The Abortion MYTH

[Bfgrn]

Ever wonder how right wing "christian" warmongers, xenophobes and bigots that show no regard for the crawling or the walking can suddenly find passion for the unborn?

Easy...they DON'T...it's a MYTH...they're a bunch of racists that USED Roe v. Wade as a political wedge issue...

Book Excerpt: 'Thy Kingdom Come'

by Randall Balmer

In the 1980s, in order to solidify their shift from divorce to abortion, the Religious Right constructed an abortion myth, one accepted by most Americans as true. Simply put, the abortion myth is this: Leaders of the Religious Right would have us believe that their movement began in direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
---
In the course of one of the sessions, Weyrich tried to make a point to his Religious Right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Let's remember, he said animatedly, that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies.

Evangelical: Religious Right Has Distorted the Faith

 

[Good Luck]

What that little passage fails to analyze is the fact that the major religions all opposed legalized abortion well before Roe v Wade. Before Roe v Wade abortion was already legalized in several states. Therefore, as some kind of focus issue, Roe v Wade did not meet muster.

Also, whether or not the SCOTUS decision was a focus or not is moot. The scientific fact that abortion kills a living human has nothing to do with religion or court decisions.

The "MYTH" is the collection of deliberate lies told by the liberals to defend their despicable philosophies and to denigrate those who oppose the legal slaughter of innocent humans.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The scientific fact that abortion kills a living human has nothing to do with religion or court decisions.

Making an absurd, subjective statement and claiming that it's "scientific fact" isn't an argument.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The "MYTH" is the collection of deliberate lies told by the liberals to defend their despicable philosophies and to denigrate those who oppose the legal slaughter of innocent humans.

I only support the slaughter of guilty humans. Conservatives.

 

[Canceled2]

What that little passage fails to analyze is the fact that the major religions all opposed legalized abortion well before Roe v Wade. Before Roe v Wade abortion was already legalized in several states. Therefore, as some kind of focus issue, Roe v Wade did not meet muster.

Also, whether or not the SCOTUS decision was a focus or not is moot. The scientific fact that abortion kills a living human has nothing to do with religion or court decisions.

The "MYTH" is the collection of deliberate lies told by the liberals to defend their despicable philosophies and to denigrate those who oppose the legal slaughter of innocent humans.

If the science (sonograms, dna,) had been available Roe VS Wade would not have been decided on the pro abortion side of the debate, and the punting it away from the SCOTUS is getting harder to do becaues of it. Eventually it WILL be back before them. Prior to Roe, states (not all) only recognized a lawful abortion as one that was wanted due to rape or because to remain pregnant endangered the mother's physical life.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

If the science (sonograms, dna,) had been available Roe VS Wade would not have been decided on the pro abortion side of the debate, and the punting it away from the SCOTUS is getting harder to do becaues of it. Eventually it WILL be back before them. Prior to Roe, states (not all) only recognized a lawful abortion as one that was wanted due to rape or because to remain pregnant endangered the mother's physical life.

i don't think so....have you read the planned parenthood case? it bolsters roe v. wade

 

[christiefan915]

What that little passage fails to analyze is the fact that the major religions all opposed legalized abortion well before Roe v Wade. Before Roe v Wade abortion was already legalized in several states. Therefore, as some kind of focus issue, Roe v Wade did not meet muster.

Also, whether or not the SCOTUS decision was a focus or not is moot. The scientific fact that abortion kills a living human has nothing to do with religion or court decisions.

The "MYTH" is the collection of deliberate lies told by the liberals to defend their despicable philosophies and to denigrate those who oppose the legal slaughter of innocent humans.

I believe the major religions condone abortion if the life of the mother is at stake.

 

[Good Luck]

I believe the major religions condone abortion if the life of the mother is at stake.

Let's try focusing on the point of the original assertion rather than get hung up on irrelevant minutia.

The claim was there is "proof" falsifying the "myth" that Roe v Wade brought together the Religious Right movement.

The fact is the claim that there was such a myth is not true. It is quite easy to disprove a myth that was made up in order to disprove.

 

[Good Luck]

Making an absurd, subjective statement and claiming that it's "scientific fact" isn't an argument.

An unborn human is a human. Just like an unborn bovine iss bovine, an unborn feline is feline, etc. etc. etc. If the defining genome is that of the species homo sapiens, then the unborn offspring gestating inside its mother is of the species homo sapiens (ie: human) It is also alive by every scientific definition of living organism. Those are scientific fact, not a subjective statement.

Calling it a subjective statement either proclaims your profound ignorance on the subject, or shows you to be a willing liar spreading one more of the multitude of lies used to deny the truth about what abortion really is.

 

[christiefan915]

Let's try focusing on the point of the original assertion rather than get hung up on irrelevant minutia.

The claim was there is "proof" falsifying the "myth" that Roe v Wade brought together the Religious Right movement.

The fact is the claim that there was such a myth is not true. It is quite easy to disprove a myth that was made up in order to disprove.

If you're talking about being precise, the statement needed a correction.

If one statement needed correction, how can we be sure about the others?

 

[Canceled2]

i don't think so....have you read the planned parenthood case? it bolsters roe v. wade

Link?

 

[Good Luck]

If you're talking about being precise, the statement needed a correction.

If one statement needed correction, how can we be sure about the others?

Try again.

The statement that the major religions opposed legalized abortion prior to Roe v Wade holds true whether they added an exception of peril of the mother or not. (Not all did, or do, allow that exception.)

But if you think they did not oppose abortion until Roe v Wade, I look forward to your arguments showing there was, indeed, a myth that Roe vs Wade was the factor that initiated the Religious Right movement.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

If the science (sonograms, dna,) had been available Roe VS Wade would not have been decided on the pro abortion side of the debate, and the punting it away from the SCOTUS is getting harder to do becaues of it. Eventually it WILL be back before them. Prior to Roe, states (not all) only recognized a lawful abortion as one that was wanted due to rape or because to remain pregnant endangered the mother's physical life.

If the science had been there the result would've been unanimous. BTW, sonograms have been here since 1962. Idiot.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You people make me sick. You should all be murdered.

 

[apple0154]

An unborn human is a human. Just like an unborn bovine iss bovine, an unborn feline is feline, etc. etc. etc. If the defining genome is that of the species homo sapiens, then the unborn offspring gestating inside its mother is of the species homo sapiens (ie: human) It is also alive by every scientific definition of living organism. Those are scientific fact, not a subjective statement.

Calling it a subjective statement either proclaims your profound ignorance on the subject, or shows you to be a willing liar spreading one more of the multitude of lies used to deny the truth about what abortion really is.

Aww, gee. Here we go again with that crazy DNA nonsense.

Let's start with this one. "There was one legal case involving a woman with chimerism, who was proven not to be the mother of her own children. Later discovery of embryonic cells with different DNA disproved the earlier DNA results." http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-chimerism.htm

Yes, you read that correctly. DNA "proved" a woman's biological children were not her own. So much for infallibility.

Then we have: "Jane's body was made up of two genetically distinct types of cells.There was only one conclusion: Jane was a mixture of two different people.
Kruskall thinks the most likely explanation for this is that Jane's mother
conceived non-identical twin girls, who fused at an early stage of the
pregnancy to form a single embryo.

For some reason, cells from only one twin have come to dominate
in Jane's blood - the tissue used in tissue-typing. In Jane's other
tissues, however, including her ovaries, cells of both types live amicably
alongside each other,……"
http://www.katewerk.com/chimera.html

And then we have this. "A child's genes are inherited from his or her parents, so when a 52-year-old woman from Boston had a completely different set of genes than two of her three children, the medical community was at a loss for an explanation. It took two years for doctors to conclude that she was a "human chimera," someone with two or more distinct sets of genes. For example, DNA extracted from the skin of a human chimera may be different from DNA in the blood. Chimerism -- named after a Greek monster called the chimera with the head of a lion, body of a goat and tail of a snake -- occurs during pregnancy when two embryos that would have resulted in fraternal twins fuse early on in the pregnancy, resulting in one baby with two separate sets of DNA. While some chimeras have two different eye colors, most lead normal lives and never realize their condition." (AOL Health)

So, to recap, the undisputed fact a person can have two sets of DNA which resulted in science "proving" a mother did not bear her own children (cough, cough) should caution any rational person to not throw all their proverbial eggs in one basket when it comes to science proving an individual comes into existence at conception. If that was the case we could argue Jane is two individual, unique human beings (or is that "Jane are two individual, unique human beings?").


It turns out, while in utero, a "human being", a fertilized cell, can split and become two "human beings". And then it can happen that one of those "human beings" can assimilate the other "human being". Are we talking about human beings here?

First there was Bill. Then there was Bill and Jane. Then there was only Bill. Or is Bill even there because, after all, Bill's DNA makeup has changed as well. Who, or what, was that first fertilized cell?

The point is we have no idea who or what that fertilized cell was.

Furthermore, 25-50% of fertilized cells die and are literally flushed without society not only not knowing how they died but apparently not all that interested in finding out. The woman is seldom, if ever, questioned concerning what she ate or what exercises she did or any other information gathered that may shed light on the death of a "human being".

That said, some folks want to designate it a human being and, in the case of the woman, weigh and evaluate her life in relationship to it. They want to grant it rights while taking away the rights of the woman. That results in cheapening the life of every human being. It is absurd in the extreme.

Throughout history people have come up with all sorts of ridiculous ideas of what constitutes a human being. From St. Augustine sanctioning abortion up to 80 days for female fetus and up to 40 days for male fetus in the 4th century to the State of Connecticut outlawing abortion after quickening to Pope Pius IX forbidding all abortions in exchange for France’s Napoleon III acknowledging papal infallibility. Now there's a deal made in Heaven.

Human beings are born. No birth, no human being. We always end up at the same place but that doesn't stop some folks from jumping on any passing wagon.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Aww, gee. Here we go again with that crazy DNA nonsense.

Let's start with this one. "There was one legal case involving a woman with chimerism, who was proven not to be the mother of her own children. Later discovery of embryonic cells with different DNA disproved the earlier DNA results." http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-chimerism.htm

Yes, you read that correctly. DNA "proved" a woman's biological children were not her own. So much for infallibility.

Then we have: "Jane's body was made up of two genetically distinct types of cells.There was only one conclusion: Jane was a mixture of two different people.
Kruskall thinks the most likely explanation for this is that Jane's mother
conceived non-identical twin girls, who fused at an early stage of the
pregnancy to form a single embryo.

For some reason, cells from only one twin have come to dominate
in Jane's blood - the tissue used in tissue-typing. In Jane's other
tissues, however, including her ovaries, cells of both types live amicably
alongside each other,……"
http://www.katewerk.com/chimera.html

And then we have this. "A child's genes are inherited from his or her parents, so when a 52-year-old woman from Boston had a completely different set of genes than two of her three children, the medical community was at a loss for an explanation. It took two years for doctors to conclude that she was a "human chimera," someone with two or more distinct sets of genes. For example, DNA extracted from the skin of a human chimera may be different from DNA in the blood. Chimerism -- named after a Greek monster called the chimera with the head of a lion, body of a goat and tail of a snake -- occurs during pregnancy when two embryos that would have resulted in fraternal twins fuse early on in the pregnancy, resulting in one baby with two separate sets of DNA. While some chimeras have two different eye colors, most lead normal lives and never realize their condition." (AOL Health)

So, to recap, the undisputed fact a person can have two sets of DNA which resulted in science "proving" a mother did not bear her own children (cough, cough) should caution any rational person to not throw all their proverbial eggs in one basket when it comes to science proving an individual comes into existence at conception. If that was the case we could argue Jane is two individual, unique human beings (or is that "Jane are two individual, unique human beings?").


It turns out, while in utero, a "human being", a fertilized cell, can split and become two "human beings". And then it can happen that one of those "human beings" can assimilate the other "human being". Are we talking about human beings here?

First there was Bill. Then there was Bill and Jane. Then there was only Bill. Or is Bill even there because, after all, Bill's DNA makeup has changed as well. Who, or what, was that first fertilized cell?

The point is we have no idea who or what that fertilized cell was.

Furthermore, 25-50% of fertilized cells die and are literally flushed without society not only not knowing how they died but apparently not all that interested in finding out. The woman is seldom, if ever, questioned concerning what she ate or what exercises she did or any other information gathered that may shed light on the death of a "human being".

That said, some folks want to designate it a human being and, in the case of the woman, weigh and evaluate her life in relationship to it. They want to grant it rights while taking away the rights of the woman. That results in cheapening the life of every human being. It is absurd in the extreme.

Throughout history people have come up with all sorts of ridiculous ideas of what constitutes a human being. From St. Augustine sanctioning abortion up to 80 days for female fetus and up to 40 days for male fetus in the 4th century to the State of Connecticut outlawing abortion after quickening to Pope Pius IX forbidding all abortions in exchange for France’s Napoleon III acknowledging papal infallibility. Now there's a deal made in Heaven.

Human beings are born. No birth, no human being. We always end up at the same place but that doesn't stop some folks from jumping on any passing wagon.

You sure do like to hang onto a handful of reasons, to justify your lack of humanity.

 

[apple0154]

An unborn human is a human. Just like an unborn bovine iss bovine, an unborn feline is feline, etc. etc. etc. If the defining genome is that of the species homo sapiens, then the unborn offspring gestating inside its mother is of the species homo sapiens (ie: human) It is also alive by every scientific definition of living organism. Those are scientific fact, not a subjective statement.

Just like an egg is a chicken, huh? Did anyone ever ask you to go to the store for a dozen eggs? You mother? Your boyfriend/girlfriend? If so, did you come back with 12 chickens?

Did anyone ever ask you to pick up some carrots at the grocery store? If so, did you come back with a packet of seeds?

Milk? Were you ever asked to pick up a quart/liter of milk and return with a pound of hamburger because......well, because they are both bovine?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Just like an egg is a chicken, huh? Did anyone ever ask you to go to the store for a dozen eggs? You mother? Your boyfriend/girlfriend? If so, did you come back with 12 chickens?

Did anyone ever ask you to pick up some carrots at the grocery store? If so, did you come back with a packet of seeds?

Milk? Were you ever asked to pick up a quart/liter of milk and return with a pound of hamburger because......well, because they are both bovine?

Did you parents ever tell to shut your ass, when it was your nouth that was causing the problem??


You keep bringing this up and yet all it does, is show your lack of humanity.

 

[Canceled2]

If the science had been there the result would've been unanimous. BTW, sonograms have been here since 1962. Idiot.

If it would have been unanimous it would have been against a federal law allowing abortion. And I was not speaking of old school unltra-sound equipment that did little more than show a heart beat. The modern high-resolution sonogram images have made an embryo's first moments that much more real. You can see every thing about the baby even it's sex. That WAS NOT available prior to Roe, nor was DNA science....so back at ya idiot.

 

[apple0154]

You sure do like to hang onto a handful of reasons, to justify your lack of humanity.

My humanity rests with the woman who may or may not bear a child. My humanity rests with upholding the value of a human being and vigorously defending that against the mistaken and potentially disastrous beliefs of others.

The road to outlawing abortion is truly the road to Hell.

Years ago people were more inclined to accept things, to not question authority such as religion and political leaders. Those days are long gone (thank God!). Once society starts to make exceptions concerning human beings, exceptions that will have to be made if fertilized cells and embryos and fetuses are designated human beings, the flood gates open.

Just the idea of sanctioning a woman's right to kill an innocent human being because she has a defective body should be repulsive to any human being and designating a fertilized cell/embryo/fetus a human being will result in exactly that.

The idea of sanctioning a woman's right to kill an innocent human being because of rape/incest means one can kill a human being depending on how they were conceived if conception is the start of a human being's life.

Do anti-abortionists really condone that? Have they actually contemplated what they are advocating?

Did someone mention the word, "humanity"?