Modern Day version of sewinga big red "A" on a adultress's dress -- like in The Scarlet Letter.
Like Megan's Law, we could call it Hester's Law.
Ann Coulter will say ANYTHING to shock people.
How much you wanna bet she's had at least one abortion herself?
http://aattp.org/ann-coulter-wants-to-p … ions-video
Ann Coutler in my opinion is a regressive gender traitor, enough said. She is equivalent to Phyllis Schlafly, another gender traitor who strongly assert that women have the same access to opportunity that men have. Ms. Schlafly was also against women's rights. There is a special place for such women....in the lowest rungs of Hell.
They probably DID NOT have abortions themselves as I did not; however, I support every woman's right to reproductive freedom and access to abortion. I will be prochoice until my passing. Not to digress, just because both women did not have abortions, to my knowledge, should not preclude their right to support their sisters regarding reproductive choice.
Well, if we can publish the names and addresses of gun owners... why not?
In fact, let's publish every single person on a separate list for every single thing they do. Let's just throw privacy right out the window.
Oh, and abortions are wrong, a fetus is a genetically distinct human entity.
I don't agree with publishing gun owner lists but an abortion is purely personal, it does not affect their neighbors, community or anyone not directly involved, guns on the other hand are different not just in the Sandy Hook rampage sense but also because rounds fired in self defense can hit neighbors, because children playing at their house may get access to the firearm etc. so the issue is non comparable. ,
Abortions don't affect anyone else? You do understand that the fetus, according to beliefs of millions, is someone else? Someone that is being murdered for the convenience of the woman?
I don't have a problem with abortion, but that fact is core to any debate on the subject and has to be understood if not accepted as truth.
As I said I thought quite clearly "it does not affect their neighbors, community or anyone not directly involved" obviously the mother, father and fetus/zygote/baby are directly involved.
Sorry, I didn't pick up on that.
I would have to say, though, that the kids killed at Sandy Hook were "directly involved". Few, if any, of our laws are designed or written to have no one "directly involved" even if that involvement is simply seeing something you don't want to see. Seat belt laws, for instance, promote the fantasy that other drivers are "directly involved" because a driver might be able to regain control of the car if they have a seat belt on. Motorcycle helmets because the hospital,doctors and taxpayers are "directly involved" in paying for a severe accident that might have been less severe.
I was not talking about events after occurrence at that point obviously the victims are directly involved but rather in forbearance of the incident ie. the gun that was used at Sandy hook provided a direct threat to the community before it was used in the shooting.
An abortion does no such thing before or after and thus since the community is unaffected they are not entitled to know. (Assuming that being potentially affected does give you the right to know which I am unsure about).
Because abortion is a medical procedure and thus protected by privacy rights.
Regardless of the opinions or it's morality, you really do have to agree it is a medical procedure... right?
First, is-ought. We do protect the privacy of medical procedures, but we don't have to. We could also protect the privacy of purchases, but we don't.
Second, no. A medical procedure is something you have done to yourself. An abortion is something you do to a genetically distinct human entity, which cannot consent. If a doctor went into your house and did something bad to you while you slept, we wouldn't call it a medical procedure, we would call it assault or murder.
The abortion is as much done to the mother as the fetus, nor do children have the right of consent anyway.
Don't take the example as inflammatory I am not labeling a zygote/fetus a parasite but if I did have a parasite removed it would be a medical procedure to me not the parasite and I would sure as hell have the right to sue the pants off of the doctor who made it public.
ALL humans have the right to life by default.
The parasite argument depends on whether or not the parasite has the right to life. A human does.
There is no difference between a zygote, blastocyst, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, child, or teen. They are all different development stages of the same genetically unique human entity.
Right to life? Really? When did we agree on this? If I am starving to death I have the right to be fed and cared for, others must do this? That is not true.
By which logic the tree in my backyard is a table just a stage of development
This is getting boring though lets deal with the real issues.
#1 Freedom, no one can be forced to undergo a dangerous procedure for anyone else's benefit. Giving birth is 14 times more likely to kill the mother than an abortion.
#2 No one can be forced to give life support against their will and that is exactly what the mother has to do for the entire period that abortions are legal.
No, right to life doesn't mean people have to take care of you, it means people can't actively cause your death.
1 An abortion is much more likely to kill the fetus than birth is to kill the mother. One is an actual act that one person takes to end the life of the other. The other is a chance act of life.
2 A mother who causes the life to come about has the obligation to support it, just as a mother who births a child has the obligation to support it. The fetus' right to life trumps every other right. The right to life is the foundation for all other rights.
SO then mother should simply be able to stop providing care/nutrition to their zygote, I am sure that can be arranged with the same result seems pointless though given the result is identical.
Yeah and if I give a Kidney it is more likely to save someone than it is to kill me (assuming I have two which I don't) does not mean I can be forced to do it.
Sorry but only criminal acts remove rights (as in the right to self determination) and sex is not a criminal act so while you might claim (and I would agree) that sex gives you a moral obligation to care for the child it does not create a legal obligation and is therefore UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO THE LAW.
No arguments there.
No more than a mother should simply be able to stop providing care/nutrition to their newborn.
Exactly, you don't want to be operated on against your will. I don't want babies killed against their will.
By your last argument, a parent does not have a legal obligation to take care of their newborn!
They can but it requires the baby be left with the authorities because in that example they can care for the baby, on the other hand before abortions become illegal (around 22 weeks) only the mother can do so and thus cannot be forced to.
I have the right not to be forced to give birth either, not to mention zygotes categorically do not have a will.
See first answer, when there is a possibility that others can and are willing to care for the child then we legally impose that the mother has to let them, when only the mother can take care of it we cannot force her to do so. You cannot force a person to be a mother against their will.
If there is no resource currently available to leave the child with, they are legally obligated to take care of it. Same with a fetus.
You can't define humanity based on technology, because that definition changes. You would take two identical babies, call one human and one not. Can't be that way, being a human being has to be innate.
Your right to not be inconvenience by a baby ends when you act to create one. Your 'right not to give birth' ends at the right to life of the baby. Or, do you support abortion 40-week old fetuses?
Your last argument is ridiculous. You are saying that if only the mother can take care of the baby we can't force her to? So if the mother can't find a foster home, she can just stop feeding her newborn?
Not true, any child can be abandoned within a few weeks of birth at a variety of locations and cannot be refused (i.e. hospitals) no such thing exists for a pregnant mother of a non independent zygote/fetus and thus nothing can be mandated.
As already noted sex is not a criminal act and thus cannot remove any rights so nothing of the sort is true (legally speaking).
As noted on the first answer. No one can be forced to care for anyone beyond giving the child to the authorities at a Baby Moses location.
If a mother can't get to a hospital, can she just abandon the baby anyway?
No, as she was instrumental in causing that life to come about, she has to see that it is taken care of. Before and after birth.
A woman is force to care for the child until she can give it to authorities. Therefore, a woman is forced to care for the child inside her until she can give it to someone who can take care of it. Same logic.
NO, the law mandates the trip to the hospital, nothing more though I guess one could ague for abandonment on the basis of self preservation and then make the same argument on the basis of birth vs the safer abortion but I can't be bothered I am sure you can figure it out yourself.
Being instrumental in something is not a legal definition of anything, as said only crimes remove the right to self determination, that is the be all and end all.
Yes the law mandates that she make a small effort to deliver the child to the authorities just as it mandates she make a small effort to have the child legally aborted by a professional, that is not imposition on the same scale as 9 months of bearing followed by a an experience fourteen times more likely to kill her than an abortion.
All of these comparisons are irrelevant anyhow as legally a zygote is not defined as a child nor logically is a pile of insensate cells a person.
None of these arguments are legal ones simply moral ones based on your subjective morality so they are really not pertinent. Legally a zygote is not a person and a person becomes a person when it can be potentially independent at 22 weeks.
Ok, fall back on your is-ought if you must.
Logically, there is only one line you can draw, moving backwards in development, when you can say the human entity that was today, isn't yesterday. Any other line is 100% arbitrary.
"Logically, there is only one line you can draw, moving backwards in development, when you can say the human entity that was today, isn't yesterday. Any other line is 100% arbitrary."
Not true. Another line has been drawn logically by our duly constituted Supreme Court, i.e., at the point of the fetus's viability outside the womb.
That's not logical. It's arbitrary and changing. To think that the very definition of being human changes with technology is asinine.
I'll say it again... it's not logical in the least. An infant that would be considered a human today, but that exact same infant wouldn't be considered a human 50 years ago, indicates with no doubt that it is an arbitrary line.
Your second argument is is-ought
An abortion is a medical procedure as it is done on my(universal my) body with my permission by a medical professional in a hospital/clinic setting.
Whether you consider it as a medical procedure or murder... whatever... it IS a medical procedure... whether you believe it ought to be is on you.
As it IS a medical procedure it IS protected by medical privacy laws. Guns aren't a medical procedure so aren't protected by those laws... and shouldn't be. If you wish to set up privacy laws on material possessions, have at it. It's not going to work very well, but have at it anyway.
No, my second argument shows why an abortion, depending on your morals, isn't a medical procedure. If your moral belief is that the fetus is a human being, then it is a violation of its right to live, not a medical procedure, just like someone else having a doctor cut you open while you slept wouldn't be a medical procedure.
It's not is-ought because you brought the 'no matter your morals' into the argument.
Your morals have nothing to do with the law or the legal definition... therefore, REGARDLESS OF YOUR MORALS...abortion is a medical procedure.
Meaning, despite your completely irrelevant definition, abortion is legally defined as medical procedure. Your opinion cannot change a fact, hence... is-ought.
Even if you believe it is a violation of the right to live for the zygote/fetus it is still a medical procedure for the woman involved.
Morality is entirely subjective so a definitional claim is impossible.
Ok, then logically, no.
Logically, there is only one defining moment that can be called the genesis for any living thing, and that is the moment that it first starts to exist.
If you are 50, and you go back 10 years, you were still you, exactly the same at the genetic level, but at a different stage in development. Go back another 20 years, still the same. Another 20 years, still the same. A week, still the same. Every moment you go back, you were exactly the same, a unique human entity at a different stage of development... right until the moment of conception when you didn't exist. That was the only change that brought about a different entity.
Ann is the female version of Glen Beck. She loves controversy and getting attention.
Does anybody remember privacy? It is none of our business what people choose to do with their lives, unless it affects the rest of us.
I have heard the statement, "If you would not do something in private, then don't do it in public." That statement makes no sense. We all have the right to privacy, as long as what we do in private does not affect the public.
This argument, which i have seen man a time, makes no sense. If you abuse your child, do you have a right to do so with no one coming in and stopping you? No, of course not. Abusing your child will probably not affect anyone else outside of your family, but it is still wrong. Abortion, which is the cold-blooded murder of an innocent human, is by far much worse than abuse, is it not?
Most people who seek abortion mostly are disadvantaged already, adding perceived insult is just that inhuman. Shame.
For years I have heard the "disadvantaged" story and to a point I did believe it. Makes sense not to burden someone who cannot even take care of themselves. But if anything can come out of the Gosnel trial, is I learned abortions cost between $1,500 and $3,000. I do not see many disadvantaged people having that much cash on hand. Maybe I was naive, but I thought abortions cost like $400-$500, I was not even close.
So I wonder, what is the real percentage of abortions performed on disadvantaged people?
My question to those in favor of abortion would be if you have ever been pregnant did you smoke, drink, use drugs or engage in any activity that could possibly cause harm to the life growing inside you, if not then why not?
Presumably because they WANTED a healthy child.
I would hope so, but if it isn't a child and that is what the debate is really about then why bother?
No one in the world believes that a fetus won't become a child given the right circumstances, just like the tree I just cut down is going to be a table, doesn't make it one now though but I am not going to set fire to it either because that would ruin the POTENTIAL for a table.
Scientifically speaking it becomes a living thing at some point, I could not tell you what week but I suspect around 12 or so when self respiration begins.
Nope - not scientifically. Science has a difficult (impossible) task in even defining "living" as opposed to "unliving" - in the abortion debate it doesn't even have a voice.
Life, particularly "human" life, in the abortion debate is totally a defined concept, defined by society as well as the individual. Societies definition will make the law; individual definition will determine the actions of the individual (if they care at all - many don't).
Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.
We, and biologists, all have an instinctive definition of life, but it is less and less encompassing as time passes and we find more and more "things" that are neither "alive" nor "dead" in the sense we are used to.
Science does not have a definition of "life" that can be unilaterally applied. Even the all important zygote could be considered "alive", or not.
As I said there are biological qualifiers, are they set in stone? No but they provide a guideline.
What you have said is not what scientists say.
Still have not told me how those cells react to stimuli as an entity btw
also please cite these scientists.
Scientist don't call zygotes or fetuses "children" as you have done in this forum.
Guidelines, yes. But guidelines are not unequivocal, which is why society and their courts must make the final determination. Science helps or not as it can, but final determination and definition is via society and culture.
Which is what I said.
The right circumstances are merely being left alone.
They really are not, not only will certain diets and intakes do terrible harm to the fetus even being left alone miscarriage is common, furthermore a mother feeding a fetus inside her and then undergoing a very painful and potentially fatal experience to give birth to it is hardly "being left alone".
You can fertilize the ground...
That doesn't make it a tomato.
Prepping for the appropriate development of a potential life doesn't make it a life any more than laying manure on soil makes it vegetables.
Its distinct DNA sequence makes it a life.
my blood has a distinct DNA sequence and is not alive, so do spermatozoa btw and they are not alive either, congratulations on abandoning that other argument it really wasn't working
I haven't abandoned anything and yes your blood and spermatozoa is alive.
Both have distinct DNA sequences neither meets the requirements of life (in terms of ability to reproduce with itself or others of it's kind specifically amongst other things.).
BTW is "killing" the not actually alive spermatozoa murder then?
We are not talking about blood or spermatozoa, we are talking about the living child growing in the womb.
It's called an allegorical exemplar, potential life is not life in the same way that a pile of building materials and a blueprint is not a house.
It isn't potential life as the zygote is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.
Nope zygotes due to lacking a brain cannot react to stimuli at all, it also does not have cellular organizational complexity which is another requirement for life (biologically speaking.) A Blastocyst (the next stage in human development) does have those attributes but zygotes do not, a zygote is nothing more than a lump of cells.
They don't, my guess is you skimmed Wikipedia and decided you know some stuff but seriously a zygote looks like the image below, please explain to me how something with no eyes, sense of smell or hearing, nerves or brain can react to stimulus.
A tree has none of those things, and neither does a bacterium, amoeba or virus, but all three are alive and respond to stimuli.
Given the presence of a uterine wall, a zygote will implant there. In the presence of food it will grow more cells. Both are responses to stimuli.
Those respond to stimuli via chemical reaction, the zygote cannot do this either (ie. the zygote cannot photosynthesize).
The zygote falls onto the uterine wall and sticks it does not react to that stimuli and the cells of the zygote receive nutrition and grow but A) are not reacting as an entity, B) are not truly reacting as they have no choice whatever on whether to absorb nutrients and do not need to do anything to do so.
Here's what you said:
"We are not talking about blood or spermatozoa, we are talking about the LIVING CHILD growing in the womb."
You misuse the term "child." A zygote or a fetus is not a child.
Your blood has your DNA.
A zygote and a fetus has different DNA, and contains the full sequence of DNA and growth cells that constitute a unique human being. It is no different from an infant than an infant is from a child than a child is from a teenager than a teenager is from an adult.
My DNA is the combination of that of my father and my mother just as a zygotes is and a zygote is actually less complex than my blood structure due to the highly developed cell structures developed humans have where as zygotes are still lumps of basic cells.
Not an argument I am afraid.
Your DNA is distinctly unique. It is different from both your fathers and your mothers. Since it is different, it cannot be, by definition, part of your mother.
Trace your DNA back until it no longer exists... once the egg is fertilized and your DNA is created, that is the genesis of your being. Every second of your development from where you are back to that moment, you were distinctly you.
ANY line created (brain activity, respiration, heart beat, etc) is simply an arbitrary line in the course of your development. The only ACTUAL line in the course of your development was when you were created.
Nope it's a potential me, the nature of identity and what makes a person is convoluted at best. More to the point that is like claiming a blueprint is a house, DNA is simply a blueprint the materials have to be added by others and they make up a person a DNA strand no matter how long you leave it alone will never become a person so really what happens after the blueprint is made is far more critical I certainly can't exist without both so giving one significance and the other none is nonsensical.
It's no more a potential you than you at 5 years old was a potential you.
You said it yourself, trying to define life is convoluted, because we can't all agree on an arbitrary line.
There's no reason to make up an arbitrary line, because we have an objective line. Trace yourself back in time until you didn't exist. Every second of your existence back to fertilization, you were genetically the same, just at a different stage of development.
Support from others is not an argument for justifying calling something human. A newborn can't become an adult on its own, what is provided by its caregivers is far more critical... see how that fails?
Oh look! The DNA in my mole has now developed it's own code. Oh the beauty of new life forming!
No doctor, don't cut it off! It has a unique DNA sequence... different than mine!
Yay for cancer indeed it is a separate dysfunctional DNA sequence without the section that tells it to undergo apoptosis it is different and unique, Save it! *sigh*
Yes it is a dysfunctional DNA sequence, what does that or a mole have to do with a baby?
I was part of 4,000 plus survey respondents (hospital and community abortions), meaning clandestine and non clandestine abortion. We found out in the research study that there are numerous reasons to abortion, diverse ones and most are dangerous abortion. It happens to anybody with different religious affiliations, blah, blah.
Maternal mortality rate is high of course bec. of clandestine ones (they don't have access).
I'm glad to see that this thread has devolved into the old stand-by argument of is it murder, no it's not.
To steer things back on track.
1. Ann Coulter is a miserable, wretched and awful human being.
2. Regardless of what you 'believe' abortion to be, it is indeed a medical procedure and as such should be protected by privacy laws. If we're going to publish the name of every woman having an abortion, then so should we publish the name of every man having penile implants, every woman having a breast augmentation, and every human being having a sex-change operation. NOT ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED.
3. As a woman, whether pro-choice, or pro-life, I'd thank the world to get their collective nose out of my uterus.
4. Despite the fact that abortion is legal, any woman who gets one still has to deal with the horrible end result of being castigated and ripped to psychological threads by a nation of people who think they know better than she does about e v e r y t h i n g. Because of that, I don't think that she should have to add to that list of worries whether she's broken a law, or whether her most personal business will be sung out in harmony to the masses.
Screw off, Ann Coulter.
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
Can we please have a discussion about this, not a debate free-for-all against the 'other' side?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9CCpvj6 … dded#t=141
by American View3 years ago
The President of the United States Asks God to Bless an Abortion FactoryOBAMA: Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It's not going anywhere today. It's not going anywhere tomorrow. ...
by Stump Parrish5 years ago
Did anyone get the e-mail on this?According to the Faux News network America became an anti-choice country recently. //The abortion debate has returned with vigor to Congress after many years of dormancy, and the result...
by Paul Swendson5 years ago
Is it possible for pro-life and pro-choice people to find any common ground? Too often, the argument becomes fixated on the morality and legality of abortion, which are both worthwhile topics. But in the end, I think...
by Chris Mills3 years ago
I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a...
by Jackie Lynnley8 weeks ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.