Why does it seem like so much pressure is put on individual politicians to end or "fight" abortion when the supreme court ruling is the cause for its legality. Wouldn't it be unconstitutional for a politician to single out abortion in any type of medical funding law since its legal by supreme court ruling?

Why do you always see pro life groups going after politicans and bills instead of the real problem, the supreme court ruling?

Why is it so hard to get a bunch of doctors together and challenge the supreme court to redefine what a life is? Biologically, a zygote (conception) is a life.

What am I missing?

Do not flame as this thread is based on my misunderstanding of the culture of the situation.

3/9/2011 12:51:01 AM

First, as I understand it the Roe v. Wade ruling is based on individual privacy (though I may be mistaken there). Point being, there's other angles to attack it from.

Second, if you're in a state or constituency that doesn't like abortion, you do well to propose all manner of shit opposing it, because it will appease your base (even if the legislation stands no chance)

Defining a life is way more complicated than what you put forward in your post. Even "biologically" this is a heavily debated concept.

Lastly, I know you're a troll, but someone has to say something.

3/9/2011 1:24:08 AM

Quote :

"Biologically, a zygote (conception) is a life. "

Define 'a life' and we'll talk.

3/9/2011 8:58:20 AM

The abortion issue doesn’t REALLY have anything to do with the science of life.

It’s purely about the social aspects.

And politicians only ever bring it up so that they can rally their supporters.

3/9/2011 9:10:22 AM

I think we all know the truth is that life begins at 40.

Anyway, there are legistlative ways to attack abortion (like GrumpyGOP mentioned). You can make it so that insurance companies won't be allowed to cover abortions (at least if they want Federal help or want to be listed in the Federal exchange). You can severely limit the circumstances under which an abortion is legal (keep shortening the window of when you can get one, force an abortion seeker to jump through endless expensive hoops [therapy] in order to discourage them).

Also, they are going after the Supreme Court ruling. The best way to do that is to stack the Supreme Court with justices who are anti-abortion. Republicans have been trying to do that for the last 40 years.

Troll or not, there's your response.

[Edited on March 9, 2011 at 9:14 AM. Reason : .]

3/9/2011 9:13:20 AM

I find it funny that usually the "Right to Life" folks are usually the same ones who are staunch oppenents of the promiscuity that our gov't treats social welfare programs (foodstamps, welfare, medicaid). They are usually the ones also bitching about healthcare reform. Do they not realize that folks being forced to conceive ill timed fuck trophies just puts more mouths on the government teat.

Quote :

"You can make it so that insurance companies won't be allowed to cover abortions"

Abortions are just like flu shots from a manner of speaking. From the insurance stand point it cost less to pay for the procedure than the alternative. Births are not cheap and neither are the 30 trips to the doctor for vaccines, illnesses, and check-ups that a child requires. From a spending standpoint, I think the government is stupid to not include abortion as a part of its insurance plan.

Quote :

"shortening the window of when you can get one"

I do agree from a morality stand-point that if you take 5 months to decide to have an abortion; than you should go ahead of have the child.

[Edited on March 9, 2011 at 10:31 AM. Reason : a]

3/9/2011 10:26:26 AM

Quote :

"From a spending standpoint, I think the government is stupid to not include abortion as a part of its insurance plan."

Religion is not the cause of any problem on this planet. Even without Christianity, inane policies such as these would exist.

3/9/2011 10:34:49 AM

When did I ever point out Christianity as the problem?

Quote :

"Religion is not the cause of any problem on this planet. Even without Christianity, inane policies Stupid People who support Stupid Policies such as these would exist. "

3/9/2011 10:45:27 AM

I was being facetious.

3/9/2011 11:08:49 AM

Quote :

"I think the government is stupid to not include abortion as a part of its insurance plan."

Just out of curiosity, when you say "its insurance plan" are you referring to the insurance plans for government employees or are you referring to private insurance plans that will benefit from government money after the ACA is fully in effect.

[Edited on March 9, 2011 at 12:14 PM. Reason : The former is resolved by the Hyde Amendment. The latter by the ACA itself]

3/9/2011 12:11:29 PM

Quote :

"Define 'a life' and we'll talk."

An individual living organism. At conception, you have a completely new individual and it is a human. Sure it hasn't grown and can't live without its mother, but neither can newborn babies.

Quote :

"Anyway, there are legistlative ways to attack abortion (like GrumpyGOP mentioned). You can make it so that insurance companies won't be allowed to cover abortions (at least if they want Federal help or want to be listed in the Federal exchange). You can severely limit the circumstances under which an abortion is legal (keep shortening the window of when you can get one, force an abortion seeker to jump through endless expensive hoops [therapy] in order to discourage them). Also, they are going after the Supreme Court ruling. The best way to do that is to stack the Supreme Court with justices who are anti-abortion. Republicans have been trying to do that for the last 40 years."

I know this all happens but my question is why does it happen when its completely against the constitution. Judges are "supposed" to be appointed based upon their likelihood to defend the constitution and not because of an agenda.

Finding legislative ways to fight the law of the land would be like finding a legislative way to deny voting rights.

If the law is wrong, fight the law, don't go around it and don't put pressure on politicians (who have sworn oath to defend the law of the land) to work against the law.

3/9/2011 12:44:08 PM

Quote :

"An individual living organism. At conception, you have a completely new individual and it is a human."

Taken at its face value, this statement seems to suggest that any clump of living human cells should be considered a human. If I were to cut off a piece of me, filled with many more living cells than a zygote, would that also be considered a human? What if I split that piece into two pieces? Would that be two humans? My cells are every bit as complex and contain the same chromosomes the zygote that developed into me did.

Quote :

"Sure it hasn't grown and can't live without its mother, but neither can newborn babies. "

You must be trolling. The complete lack of homeostasis in a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or early fetus is not comparable to that of a newborn without its mother.

3/9/2011 1:37:38 PM

Quote :

"Finding legislative ways to fight the law of the land would be like finding a legislative way to deny voting rights. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110308/ts_yblog_theticket/ahead-of-the-2012-campaign-states-debate-voting-rights

/I'm just gonna leave that there and walk away.

3/9/2011 2:59:21 PM

Quote :

" An individual living organism. At conception, you have a completely new individual and it is a human. Sure it hasn't grown and can't live without its mother, but neither can newborn babies. "

I would argue the difference between a baby and a zygote/fetis is major. A baby while requring support, does not RELY physically on its mother. Dad, Grandma, a Wet Nurse, Foster home, or sister at the end of a day can support and nurture a baby. On the other hand a zygote or fetus is not viable and can not live if removed from its Host mother. In a way a fetus is more like a parasite than a distinct living human being.

3/9/2011 3:00:51 PM

Not everyone who is pro-choice necessarily likes the idea of abortion. I think a lot of them, while being in favor of womens rights, don't particularly care if the government is banned from funding them.

3/9/2011 3:33:23 PM

Quote :

"Sure it hasn't grown and can't live without its mother, but neither can newborn babies."

?

Newborn babies live without their mothers all the time.

3/9/2011 3:45:28 PM

they usually grow too.

3/9/2011 3:52:50 PM

I think something is being missed here. When it comes to federal funding you run into a situation where people who don't believe in abortion being forced to pay for other peoples abortions. Everyone pays taxes and everybody's money looks the same. Who can honestly say that a pro-life person's tax dollars won't end up paying for an abortion. Abortion is legal and if a woman wants one she can have one. Why should other's be forced to pay for it?

3/9/2011 8:18:43 PM

Quote :

"Abortion is legal and if a woman wants one she can have one. Why should other's be forced to pay for it?"

I don't believe in people having more children then they can support. My taxes shouldn't be used for welfare right? The government does thousands of things that individual voters don't agree with. We all have to suck it up and deal with it don't we? Having the government sponsor things you "don't believe in" is pretty much run of the mill democracy.

3/9/2011 8:36:52 PM

Fair enough. But this is a little different. It's an elective medical proceedure. You wouldn't like being forced to pay for someone else nose job or lyposuction would you? Neither would I.

3/9/2011 8:58:25 PM

^I think the only abortions that are federally subsidized are in the case of rape and threat to the mother's life. And there were like 100 or so of those abortions that were subsidized last year. So we're talking about a very, very, very small amount of money that helped this group of women avoid death or avoid carrying a rapist's baby to term. This creates good outcomes for society because it means less dead mothers and less potentially motherless babies. The amount of burden each taxpayer bears for these benefits comes out to tenths of a cent.

War is legal, and if a president wants to skirt the laws and essentially declare it, he can. Why should others be forced to pay for it?

(These particularly abortions are hardly elective, and like war, they're supposedly good for society or something.)

[Edited on March 9, 2011 at 9:07 PM. Reason : More clarity.]

3/9/2011 8:59:12 PM

Once again, fair enough. But you're still missing the point. This has nothing to do with the healthcare law, or foriegn policy. Read the post, neither is mentioned. As you mentioned both of those scenarioes are rare meaning most abortions are in fact elective (rape is also in fact elective though I don't blame any rape victim for having one).

3/9/2011 9:19:22 PM

You're talking about federal funding for abortions, right? Where you went on about how taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for somebody else's abortions because they don't believe in abortion, and how those abortions are like nose jobs...you're speaking about federal funding for abortions? Taking taxpayer money and paying for an abortion, right?

3/9/2011 9:39:38 PM

[Edited on March 9, 2011 at 9:55 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2011 9:50:51 PM

Correct. Let me clariffy, I wasn't talking about this in terms of the healthcare bill, rather in response to the topic. Of course people will inevitabley have to pay for things they believe in. Abortion is fundamentally different issue than those in that it involves terminating what either is or will become (depending on you'r point of view) a human life. The life, or potential life of someone who didn't get a chance to choose their life. And as was pointed out earlier is most often elected as a matter of convienience. That's what most pro-life people believe. And seeing as the thread is about ways politicians can attack abortion, I was noting a strategy they can use to defund it. I'm not trying to get into an ideological fight with you guys. Just noting a strtegy. Although reading back I should have been more clea about that.

3/9/2011 10:10:01 PM

Quote :

" it involves terminating what either is or will become (depending on you'r point of view) a human life. The life, or potential life of someone who didn't get a chance to choose their life."

War?

3/9/2011 10:21:10 PM

^^You're the first one to mention the healthcare bill. And the healthcare bill didn't expand funding for abortions. Federal funding is still the same way it's been forever: available in the case of rape/incest and threat to the mother's life. I don't consider those "elective" procedures.

And war costs a bunch more than a handful of abortions, could be viewed as elective, and it also involves terminating way more lives than 100 or so abortions. But I still have to fund it, right?

I think what I'm saying is that your "strategy" is really crappy since it revolves around convincing people that helping 100 or so raped/potentially dying women get abortions is the same thing as funding nose jobs.

[Edited on March 9, 2011 at 10:22 PM. Reason : I always gotta edit.]

3/9/2011 10:22:24 PM

Quote :

"Taken at its face value, this statement seems to suggest that any clump of living human cells should be considered a human. If I were to cut off a piece of me, filled with many more living cells than a zygote, would that also be considered a human? What if I split that piece into two pieces? Would that be two humans? My cells are every bit as complex and contain the same chromosomes the zygote that developed into me did."

Your cells are part of you. You are the human life. Human tissue belongs to some human life but is not all human life. The zygote contains a unique sequence of DNA that makes it a completely unique individual genetically.

Its not about the number of cells. Its the unique genetic makeup.

Quote :

". A baby while requring support, does not RELY physically on its mother."

Biologically speaking, every mammal relies on its mother early on. There are ways of evading this with technology but naturally, babies have to have physical support from their mother (milk).

3/10/2011 12:13:27 AM

The E Man, do you support in vitro fertilization?

[Edited on March 10, 2011 at 12:32 AM. Reason : .]

3/10/2011 12:31:49 AM

^^ babies can be supported by other people, in my parents generation everyone had wet nurses.

and

Quote :

"Your cells are part of you. You are the human life. Human tissue belongs to some human life but is not all human life. The zygote contains a unique sequence of DNA that makes it a completely unique individual genetically. Its not about the number of cells. Its the unique genetic makeup."

i have DNA from many other life forms inside of me, do i need to worry about that every time i take a shit?

3/10/2011 7:24:32 AM

Quote :

"You wouldn't like being forced to pay for someone else nose job or lyposuction would you? Neither would I."

I personally would prefer abortions over additional welfare cases. From my point of view your idiotic attachment to a couple of cells could force other tax payers to pay tons of money in welfare benefits for the idiots who can't (or choose not to) support their own progeny.

Quote :

" i have DNA from many other life forms inside of me, do i need to worry about that every time i take a shit?"

Those poor bacteria can't survive outside of you either. You cruel abortionist.

[Edited on March 10, 2011 at 8:20 AM. Reason : asdfa]

3/10/2011 8:18:53 AM

Quote :

""Your cells are part of you. You are the human life. Human tissue belongs to some human life but is not all human life. The zygote contains a unique sequence of DNA that makes it a completely unique individual genetically. Its not about the number of cells. Its the unique genetic makeup.""

For the sake of argument, let's say I accept your premise: a single-cell zygote that contains 23 chromosome pairs is an "individual." What rights are you suggesting this single-cell zygote have?

3/10/2011 8:55:42 AM

when i was younger, while travelling in the 3rd world, i picked up a multi-cellular parasite with independant DNA that was not viable outside my body until reaching a certain stage. Was I responsible for carrying it until it was ready to be shit out and do its thing? My insurance company paid for the pills that killed it, should this have been denied to me if I was on government healthcare?

3/10/2011 9:42:58 AM

Quote :

""Abortion is legal and if a woman wants one she can have one. Why should other's be forced to pay for it?""

Well if you don't pay for her abortion than you are paying her for welfare monies, healthcare for the child, and increased
food stamp allocations.

Quote :

"Abortion is fundamentally different issue than those in that it involves terminating what either is or will become (depending on you'r point of view) a human life"

This morning when I "beat it" does that count as ending 100 million "potential lifes?"

Quote :

"The life, or potential life of someone who didn't get a chance to choose their life."

I wad of cells in a womans body does not constitute a "seperate" lifeform.

Quote :

"i picked up a multi-cellular parasite with independant DNA that was not viable outside my body until reaching a certain stage"

haha

3/10/2011 1:32:03 PM

the fed should pay for aboritions and all manner of birth control and make them readily available. Preventing needless births goes along way to lowering state costs.

3/10/2011 1:39:32 PM

Quote :

"i have DNA from many other life forms inside of me, do i need to worry about that every time i take a shit?"

Don't be a troll. You know other organisms don't have the same rights as homo sapiens.

Quote :

"For the sake of argument, let's say I accept your premise: a single-cell zygote that contains 23 chromosome pairs is an "individual." What rights are you suggesting this single-cell zygote have?"

The same as everyone else, of course

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
killing a pregnant woman= double homicide

Quote :

" This morning when I "beat it" does that count as ending 100 million "potential lifes?""

Its not a life until fertilization. Its just cells from your body. Not even whole cells either. Just gametes and they will all go to waste anyway.

Quote :

"I wad of cells in a womans body does not constitute a "seperate" lifeform."

It is a different lifeform growing inside of the mother. Its not a "wad of cells" its literally a human being. Thats biological FACT.

3/10/2011 1:58:27 PM

^
ahahahahah

3/10/2011 2:01:20 PM

So if fertilization occurs but implantation never does because the woman continues to take birth control, has poor diet, or for some other reason, should we charge the woman with murder? Or at least manslaughter, amirite?

25% of all pregnancies miscarry. There are millions of "individuals with rights" being flushed down the toilet in this country a year. Are you honestly outraged by this?

3/10/2011 2:02:50 PM

Those are deaths

[Edited on March 10, 2011 at 2:06 PM. Reason : and people wonder why the catholic church is against birth control...]

3/10/2011 2:05:28 PM

You are crazy and people who think like you are a threat to women's rights. Your understanding of human nature and individuality is unscientific and I don't give a shit what a rapist-filled organization thinks about sexuality.

nevermind you're trolling.

Quote :

"It is a different lifeform growing inside of the mother. Its not a "wad of cells" its literally a human being. Thats biological FACT."

No, human being is a psychological condition. A mass of living cells that have human DNA is not a human being. A body that has been decapitated but preserved mechanically is not a human being.

[Edited on March 10, 2011 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2011 2:12:35 PM

i just want him to see that his logic is circular. his constant redefining to address rebuttals has left his definition of life as just the definition of what we are trying to determine is a life. he is saying that, "it is a life because it is a life." it is circular reasoning and it doesn't stand up to any logical test.

3/10/2011 3:06:12 PM

Quote :

"You know other organisms don't have the same rights as homo sapiens."

Wow someone is pretending to be a scientist. If you are going to try at least attempt to get it right.

Quote :

" Its not about the number of cells. Its the unique genetic makeup."

What about identical twins? Is only one "alive" or neither (they do have very very slight genetic differences so maybe they are both slightly alive)? What if someone was cloned? Not alive?

But this is all getting away from this idiotic statement

Quote :

" I think something is being missed here. When it comes to federal funding you run into a situation where people who don't believe in abortion being forced to pay for other peoples abortions. Everyone pays taxes and everybody's money looks the same. Who can honestly say that a pro-life person's tax dollars won't end up paying for an abortion. Abortion is legal and if a woman wants one she can have one. Why should other's be forced to pay for it? "

Anti-war folks pay taxes and some of that money goes into funding our wars, Anti-death penalty folks pay taxes and some of that money goes towards putting prisoners to death. Why do you think the abortion issue is any different?

Quote :

"and people wonder why the catholic church is against birth control..."

Actually no one with a half a brain "wonders why". Keep making more catholic babies to take over the world with.



[Edited on March 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM. Reason : asdfadf]

[Edited on March 10, 2011 at 5:06 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/10/2011 5:00:31 PM

^

Quote :

"Why do you think the abortion issue is any different? "

[Edited on March 10, 2011 at 5:05 PM. Reason : a]

3/10/2011 5:05:33 PM

The E Man, do you support in vitro fertilization?

3/11/2011 12:30:25 AM