Science & Technology

Rant

Personhood

Posted 6 months ago|52 comments|487 views
Are All of These Persons?
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
In Mississippi there is a measure on the ballet that would grant a fetus personhood. It is expected that there will be similar proposals in other states too. This proposition would define a fertilized egg as a person protected by all of the legal rights of the Constitution. http://floridaindependent.com/54147/feta...

This law could allow police to prosecute a woman for murder for using an IUD or other birth control devise, that prevents a fertilized egg from seating in the uterus.

The courts have already granted corporations personhood. Guaranteed all of the equal rights of the 14th amendment to the Constitution and has ruled that their right to lobby (bribe) lawmakers and to influence (buy) elections are protected by the first amendment. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read...

Now PETA is suing Sea World for protection of whales under the 13th amendment of the constitution. "Our understanding of animals grows every day. Animals are no longer regarded as "things" to dominate, but as breathing, feeling beings with families, dialects, intellect, and emotions. Just as we look back with shame at a time when we enslaved other humans and viewed some people as property less deserving of protection and consideration, we will look back on our treatment of these animals with shame. The 13th Amendment exists to abolish slavery in all its forms — and this lawsuit is the next step." http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/con...

So if a collection of cells can be considered a person, and if an inanimate organization can be considered a person, can a whale be considered a person and given the protection of the Constitution?

What about our primate near relatives? Ko Ko the gorilla has all of the emotions we have, She has a vocabulary of 1000 words and can communicate quite clearly. She is said to have the intelligence of a 6 year old human child. Shouldn't she have the same Constitutional rights of a human child? http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/koko-the-...

Cetaceans (Whales and Dolphins) Also have feelings and emotions as we do. They are very intelligent and have names for other dolphins and even speak in the third person of other dolphins by name when talking to others. http://creation.com/deep-secrets-cetacea...

Cetaceans have a larger brain relative to their bodies than humans do. They may even be more intelligent than we (So Long and Thanks for All of the Fish). So should they be granted personhood?

To consider these questions one must step into the subjective world of moral relativity.

Yes a fertilized human egg is a living human entity but is it a person? There is the potential for this collection of cells to become a person – If it is seeded successfully in the uterus, and if it isn't expelled for some reason, and makes it through birth, then it is considered a person. But obviously the fetus can be considered a person earlier than birth, because the baby can be removed by C-Section and survive.

Roe V. Wade declared that a woman's rights take precedence, and that the fetus has no rights until after the 24th week. The court ruled that the 24th week established viability, or that this is the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person. Even if taken out of the woman a fetus before this stage cannot survive. Later viability was moved back to 22 weeks. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortio...

Religious conservatives reject the viability standard and consider any fetus a person that should be afforded the same rights as an adult. In some cases conservatives grant the fetus greater status than adult mother. The "Protect Life Act" overrides the requirement that ER doctors treat every patient and do what's necessary to save the patient's life,— the Act allows doctors to refuse necessary care to a pregnant woman if that care will kill the fetus. They can refuse to save the life of the mother to protect the fetus. http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/20...

Scientists have found that they can take almost any cell from different parts of the body and grow new body parts. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/...

With human cloning techniques scientists will soon have the ability to clone humans from skin cells. http://www.globalchange.com/clonech.htm

Does that mean that every skin cell that is sloughed off from the body should be granted personhood because it has the potential to become another human being?

Religious conservatives think that a collection of cells has the same rights as adult humans, but they also think that some adult humans are worth more than other humans. Most wouldn't hesitate to blow someone away with their gun if someone looked threatening to them, or broke into their house. Recently Israel demonstrated that a Palestinian human is only worth about 1/1000th of an Israeli human, when they traded 1000 violent Palestinian prisoners in exchange for one Israeli soldier.

Most religious conservatives don't consider the deaths of innocent Muslims to be of any value. They consider Americans to be worth more than people from any other country. They consider Christians to be worth more than non Christians.

So the religious conservatives have no problem with moral relativity with grown people. They think those on death row, those who are threatening, those of other religions, and even those with different political philosophies (liberals and socialists) are worthy of death, but they are not willing to consider the well being of a pregnant woman and consider her to be less important than her unborn fetus.

So where would everyone fit on the morally relative yardstick of conservatives if the fetus is rated #1 and the woman 2, and corporations 3, and bad guys probably around 5, and liberals about 6, and killers 8-9, and Muslims about 12, and Muslim bad guys back around a hundred, and Muslim killers a thousand.

Where on that moral worth yardstick would Orcas be? Where would our Jungle brothers the great apes be? Where would Chimpanzees who are even closer to humans on the genetic scale be?
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
6 months ago: Al.

Good thing you liberals/statists know everything.

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
6 months ago: "...liberals about 6..."

That's a bit high. ;-)
6 months ago: "Religious conservatives....Most wouldn't hesitate to blow someone away with their gun if someone looked threatening to them, or broke into their house"

Al,

Suppose someone broke into your house in an attempt to murder and kill. Would you hesitate to take them out first given the opportunity or allow them to slaughter your family? If you would not defend and protect, if you would actually watch that happen, do you think you are much of a man?

6 months ago: As far as personhood: When a woman is pregnant, she should be considered to be "with child."

Any healthy couple, when preganancy arrives, is a time of rejoicing not doom and gloom. If it is doom and gloom, that just goes to show you that something is terribly wrong in that particular relationship.

That perception in itself will keep people from devaluing human life.

Abortion is legal. True. Now deal with the ramifications as they really are and stop playing mental gymnastics in order to salve a gulty conscience.

The problem is that humankind is constantly looking for ways to devalue life, so they can take advantage of and exploit one another.

I really don't think people would jump from sexual encounter, to sexual encounter if they at least had in their thinking that if a preganacy occurs, we are now dealing with a new, unique life being brought into the equation.

http://www.rantrave.com/Rave/Abortion-Fa...

However when folks are thaugh they they are just animals and believe that lie, anything goes. Anything goes, even that which is sick and morally reprehensible.

Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
6 months ago: "with child"

~~Are you 150 years old? That was the last time that terminology was used regularly (other than by southern, religious, right wing whackjobs).
6 months ago: The term was sticken due to the ramifications which it presents.

Folks can't mis-understand that or play games with it. Has nothing to do with scientific discovery. That's why the venacular is no longer comtemporary.

Back in the day (less than 150 years ago, I might add), the "baby bump" represented that a female was soon to become a mother. Now doctors will eliminate that "bump" for the most capricious of reasons and say they are not eliminating the life of an un-born child.

That's my point.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
6 months ago: We have dramatically differing opinions on when life begins; yours is based on religious morality mine is based on science (as I am not bound by the thoughts of a fictional book/man in a robe). We are never going to agree on this issue. I have no issue with a state passing a law that makes abortion illegal or defines a fetus as a person...the issue would be if the Federal Government tried to do this (it is a direct endorsement of Christianity and Christian belief which is UnConstitutional).

I respect your right to think that life begins at conception, the difference is that people of the religious right don't often respect the beliefs of others who think differently than they do.
6 months ago: "We have dramatically differing opinions on when life begins; yours is based on religious morality mine is based on science"

No. My opinion is based on both.
6 months ago: when life begins or when life is viable outside the womb? Ponder that one PfectSheet. It ain't a hard question.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
6 months ago: Person-hood requires a consciousness about self awareness. This requires a fully functional brain to develop the cognizant recognition of one self as a person. Mississippi is a backwoods hick state...let them do what they want at the state level...it's not like any normal people live there anyways.
6 months ago: "Person-hood requires a consciousness about self awareness."

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I beg to differ. An adult who is brain dead is still a person. There is no need have a 100% functional brain in order to cosidered alive or to consider one to be a person.

http://mixingmemory.blogspot.com/2005/03...

Many Azlheimer's patients can have severely limited or no self-awareness at times. Are they next on the list to abort?

In my opinion when a woman is preganant, she is the bearer of a life that is distinct, and unque from her body. Biology backs that up.

You and I both know where we stand on this, so I'm keeping it short.

Abortion is a legal right, but when you look at the majority of reasons why it is practiced, it is still wrong.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
6 months ago: A person with Alzheimer's was already a person. A fetus in the first trimester is not and has never been a person.

"it is still wrong"

~~You are not my moral authority. You have no right to tell me or anybody else that doing something that is legal that they are wrong. If that is your mindset perhaps you would be better served living in Iran.
6 months ago: "You are not my moral authority"

Correct. Nor you mine. Nor have I attempted to put myself in that position.

But right is still right and wrong is wrong.
6 months ago: If it were legal right to steal, or commit drive by shootings, it would still be wrong.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
6 months ago: By trying to tell people who have no moral issue with abortion that it is wrong, you are imposing your morality on me...I have no interest in it. If you think abortion is wrong there is a simple solution: Don't get an abortion! Similarly the same logic can be applied to gay marriage...if you don't like it don't marry a gay...that is the extent to which you or anyone else has the right to impose your religious (oppressive) morals on other people.
6 months ago: It's not a matter of imposition. It's a matter of recognition.
6 months ago: See, the problem with moral relativism is that it is inherently irrational.

Take Nazi germany for example. At the time, the government had it so that it was not just legal, but it was the mandate to kill Jews.

That was WRONG, yet many felt that it was right. The excuse I was just following orders is a smoke screen.

Right is still right and wrong is still wrong.

If I broke the law and hid Jews in my basement, I did what was right, even though the goverement says I am wrong.

So in saying it is wrong to send Jews, or any innocent person for that matter, to the gas chamber, I am not imposing my morailty on anyone. I am simply stating what should be obvious.

Just becuase one has no moral issue with doing what wrong, that still does not make it right regardless of what the government says.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
6 months ago: There is a big difference between murdering innocent Jews in Nazi Germany and removing an unwanted parasitic cell from your body. It is not alive. It is not a human being during the first trimester. There is nothing wrong with having an unwanted tumor or mole removed from the body...it's no different during first trimester abortions. Your religious beliefs tell you to think differently and that is your CHOICE. However the Constitution of the United States of America prevents you from trying to govern me using your religious (as benign or oppressive as they may be) beliefs. If you don't like abortion don't get one.
6 months ago: Last time I looked, I hadn't sumitted any legislation to Congress.

So guess what? I'm not trying to govern you, okay? I just trying to help you to understand the difference between right and wrong.

This issue transcends both religion and politics.

Whether you like it or not, or admit it or not, eliminating a "baby bump" for convenience is a legal right, but it is still wrong.

6 months ago: "Your religious beliefs tell you to think differently..."

Wrong again. Common sesnse tells me to think differently.

Atheists & Agnostics for Life

Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians

Secular Pro-Life

Seems like I'm not alone either.
6 months ago: ..."removing an unwanted parasitic cell from your body"...which you chose to plant within your own Person-hood consciousness ...
6 months ago: The Supreme Court says Corporations are Persons...Do they have a consciousness?
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
6 months ago: Some good comments there. I respect Huey for protecting the lives of Jews. That demonstrates an appreciation of all life, so for Huey One Palestinian life would equal one Israeli life, one Muslim would equal one Christian.

The belief of the personhood of the fetus is then understandable but it should have equal value of the mother. We liberals think that the life of the mother should be given preference to the blastula, because as Huey says, consciousness and self awareness certainly increases the value of life.

Gorillas, Cetaceans, and also elephants, cephalopods, pigs, and some other animals, demonstrate self awareness and intelligence. They demonstrate feelings of loss and familial love. They are like us in many ways - just to a lesser degree. So we value them less than we value humans because of that degree of difference.

Why do we not eat our dogs and other pets and place them in pet cemetaries? It is because we feel close to them. I think that if we were to get to know how similar primates are to people we would value them more.

Huey said that an adult who is brain dead is still a person. I disagree. Almost anyone can be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means but when they are declared brain dead they are declared legally dead. They are no longer persons and they can pull the plugs.

Similarly a blastula which has not developed a nervous system yet, can obviously not have self consciousness or self awareness. How can that bundle of cells be considered equal to the adult mother who has all of the memories and hopes?

In my relative yardstick the blastula would have worth but come far behind the gorillas, whales and other animals. As the fetus developed and became viable it would also gain in value, but even if it was a choice between a late term fetus and a grown mothers life, I think the mother would still have more value because of her self awareness memories etc.

Fortunately late term abortions never happen any more because they can simply deliver the baby by c-section.

As Huey said the pregnancy and birth should be an occasion of joy. That is why liberals care about the quality of life. If a woman is raped, the pregnancy would be revulsive and the baby might be hated. If there is incest or if the baby is found to have some terrible disease then an abortion in the 1st trimester should be an option.

Liberals don't think abortions should be undertaken as birth control and we think the quality of life of the mother and the kids should be maximized. If a woman already has 6 kids who are starving to death and she knows that another will place additional burdens and may not survive, then she should also have that option.

Even better she should have had education and access to birth control so she could have avoided that pregnancy. Alternatives to abortion are always preferred.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
6 months ago: 1 second ago: "Alternatives to abortion are always preferred." I agree.

However, would that it were true.

There are organizations out there that actually DO NOT want the alternatives to be first. These groups are actually outraged that other groups exist that will attempt to talk women out of abortions.

The majority of these groups do not use "scare tactics" either. They are concerend about the family and use care and common sense in order to help the mother and her unborn child. That's the way it is supposed to be.

If anyone doesn't believe me, just do your homework.

Supporters of the genocidal group Planned Parenthood being on the top of the list.

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
6 months ago: Scott Peterson was tried and convicted, under California's fetal homicide law, for the murder of his unborn child. It's murder when someone else chooses to end that unborn life, but when the mother decides to kill her own baby, it suddenly becomes a non-person.

In 2004, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was passed, mirroring California's law. 36 states recognize the rights of a fetus to be protected from bodily harm. Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code reads:

Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—

(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.


Try as they might, scholars who argue that this somehow is not in direct conflict with Roe v. Wade have not convinced me. Anyone care to take a stab at it?


6 months ago: Don't hold your breath Box.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
6 months ago: Anyone?
6 months ago: Not from Texas...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive...

HARRIS CO., Texas, November 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Texas appellate court has upheld its ruling that affirms the personhood of an unborn child who was murdered along with its mother.

Jacob Eguia, who was convicted of the capital murders of a woman and her nearly eight months gestation unborn child, challenged the court's ruling on several points. He argued that finding him guilty of the unborn child's death violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Art. I, Sec. 6 of the Texas Constitution, which bars giving preference by law to a religion.

In the Texas Penal Code, as the court noted, "'Person' means an individual," and "individual" may refer to "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth"; and "'death' includes, for an individual who is an unborn child, the failure to be born alive."
6 months ago: This is a wonderful philosophical question. It is not a question that science can answer. We say that animals are aware because they react to a stimulus. And we say that people are self-aware because people can evaluate information and make survival choices from that evaluation.

Life, in all its manifestations, makes effort to survive, animals do this and whales and people. But what test can we create so we can be sure the individual thing we test is self-aware? That it can know good choice from bad, good from evil, that it can make choices that effect its companions toward the good?

You can't do it with a small handful of cells that has not yet developed eyes and ears. Clearly this proposed law is another effort to control the life of woman, to reduce her pregnant choices and bring her under the iron glove of the state.
6 months ago: The devaluation of human life is the problem.

Less than 2% of abortions take place due to rape, incest or abuse. So that means 98% of the abortions that take place are abortions of convenience to the involved parties.

"Liberals don't think abortions should be undertaken as birth control.."

That's a joke. Abortion on demand for any reason is exactly what the vast majority of Liberals endorse.

Like I stated in a previous post:

"When is the last time you heard - "I EXECUTED my 4 month in-utero baby due to the fact that I did not feel my income was sufficient to support her."

Or

"My boyfriend and I agreed to have THE BABY DESTROYED and removed from my body because we never intended to have a child and this would just complicate things too much."

If you ever do hear statements like that, at least you would know you were dealing with honest people. Killers, yes. But honest.

The reason I say they are honest, is because at least they would be admitting that they are destroying life based upon their own selfish convenience.

There are other folks who faced with the exact same circumstances, take the exact same actions, and then try to absolve their consciences by acting like what they did was not morally reprehensible

Bottom line is that when abortions occur for any capricious reasons or whim, it just shows moraly degaraded and depraved a culture has become. A lost generation.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
6 months ago: It is true that 93 % of abortions are for Social Reasons. 7% are for "hard" reasons, like the health of the mother, rape and incest.

So how can we best reduce abortions? Do the same exact things Planned Parenthood does.
Social Reasons (given as primary reason) and how to minimize.
- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%,
Education and access to birth control
- Feels she can't afford baby 23%,
jobs and social programs, education and access to birth control
- Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%, education and access to birth control
- Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%,
education and access to birth control
- Feels she isn't mature enough 7%
education and access to birth control
- Interference with education/career plans 4%
education and access to birth control
- Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%

- Other reasons <6.5%
TOTAL: 93%

By trying to outlaw Planned Parenthood Conservatives are increasing the likelihood of abortions 97%. 97% of the things planned parenthood does is education and access to birth control, and affordable health care for women that otherwise couldn't afford care.
6 months ago: Al? Are you saying that Planned Parenthood only aborts 7 out of 100 pregnancies that walk into their system? Really? They help 93 out of 100 to term?
6 months ago: I think the point is, that without the programs planned parenthood has, there would be far more unwanted pregnancies occurring. How many unwanted pregnancies have been avoided through the Planned Parenthood programs? How many pregnancies have been carried to term that otherwise may not have been because the Planned Parenthood programs changed the status and position of the mother before she got pregnant?

Maybe we need to explore those issues a bit more.
6 months ago: Edward P...explore this...how many abortions has Planned Parenthood performed since it was established? You want to grab a number out of your hat since Planned Parenthood will not release that number. Take a wild guess of the amount of blood on Planned Parenthoods hands. 10 million? 20 million? 30 million? 40 million? 50 million?

Explore the truth. Your tax dollars have been paid without your approval to fund 50+ million abortions. I for one will not allow that blood to be placed on my hands.

You want to pay for an abortion out with your own personal money? Fine. Don't use my tax dollars. Period.

Fund it yourself and take full credit for the blood on your hands if and when you stand before the Almighty which you don't believe in....

I'm out...
6 months ago: While your exploring... you might want to explore the legal definition of Conspiracy.

You don't have to be an "active" party. If you condone the "act" your still subject to the Conspiracy law.
6 months ago: Are there any Attorney's on this site that want to argue the fact that the law says...

A person that is not an active party to the act but does not release themself from the act in an outward display prior to or during the act... is a co-conspirator to the act.
6 months ago: I would rather see the tax dollars go to legitimate education, adoption agencies, foster homes, counselors, support groups, direct support of the mothers, etc.

Anywhere other than to those murderous butchers who would kill our future leaders.
6 months ago: So what about the war dead in Iraq and Afghanistan? I would venture a guess that those endeavors have the same degree of legitimacy as the activities of Planned Parenthood. Are all those who stood back and did not disavow those actions also guilty in those actions?

6 months ago: Iraq and Afghanistan? You can equate that to Planned Parenthood? Please elaborate. I for one see no correlation.
6 months ago: Believing one comes from the accidental evolution of a single celled organism or that humanity is simply the offshoot of monkey-primate ancestors is no excuse for the devaluation of HUMAN life. PERIOD.

Unfortunately some folks still want to live and act like animals, so this is the type of life philosophy that is born from that mindset and ends up making a mother's womb the most dangerous place on the planet.

That's not the way it's supposed to be.

Blastula? With humans, it makes it a lot easier to deal with the destruction thereof rather than saying "baby on the way" or "the genesis of human life" doesn't it.

The main criminal here is the man. Some may disagree with me, but I believe it's the man or Adam's fault ultimately.

If men would step up and be who God has created them to be, we would not have this mess.

Men are to lead, set an example and protect the family. Unfortunately we have a bunch of monkey boys who want to nail every female they can find and take zero responsibility. We are actually teaching men to do this in American society.

America teaches its men to be perpetual adolescents as long as possible. All you have to do is look at the array of sitcoms that are targeted to men, or check out the commercials that air during sporting events, or watch the trailers of the current array of sex romp and action adventure movies. The spillover is all around us.

Rather than step up, many men still want to play the part of the wild animal or "alpha" and abdicate their responsibility and have relationships with as many females as possible. This is applauded. The man is even called a stud. Yet another animalistic term.

The majority of abortions are even performed by men. I want to vomit just thinking about that sad fact.

It all goes back to the root of one's thinking.

If people were taught to see themselves as valuable, a unique creation that has characteristics and a make up that puts them light years ahead of anything on this planet, they would act like it. Instead they are taught that cannot be expected to have but so much self control (especially when it comes to sexual appetite) and that when trouble comes you can get bailed out or find a convenient escape hatch.

When boys become men we won't have a post like this containing a thread of excuses as to why we should be allowed to kill our babies.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
6 months ago: I think Huey is right there the fault is with men. If women had control of their own bodies they would have far fewer babies and those they did have would have a much better quality of life. The problem is that men make the laws that stone a woman to death for being raped, and the same mindset is trying to set up an American Sharia law that would criminalize doctors that try to save the life of a woman by removing a fetus that threatens a woman's life.

That should be something between a woman and her doctor and should not be determined by big government intrusion.

If women had their way they would not have sex nearly as often as they do. In Africa there is an epidemic of rape and it has become a commonly used terrorist tactic. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opin...

They think that raping a virgin will cure their aids so thousands of children are raped. Then if the pregnancy comes to term the girl is ripped apart because their little bodies are not developed enough to give birth, resulting in fistula. http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2005/con...

Conservatives in the US prevented any foreign aid to these nations if that aid would be used for sex education or birth control. When they did allow condoms it was only for people at risk (aids). http://www.globalization101.org/news1/bi...

But this isn't only in Africa, the religious attitudes towards women that they have to be obedient to their husbands, results in many cases of domestic rape. The attitude of the conservative culture, that it is the Men who must lead and tell everyone what to do, results in sexual abuses all over the US. One fourth of the women in the US have been sexually abused. http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domest...

Conservative men consider women Chatel to be used and abused and then they are the ones that intrude in their bedrooms and personal lives. There should be a law that only women can make laws restricting the constitutional rights of women.
6 months ago: Hey Al. Women do have control of their own bodies. Maybe just maybe they should close their gates instead of granting free tokens for all rides on the 1+ lane. Hummmm.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
6 months ago: Come on Al. The large part of these women make the chioce for something to be inserted into their bodies. That was a "Choice". Now you claim they have no Choice? You say that because they allowed something to happen they have no responsibility? None? Zip? Nada?

Let's just allow them to rip what they helped plant from their garden. Tear it out by the stems, break the limbs, piece by piece all the way down to the root.

AH? The "Root"? Not likely using your logic.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
6 months ago: Aside from the unresolved argument of morality and religious dogma, what gives you the right to tell another person what they can or cannot do with their body? Isn't liberty what you tea party nuts are all about???
6 months ago: Yep. You be right. Liberty for All. Including those that can't scream liberty for me...

Dumb arse....
6 months ago: Nooooooo, don't give them ideas like that !
6 months ago: Al,

You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

"If women had control of their own bodies they would have far fewer babies and those they did have would have a much better quality of life"

They do have control of their own bodies. The men are the bullies yet at the same time if females cross their legs and say NO, that's be the end of the story unless a crime is committed against them.

Once a woman is pregnant, the issue is no longer "control of her own body." Biologically speaking, what is growing inside the womb is a unique individual with her own genetic code, blood type and heart beat. The baby is dependent on the mother but a distinct individual. The "her own body" argument is a weak, and sad excuse. How many times do I have to convey that before it finally sinks in?

"If women had their way they would not have sex nearly as often as they do."

That's rubbish, especially here in America. Women use sex to have power over men. All too often women end up on the losing end because of poor choices. That's too bad. However, innocent babies caught in the middle should not have to pay the price for irresponsible adults' behavior.

Also Al, you love to broad stroke and generalize. I thought by now you would have matured out of that when debating. That tactic weakens your arguments tremendously every time you employ it. It's may be good for trolling but stinks when it comes to winning arguments.

Top say ALL Conservatives consider women to chatel is an outright lie. Both Liberal and Conservative men have a tendency to be pigs or knuckle dragging monkey boys if you will. Politics has nothing to do with it. Sin is the issue and the Liberals sin just as much as the Conservatives whether you want to admit it or not.

There are only a miniscule amount of abortions that take place because of situations like rape and health of the mother. Yet those two excuses are used to justify the millions of abortions that take place each year outside of those specific circumstances. It's amazing how certain folks can be so hard headed not to understand or dismiss that fact.

I am glad that people are beginning to wake up. The abortion industry is doomed. The abortion industry's grassroots support is slipping even at a time when its power and resources have reached their zenith.

Women are beginning to understand that they are being lied to and exploited. More women are going to term with babies that the so-called physicians would have killed off in the past. More women are witnessing the physical and psychological devastation that their friends are going through due to having killed their babies. Despite what is shown in the media, more young girls are holding on to their virginity and waiting rather than becoming statistics for the Liberal agenda.

The abortion industry is doomed. Its ultimate demise will not be brought about by legislation; however that is a valid tactic. The demise will be brought about by women and men waking up to the truth and folks finally coming to grips with the reality of what this abominable industry is actually doing to our families.

Right now however, there are people out there continuing to attempt to hide thetruth so that they can control women, control population and make tons of cash in the process.

The abortion industry cares nothing for the rights of women. That's a sham and a lie. All they want to do is line their pockets with cash made from the blood of aborted babies. That's sick and it is coming to an end whether certain people like it or not.

You are right Al - we cannot serve God and Mammon. The abortion industry worships mammon and to the chagrin of many, its days are numbered.
6 months ago: BINGO!
6 months ago: Hey Huey. Have you seen that huge 6 story Planned Parenthood building on the Gulf Freeway in Houston? Should I send you pictures? I wonder what PAYs the light bill...along with the other bills...
6 months ago: I for sure don't want to. If there is funding it should be strictly from private donations.
There are plenty of other organizations out there that actually care about the mother and her child.

Take your pick.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/people/whol...

Abortion is not at the forefront of their thinking and they are not looking to make a fast buck exploiting and mis-educating women.

The Liberal mind-set is one that is very limited in its scope. It claims to have the compassion of Jesus Christ, yet at the same time it seeks to control people and tell them what they think is best for the group regardless of what is actually in the best interest of the individual or the family. It always seems to play out like that.

For instance why has TB's Rant/Rave regarding down's children delivery not seen any attention from the Pro-Choice camp?

http://www.rantrave.com/Rave/I-am-the-10...

Because it does not fit the Pro-Choice/Death agenda, that why. They could care less. That camp would prefer these children be aborted because it keeps the issue much cleaner and black and white in their thinking. The don't want women to see these babies as potential objects of love. They want them to see them as obstacles that will limit and infringe on their quality of life.

The sins of this nation are steadily catching up with it. Certain folks want to pick and choose which sins to fight rather than condemning them all. When the trumpet sounds, I'm glad I won't be in their shoes.
6 months ago: A collection of cells may be found in a Petri dish, may be taken from the trunk of a tree, or might be swabbed saliva. These all and equally are alive. So too is a collection of cells within the womb of a mammal. Hey good.

The question arises, when does a collection of cells develop enough complexity so it acts and reacts as a whole, so its leg experiences heat, send a nerve impulse to its head, which computes and sends a responsive impulse to move away from the heat? Well, it can't happen with a round, sphere-like collection of cells. Does it happen in the 3rd month, the 5th, the 9th?

If we do solve this question then we come against the REAL question. When does a human body become aware -- that it is a human being? This one has baffled philosophers for a long time and it isn't a question we can expect law makers to answer. They can decree legal and illegal, but they can not decree an act of God.
6 months ago: "but they can not decree an act of God."

Nor should they abort it.

"Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you..."

It's a moral question more than a legal one.

If an individual sees their pregnant mate as the carrier of a parasite, that's presents one set of morals values. When an individual sees their mate as the carrier of a gift from Almighty God, you are dealing with a whole other set of morals and values.

Personally I choose not to play God and delineate a point after conception where I can go in and destroy what He has begun. This is not to be done particularly with regard to my own twisted and sinful feelings or in the desire for individual comfort and convenience. I choose to live on a higher level than that.

The longer I live, the more I see and understand how sick and fallen our world has become. God help us.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.