and religions vary on their unfounded opinion on the matter, making them not only not universal in their appeal, but divisive and conflict generating in their disagreement.

It's all about facts, Mare, the facts of truth.

Science is modern humanity's sole accepted authority with regard to revealing the facts of truth about this matter.

Science's determination that a person begins to live at conception is universally accepted everywhere.

That scientific fact of truth is presently actively pushing Roe v Wade into the dumpster.

It's only a matter of time.

 

[Chip]

Oh yeah, and here is the proof of the pudding, from my post #577 on the Siho's Prop 8 thread:

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.

... ...

American Psychological Association. (2008, August). Resolution on transgender, gender identity, and gender expression non-discrimination. Retrieved [date] from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/transgender.html.

Science is only science if it supports your position, right Pop?

Here you post a list of internet references claiming your mere posting of them reflects my rejection of the science you presented in that thread.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and you know it.

Your lying attempt to assassinate my character has failed.

Here is my acceptance of both the relevant science and you and your acknowledgement of my accecptance, post 199 in that thread and post 208 in that thread respectively.

Thus the matter is settled ... and you stand convicted of deliberately lying to assassinate character ... the character of someone who accepted you for the transsexual you are.

How much lower can you go, Mare.

Now, please stop diverting to irrelevancies, and stay on topic in this thread. Thank you.

 

[palerider]

Tell me Chip. Why do you suppose that people who are losing arguments so often resort to using "nicknames" or using some "cute" derivative or distortion of their opponent's screen name? I notice a great deal of that among those that argue the pro choice side.

 

[Chip]

Tell me Chip. Why do you suppose that people who are losing arguments so often resort to using "nicknames" or using some "cute" derivative or distortion of their opponent's screen name? I notice a great deal of that among those that argue the pro choice side.

Emotional immaturity.

In this case, the utilitarian moral relativist indeed behaves like a freedom-loving child, a child who immaturely wants whatever he or she wants whenever he or she wants it without regard to the consequences, in this case, the consequences being the deadly damage their freedom-at-any-price attitude to do whatever they want whenever they want costs the newly conceived person.

Similar to emotionally immature children, when they receive information from the messenger that they simply cannot behave so abusively, trampling at whim the rights of others to get whatever they want whenever they want it, then, as emotionally immature children sometimes do, they react by attacking the messenger, throwing, in effect, a temper tantrum, complete with name-calling, a trademark of upset immature children who obstinately refuse to behave respectfully.