Pelosi is wrong on 'abortion rights'

""Few paragraphs have contained more falsehoods""
and very few columnists make such a comment without backing it up. All this writer proved was their is no consistent doctrine. Thanks for proving that there is more to this argument then your accusation.

Fortunately for all of us, Nancy Pelosi will not outlive the Church or the Truth which you can do nothing against.

Anything that comes out of her mouth is wrong.

Pelosi is wrong about EVERYTHING!

Bill P wrote:

Pelosi is wrong about EVERYTHING!

And let me guess then that GW is right about EVERYTHING. And if we don't know that we should listen to Limbaugh like you do so we can be convinced.

When does intelligent life begin? Who knows.

When does it end?
When you become Speaker of the House.

A new human life does begin at conception, but that's not the relevant issue. What matters is that a human *person* with the right to life must be a biologically separate entity in its own right, not encased within and wholly dependent on a woman. In other words, rights begin at birth.

For a detailed defense of that view, see "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person" by Ari Armstrong and myself. It's available at:

http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
http://www.seculargovernment.us

The abortion issue is more involved than determining when life begins. Locally, PUC Chancellor Cohen once wrote an article for a book in which he proposed that a woman's quality of life ranked higher in priority than the life of the fetus. That is if having a baby would disrupt your quality of life, having an abortion is a good (if not moral) choice. Or a woman would be justified (morally?) in having an abortion if she deemed that having saggy boobs from nursing the child would lessen her quality of life. Every individual has a different concept of quality of life and therefore it is more subjective than when life begins.

In the 1860's a great deal of ink and blood was spilled because people determined that some human beings were not human persons. In the 1930s the same thing happened again: it was not denied that Jews and other minorities were human, it was their rights as persons that were denied.

So the slight of hand of Roe is that a) SCOTUS claims science is agnostic about when human life begins (it's not) and b) a novel idea that human rights depend on other people (the mother, the doctor, the state...), and hence are not inalienable.

So we see the moving of the goal lines "ah sure, its human but since it's dependent on the mom, it's not a "person".... which if so holds true for new borns as well - they're utterly "dependent" on the mother or other human being for quite some time... their location doesn't change this ontological condition.

This is the core issue: if the state (or any private person) can determine that a fellow human being is not a human person and so has no human rights, then there's no cogent reason other than brute force for anyone to believe in "rights" at all. It'd all be grants of the strong to the weak.

Plus as we see in IVF and surrogate mothers, the zygote comes into being on its own - it requires a welcoming enviroment to grow (as do we all) but not necessarily the egg donor. So it's not simply "the woman's body" at all but its own body!

I do not understand pro-life women. So basically, you think that if you accidentally get pregnant (oh, but wait that would never happen to you, right?)-- if your birth control failed, or if you were raped, for instance -- you would be totally OK with being forced to carry the fetus to term because other people forced their own ideas of morality upon you? That's cool with you -- not to own the rights to your own body? Because that's not OK with me. My body, my choice.

This isn't about a woman's right to "privacy" -- it's about a woman's right to control her own body. Compulsory parenthood should not be forced on an unwilling woman if she should conceive accidentally.

Joe wrote:

So we see the moving of the goal lines "ah sure, its human but since it's dependent on the mom, it's not a "person".

You're close.

It was a 50-50 choice, you just picked the wrong answer.

This is a LEGAL definition of 'person'-- someone born -- which is at issue here.

The "moving goal line" belongs to those who wish to extend rights belonging to the living to those who are not legally considered "alive" yet.

Hence all your equivocative shinola about "slavery == abortion" is just that: equivocative shinola.

This is the core issue: if the state (or any private person) can determine that a fellow human being is not a human person and so has no human rights, then there's no cogent reason other than brute force for anyone to believe in "rights" at all. It'd all be grants of the strong to the weak.

Welcome to real life.

"Rights" exist because of the brute force potential in this [or any other] government to compel others to acknowledge and respect the rights as they are written and accepted.

MEL wrote:

I do not understand pro-life women.

Neither do I, but please do use the proper term: anti-choice.

Those who claim to be "pro-life" tend to only hold such beliefs about a fetus. Once you're born they'll happily send you off to die in a war or starve on the streets.

Rico Sarna wrote:

<quoted text> And let me guess then that GW is right about EVERYTHING. And if we don't know that we should listen to Limbaugh like you do so we can be convinced.

No, GWB is not right about everything. He is frequently wrong. That goes along with making decisions and getting things done. Sometimes you're right, sometimes wrong.

"Those who jump into the pit and fight owe no explanation to those who stand and watch"

Pelosi, Reid and Co. have done NOTHING that they said they would do.

And no, I DON'T listen to Rush.

It always has been and always will be a womans choice. Vote mccain and you loose this choice ladies. Let no man on earth tell you what to do with your body. Damn the church, they have so many issues I lost count. If these knuckle head little girls with all the babies had got an abortion and finished school, we would not have this crime problem at an alarming rate today. Remember what the back alley abortions were like. We don't need to go back to those day's ever again.

Pelose is wrong on everything.

TOM SLICK wrote:

It always has been and always will be a womans choice. Vote mccain and you loose this choice ladies. Let no man on earth tell you what to do with your body. Damn the church, they have so many issues I lost count. If these knuckle head little girls with all the babies had got an abortion and finished school, we would not have this crime problem at an alarming rate today. Remember what the back alley abortions were like. We don't need to go back to those day's ever again.

Amen! A woman who votes Republican is a traitor to her gender.

nancy is just dumb and does not know what she is doing

Someone needs to explain to me why, if there's nothing wrong with abortions, does Pelosi stress that fewer should take place. Where's the logic? If it is a benign medical procedure, why fewer? It's like saying there should be fewer tonsillectomies each year.

Bill P wrote:

<quoted text>
No, GWB is not right about everything. He is frequently wrong. That goes along with making decisions and getting things done. Sometimes you're right, sometimes wrong.
"Those who jump into the pit and fight owe no explanation to those who stand and watch"
Pelosi, Reid and Co. have done NOTHING that they said they would do.
And no, I DON'T listen to Rush.

Well its ok you don't listen to rush. Sean and Savage are just as good I suppose.

So if a fetus is considered to be "alive' at conception, does that mean a Dr. who is working on manipulated fertilization, spills the test tube, or squashes the slide under the microscope should be charged with homicide? Give me a break.
Pro-choice is far more reaching than just the abortion issue, it's just that, choice. I don't want anybody telling me what I want and don't want, eat and can't eat, drive and can't drive. Conservatives have the right to be conservative, just don't tell me I have to be.