You need to understand that not everyone sees the world framed as a lawyer would. We know nothing of the technicalities of "meritorious" and "frivolous" so you should not hold the general public up to some insider standard... in the first place. In the second place, I said that my comment was glib in calling it a "money grab." She probably thinks she has some high and mighty purpose behind it. For the life of me I can't figure out what she thinks that is. Pain and suffering? She apparently wanted the child-- just not at the loss of her own life for the sake of her older child. That is understandable. The abortion failed. She got her newborn and she did not die. She should be deliriously happy. So what is the suit about? If it were a bereaved husband filing this suit, that would make more sense. Otherwise, it just comes off as a chance to grab some cash from some deep pockets. I'd like to know your, and others', opinion on this particular facet of the story. It is okay to have an opinion, right?
Doesn't matter what power you have. You don't need any to pass judgment. The fact is you are painting this woman in a way. You are defining the truth. You aren't saying, "in my opinion, she's just trying to get some money out of this", you are stating it as the truth, and the reality of the situation. That's passing judgment. You basically called her a low-life. Abortion is a word that has a definition. I am not sure how we can have a different idea of something that has a pretty concrete definition. Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. That's it. That is what the word means. Hey, you can redefine any word you want. Apparently you like to redefine seemy and judgment as well. You can call cat a dog for all I care. But if you are going to communicate with people, I suggest you use the meanings of the words as the rest of the world has agreed upon. It has the potential to create a human being. But just like an egg is not a chicken, nor is a zygote/blastula a human being. At what point does this become human is not entirely clear. I understand people have different definitions. But to say that the moment of conception is that moment is not based on science or anything but a religious belief. And laws should not be constructed on religious belief but on reality - based on the actual hard truth. Not what one believes is true.
Power does matter because that is the difference between rendering a judgment and just expressing an opinion. If you think I've done more than expressed my opinion, then you're manufacturing an issue. You forgot "idea." That is the rub. If at this point, all you can do is try to nitpick the vocabulary, then I guess you can't overcome my arguments. So it's not clear? But you are willing to proceed anyway? In a final way for a life and death situation? You are wrong to attribute the beginning of life just to a religious belief. I've said myself... numerous times.... that my idea here is humanitarian... since I was 20.... about 8 years after walking out of Sunday School and about 15 years before attending church of my own free will. In what other ways would you have chickens to set the course for the human race? You can't rely on Science. It's not good enough yet (and may never be) to answer this question.
You have judged this woman. You have rendered judgement. You have judged her to be a low-life. It is an opinion for sure, but you are not "just expressing an opinion". Oh no - you're doing much more. You judge and then you hide. At least own up to it. Without complete knowledge, without knowing much about this woman. Without HEARING HER SIDE OF THE STORY. You have judged her. Plain and simple. That is the fact. ? Not your vocabulary - but your loose meaning and shifting goal posts. I wouldn't call it nitpicking, i'd call it finding serious gapping holes. The only reason you know a human embryo even exists is because of science. Science isn't good enough to tell you what? To answer religious arguments? You say humanitarian. But science doesn't call an embryo a human. So destroying an embryo is, by scientific standards, not destroying a human. An embryo only has the instructions to build a human being. It is not a human being. Potential is not the basis for making laws. A sperm has the potential to be a human being. So does an egg. So does a human embryo. None of these things are human beings. Only you are assigning it based on your religious faith, nothing more. Science does not do this. Science will never do that because the role of science is to find facts, not answer religious or philosophical questions. If a woman does not want to create a human life out of an embryo - she should not be forced to do so against her will. That is not right in a free country. An embryo has no rights. The embryo has no thoughts, no feelings, no consciousness. No brain. Scientifically is is only classified as alive to the same degree any living cell is alive. What you are doing is assigning things to an embryo based on your religious conviction. Nothing more. And that is not the foundation for making laws.
You have clearly been influenced by LIBERAL PROPAGANDA perpetuated by the LAMESTREAM MEDIA, but you can't fool ME - I know that "FaBo" is short for "Failed aBortion!"
Some of the smartest, richest people go for money-grabs. Where did I call her "low life?" Where am I hiding? I'm right here. You are quite the drama king. I said that we differed on the idea of abortion: it's rightness or wrongness.... you went on and on about what abortion is. That was not at issue. What does expressing an opinion about her motivations for what she's done have to do with the rightness or wrongness of what she has done? None of you has still put forth a better theory... I know. You don't want to even try. As you implied yourself, science cannot tell us beyond a doubt when life begins. That is the limitation of science. Who says we have to live our life or make these decisions by scientific standards? Science is good for some things... Boy you are dense. How many times do I have to say it has nothing to do with religious training? Just because you DEFINE them as NOT human beings doesn't mean you are FACTUALLY correct beyond a doubt. That is merely your judgment and your judgment carries a potential death penalty. Ouch! WOW... who is really doing the judging on these matters. That is your judgment. Mere nomenclature and not the real thing. Again?
How can a blastula feel pain when it has no nervous system or brain? How can it be human when there is no thoughts, no feelings, no emotions. What makes it human? You are applying religious beliefs here. You are saying because your religion has taught you that life begins at the moment of conception based on no evidence whatsoever - none - you want to deny women the right to control their bodies. That you...YOU - have the right to tell some woman what she can or can not do to her own body. That's not being humanitarian, that's being a tyrant. You have no right to come into someone's family and tell them that your beliefs matter more than theirs or their rights. That you can force a woman because your religion tells you to. Share with us your evidence that an embryo is a living human being. Please tell us what makes this so. Please tell us what makes it a "person". Because it has a full set of genetic code? Then why isn't any cell in your body a human being and if you kill any cell you are committing murder? Please explain the evidence for creating such a law that does not involve your religious beliefs.
No, but when you are assessing her moral righteousness by using words like "money grab" and "murder", that becomes a judgment as to who she is. These were your words, not mine. Now you want to argue connotation. Laughable.
1. Again, I never said murder. The blog writer did. I don't have to agree or disagree with every word that anyone writes. Lighten up. It's a free country. 2. Assessing? I don't know her to assess her. I made a quip about what appears to be her motive in filing suit. Neither you nor anyone else have yet to provide a better theory. That's all we're doing is theorizing. Boy, you are judgmental.... :grin: Yeah, there is absolutely nothing of substance to connotation. 3. Righteousness, really? I criticized a decision she made. You should be so bold if it strikes you that way.
It's life source. It shows up in DNA. If left alone, it inevitably becomes human so whose to say it hasn't always been human and you've just not recognized it as yet because of the limitations of science? My religion never taught me that. It never came up. Quit trying to tell me what my religion taught me. You weren't there. Well, you lord it over every little girl that gets aborted. Really, which is worse? Has anything but a human form, living or dead, ever been birthed? I say err on the side of caution, at least. Evidence? Prove it's not a human. I said PROVE not just conjecture. You are wanting to terminate a pregnancy, so you better be sure...
no if left alone it dies. It needs a host to provide food, moisture, and oxygen. The right environment. Many times it is rejected by the woman's body, and passes out without her even knowing. Shall we give each embryo a name and have a funeral when it passes as well? It's not the limitations of science that's the problem here, it's the limitations of religion. Are you seriously saying that you didn't not get the ideas you have from religion? That your moral compass is completely independent of the god you claim to worship? yeah right. Girls don't get aborted. Some have abortions though. And some are forced to have their lives ruined because of patriarchal fools trying to control their bodies. Yes, every mammal is birthed. From pig, to cow to mouse. I guess one should never abort their embryo's either right? You are the one looking to take a right away from the mother. We know the mother is human. We know she can make choices. But you want to take her right away. So what basis - what evidence are you using to control her and force her to have a baby against her will?
OMG, by "left alone" I simply meant not assailed.... Many women grieve when they have a miscarriage. Okay, Mr. Scientist, what turns human life on and when and how does it happen? Up to age 12 my father used to drop my brother and me off at church on his way to the golf course. we'd go to Sunday School and walk a mile and a half home. At age 12 we were given the choice to continue to go or not. I opted out. I didn't return to church on a regular basis for about 23 years at age 35. It was about age 26 when I rejected the invitation to go out and demonstrate for pro-Choice. I did not consult a bible to help me make that decision! No doubt I was influenced by everything I was immersed in, but I was much more immersed in popular culture than Christian thinking. I can assure you that we did not talk about right to life issues in a third, fourth or fifth grade Sunday School class. No one has to ruin their life because they are pregnant. There are pro-Life women. Are they patriarchal, too. One of families in our adult Sunday school class announced to us that her 17 YO daughter was pregnant... by a 21 YO boy/man. The girl has a plan. She has dropped out of HS and working on a GED. She and her "man" want to get an apartment together and be independent. This little girl has been part of a church-going family her entire life. Her dad is a deputy sheriff. Apparently, she cares more for the teachings of the non-church culture. Apparently it is more exciting. If you want to blame someone or something for "ruining her life," blame the culture that walked her into these circumstances rather than the innocent child she and he created. No, I would never say that. I might run up and have a couple of CHICKEN eggs for breakfast. The evidence is the obvious outcome-- another human life.
