Abortion Drives Bigger Wedge Between Red And Blue States

The gap between states supporting liberty and personal morality vs those promoting greater state control of wombs has grown.

* Coincidentally, seven of the eight are listed on the Wall Street Journal's "America’s Worst-Educated States" posted at Fox Business.

 

They must think that killing a human being is wrong because they are uneducated. Good one. Sick burn bro.

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: SLUR REMOVED >>>

 

No, that would merely mean they shared a common morality. To justify extreme government control from the instant of conception, they must think that an insentient, microscopic zygote is an actual person.

Their lack of education may be coincidental as I noted. Still, an understanding of the gestative process during which a human being does develop might mollify their statist affinity.



.

 

1. It makes it kind of hard for "libertarians" to say "I want Government off our backs...and into THEIR wombs". Or to talk about "shrinking the size and scope of Government....so that it fits in a uterus."

2. Abortion backfires on the GOP. Works great with their Base....but soon as they get a Todd "legitimate rape" Akin or a Richard "Pregnancy from rape is God's plan" in a General Election.....easy wins for Republicans turn into Democratic victories.

 

How does opposing the murder of a human being equate to advocating "extreme government control" in your estimation? What metric are we using for "extreme" here?
A zygote is a human being. Once unique DNA appears and replication begins, a new life is present. Any other definition for the starting point of life is arbitrary and unscientific. So thinking "that an insentient, microscopic zygote is an actual person" is correct unless you have some self serving definition for "actual person" as opposed to human being.

You would benefit from following your own advice. A developmental stage is not something separate from a human life. An embryo is no less a human being than an infant, child, adolescent, adult, or geriatric. They are all stages in a continuous process.

 

I'm no "libertarian", but I'm pretty sure killing people for convenience is wrong in most societies.

 

Why do you feel it necessary to be dishonest? We are not discussing "the murder of a human being" because terminating an embryonic life form within one's own womb is not "the murder of a human being." Why do you wish to impose your personal notion upon everyone rather than respect US law and and those who follow their moral values when it does not conflict with the law?

The gestative process is a continuum. Conception and birth are its extremes. Zealots who insist that a person suddenly appears at the instant a sperm penetrates an egg's wall as well as any zealots who insist that a person does not come into existence until the moment of birth are both, by definition, "extremists."

Sensible folks recognize that a person develops as the gestative process progresses - when sentience and viability are achieved. That vast majority of Americans are not "extremists."

Nevertheless, folks are free to harbour whatever deviant ideas suit them. What they cannot be permitted to do is use the coercive power of the State to inflict them upon the vast majority who do not share those eccentric views.

 

Is it? By what metric, to use your quantification term?

The fact that it is not an inert matter is not in dispute. what makes it significant is and again by what metric?

Bu the issue is not the starting point of that life but its significance.
A hose starts with a hole in the ground, yet no one calls it a house.

It is obvious that the only self serving definition is yours.

No one claimed it was separate, so there is not need to introduce diversions.

Really? By what metric? An infant and so on, have organs and sustain their own life functions, does the zygote?

So what, stages are not the issue.

 

I'm pretty sure that a human ovum one second after fertilization is not a "person".

 

Right, so we will be seeing pro-life protesters outside of IVF clinics soon then, and legislation being proposed to end all chimera twin separation operations .. or is it more truthful to say that it isn't really about "protecting the unborn" more about controlling people.

IVF clinics fertilize numerous ova and yet only some are implanted, others are frozen or offered to infertile women .. still others are simply labeled as a bio hazard and destroyed, where is your indignation on that .. after all they meet your criteria of having unique DNA and replication.

Chimera twins start of as single fertilized ova, which according to you makes them and "actual person", they meet all your criteria, and yet the submissive twin is regularly removed (and dies) and not for any life threatening items towards the dominant twin .. where is your indignation on that.

and trying to use science to defend your opinion is just a joke .. tell me does a blastocyst meet the scientific criteria to be a human organism?

 

Ummmm.

American laws do not support your claims.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (an several States Fetal Homicide Laws) actually do say that a "child in the womb" is "a human being" and that the illegal killing of a "child in the womb" is a crime of murder.

Does that change your opinions any?

 

This? "terminating an embryonic life form within one's own womb is not "the murder of a human being."

Yes they absolutely do.

And the UVVA excludes abortion.

 

It's true that the UVVA (for now) allows abortions to remain legal.

However...

The UVVA defines a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and as a member of the human species.

True or False?

The UVVA makes the illegal killing of a "child in the womb" a crime of "murder."

True or False.

 

It doesn't make abortion murder.

 

I know. I agree that it doesn't.

But that's not what I asked you about.

Is it.

 

Given that the Act specifically excludes legal abortion in noting that it is not to "be construed to permit the prosecution of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child," it does not transfer a woman's control of her own womb to the State before her fetus reaches the stage of sentience and viability, so it respects her reproductive rights.


Maximal statist wish politicians to seize control of the womb from the instant of conception. I would not surrender to any government the power to order the fate of that zygote, one way or another.

 

Here's why...

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+m...ling+Roe+and+fetal+homicide+laws.-a0250470479

 

I understand your opinions completely.

But that (above) is not what I was asking you about.

You claimed that a child in the womb is not "a human being" and that it's not "murder" to kill one.

I will concede that elective abortions are (for now) legal.... However, you have yet to concede that the laws do in fact say it's a child, that killing it in a criminal act is "murder" - etc.

Why can't you do that?

 

Will you please just answer my questions?


The UVVA defines a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and as a member of the human species.

True or False?

The UVVA makes the illegal killing of a "child in the womb" a crime of "murder."

True or False?

 

As expected, your regular misrepresentation tripe right on cue.

 

Because it a fetus was in fact deemed to be a human being, then ALL privileges of a human being would apply, but obviously they do not, even if we do not take abortion into consideration. Now why can;t you admit to that reality?

 

True and True, but only in the context of assault on the woman. You are ignoring the context, and that is very important to the meaning of words.

 

this provision proves your claim that the UVVA is limited to the context of an assault on the woman is false.

This provision makes it clear that it is a crime against the 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 (murder), 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. "

 

How can an attack on the...
"(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."

...NOT be in the context of an assault on the woman?

 

I said that "terminating an embryonic life form within one's own womb is not the murder of a human being." I went on to say, "Sensible folks recognize that a person develops as the gestative process progresses - when sentience and viability are achieved."

If you wish to note that a third party taking the life of the fetus without the mother's consent and during the commission of certain crimes of violence could be prosecuted for homicide (or "feticide") you are correct. However, it has usually been the woman herself that the State has used the law to charge, not some third party.

This article describes the nature of the type of case actually adjudicated.


In any event, those who wish to impose the State and politicians upon a female from the instant of conception rather than recognizing her right to control her womb and make decisions in consultation with her doctor before "personhood" is achieved are extremists that I believe decent folks must vehemently oppose.