Show us someone who's called an unborn baby "the property of the mother", Kim -- if you can.

I think you made it up, or stole it from someone else who made it up -- and looking on Google I can only find other right wing bloggers and anti-abortion websites who've said that.

Lee:

What do you think "It's my body" means you complete moron?

So what? The comments sections haven't been contentious enough lately so you insert an abortion thread?
I'll be right back, I'm outta popcorn.

Catholic Voters Resist Bishops' Direction: Poll Challenges Conventional Wisdom that Church Teachings Determine the Catholic Vote

Seventy percent of Catholic voters don't believe that Catholics have a religious obligation to vote for candidates who oppose legal abortion.

The majority (58%) of Catholic voters call themselves prochoice, and 62% believe "it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion."

looking on Google I can only find other right wing bloggers and anti-abortion websites who've said that.

That may very well be true, Lee. I cannot recall any left-leaning candidate or organization specifically addressing the status of the baby. What I have heard incessantly is that it is the mother's body and any decision that involves the mother's domain is hers to make. So, where does the mother's rights end and the baby's rights begin? If it's the mother's body and her domain, then isn't what's being implied is that this unborn baby belongs to the mother? If that isn't what's being implied, then tell us what you think it means.

Lee: You can be such an obstinate Literalist!

I think the fact that the father of the child has no say in whether or not the child is aborted is one element of proof in the argument Kim is making. Further proof that an unborn child is the "Poperty of the Mother" can be found at any meeting of Pro-Choice activists. "Keep your hands off my body!" is a frequent theme on placards and signs, as are sentiments like "My Body, My Choice". We can argue about semantics, but the intent of such statements is clear: My body (and anything that issues from it) is mine to do with as I wish. That's a declaration of ownership.

As for the gamble the Democrats are taking, they are assuming that Americans want greater access to abortion when in fact public sentiment could be more accurately described as a desire to see no dimunition of the right of the Mother to seek an abortion in the 1st Trimester. There's a big difference between that stand, which I accept and somewhat grudgingly support, and that of far-Left feminist groups that want abotion on demand, with no regard to the gestational stage of the fetus.
If you don't see that the point of Partial Birth Abortion is to set a precedent whereby a woman can walk into a clinic or hospital and demand an abortion, even if the fetus is viable, and commit infanticide, then you are not paying attention.

As such, the Democrats position is in the extreme, and their misreading of the situation, along with supporting a removal of any and all trimester limits to abortion, could hurt them with pivotal "swing voters".

If it's the mother's body and her domain, then isn't what's being implied is that this unborn baby belongs to the mother? If that isn't what's being implied, then tell us what you think it means.

What is being implied is that the fetus and the mother are one entity not two.

The issue is a bit more than that. A lot of the really active pro-choice people are against any sort of bans because of the fallout effects -- they see it as a feminist issue, and children as a way to keep them down/control them. You know, the barefoot in the kitchen thing. You can't really shrug off that concern.

However, a lot of their rank and file - and, say, most of the women I go to school with - want access to abortion simply out of convenience. Even if contraception was free and 100% effective (which it isn't, but not by much), they'd still want access to abortion because they can't be bothered to take responsibility for their own actions and USE it.

Those people are a textbook example of choosing whatever is convenient and them making up ethical justifications after the fact. You NEED to have a firm line that says, "this is murder, this is not". And to do that, you have to choose a point were life starts.

Pro-lifers insist on conception, most serious pro-choicers seem to pick birth, and the "I can't be bothered to be responsible" pro-choicers don't want any point picked at all, if they can help it. They really don't care as long as the issue remains muddled enough for them to keep doing what they want.

Me, I'm not going to state an opinion either way, other than that they need to pick a freakin' point where life begins already and be done with it.

Further confusing everything is how the child support system is set up.

most serious pro-choicers seem to pick birth

My experience has been that most pro-choicers seem to pick viability outside the womb as the point at which life begins.

Lee has a very good point. Most of the liberal thought on this subject has been provided to us by conservatives. If you guys want to tell us what liberals think then please provide some links to the thoughts of actual liberals.

"They really don't care as long as the issue remains muddled enough for them to keep doing what they want."

Both sides are guilty of using the issue to get people to vote the way they want, regardless of how this isssue effects the daily lives of most Americans, which in the vast majority of cases is not at all.

Old Blue thinks a child in the womb is just like a tumor, a cyst,etc. One with the mother. ww

"What do you think "It's my body" means you complete moron?"

I think it means "it's her body" -- or was that a trick question? You conservatives are so oblique at time, never approaching an issue head-on, always obscuring meaning and avoiding questions...

It's the "property" meme that Priestap made up -- then attributed to Democrats -- that I find objectionable.

Can you show me where Democrats have said that; actually used that term?

tick... tick... tick...

So... Lee doesn't view a persons body as their property?

I call leg!

Thank God for you, Lee, you provide me with endless entertainment with your mindless musings.

The beauty of the idea of property doesn't need to be directly quoted, you fool. It's indirectly implied by the words, "It's my body."

How long will it take before you understand a concept so simple? That clock would be ticking forever. I'm really not surprised you can't get a grip on reality though, it would be a break from your norm.

tick.. tick.. tick...

The beauty of the idea of property doesn't need to be directly quoted, you fool. It's indirectly implied by the words, "It's my body."

So does "it's my son" imply ownership too?

So does "it's my son" imply ownership too?

You tell me. It's not a concept I believe in, it's a concept pro-abortionists believe in.

Yes, Lee, your countdown to common sense clock is still ticking.

You tell me. It's not a concept I believe in, it's a concept pro-abortionists believe in.

That's for clearing that up. Once again, a conservative tells us what others think without actually offering a quote.

That's for clearing that up. Once again, a conservative tells us what others think without actually offering a quote.

You're welcome. You're free to attempt to clarify the "It's my body" meme any way you like, but the implication is still there.

Here's your chance to persuade me otherwise.

Oh, and if you'd like me to interpret any other phrases or words of the English language, I'm available...for a "small" fee of course. ;-)

Here's your chance to persuade me otherwise.

Thank you but I will pass. Have a great day.

Oh, and if you'd like me to interpret any other phrases or words of the English language

Thanks, does "it's my son" imply ownership of your son?

You too, Blue.

Thanks, does "it's my son" imply ownership of your son?

I've already answered that question, you must like repetition. Here it comes again, read carefully: You tell me. It's not a concept I believe in, it's a concept pro-abortionists believe in.

I forgot who said it, but he described you perfectly, Lee, when he called you an "obstinate literalist". You, the guy who imagines out loud, almost daily, what everyone else means when they say something is determined to make others point out the exact words being used.

To help Lee with this problem in this particular instance I submit this article. While it surrounds a case where parents attempted to sue a fertility clinic for homicide when their embryos were destroyed by the clinic, it also addresses the "property" aspect as applied to abortions. The article was written by a Rutgers law professor and she explains the basis for the "property" claim is that the fetus does not possess the status of "personhood".

You'd think if this idea of an unborn fetus as "property" is soooo prevalent then they might actually be able to find a couple of Democrats who have said that - that an unborn fetus is a woman's "property".

tick...tick..tick....

Maybe if I put on tin-foil hat and channel Rush Limbaugh... nope, still doesn't work for me. What brand tin-foil do you use, Tom?

And have you noticed how conservatives pull these memes out of thin air (or darker, smellier places) and then challenge anyone to prove them wrong.

How about proving that you're right instead, illogical Blogical - show us where a Democrat has said that an unborn fetus is "property".

tick...tick..tick...

I've already answered that question, you must like repetition. Here it comes again, read carefully: You tell me. It's not a concept I believe in, it's a concept pro-abortionists believe in.

Telling me to answer my own question isn't very helpful. I am not asking you what pro-abortionists believe in, I am asking you why you seem to believe that saying "it's my [fill in the blank]" implies ownership of [fill in the blank]. I would agree that the word "my" implies possession, but I would disagree that possession is the same thing as ownership.

It is interesting to note that a number of Catholics are openly disregarding the church teaching on abortion and euthanasia. Directly from the pope here

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/apr/050419a.html

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it'" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

I wonder how Catholic politicians can stay in the Dem party that openly advocate abortion and euthanasia against the clear teaching of the Catholic church.

Lee: Your continued use of the "tick...tick..tick..." is annoying. No one wants to engage to an arrogant bully.

Drop it already.

Oyster:

I forgot who said it, but he described you perfectly, Lee, when he called you an "obstinate literalist".

That would be me, and I've noted that there has been no response to my anecdotal examples, nor to the excellent article you cited. That's Lee for you!

Blue Neponset:

Your question, "So does "it's my son" imply ownership too?" is silly. No. It doesn't imply ownership. It implies that he came from you and not someone else. What it has to do with "It's my body" escapes me. What are you trying to prove with that?

Because, "It's my body" does indeed imply ownership. So does, "It's my heart". It's in my body. Should I have a right to have it removed based on the fact that it's not viable on its own?

Blue:

Wow. Let me see if I can help you. I'll just provide part of my original answer: It's not a concept I believe in... See the definition below for further study.

Lee:

From Dictionary.com. "Implied: involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated; tacitly understood: an implied rebuke; an implied compliment."

Explain to yourself what "It's my body" means, Lee, and you'll have your answer. I don't believe you will, however, because you simply enjoy being a contrarian, even when you're wrong, which is...a lot. Your argument reminds me of "what the definition of is is."

It's turned into a nice day here, so I'm getting the kids outside. Have fun twisting yourselves into knots.

Langtry, I'm waiting for Lee to read the article and demand that I prove the author of the article is a Democrat.

Because, "It's my body" does indeed imply ownership. So does, "It's my heart". It's in my body.

So every pro abortion person who says "it's my body" means that the mother owns the fetus and as a result can do anything she wants with it like sell it or borrow against the value of it? That seems to be what many on this site are saying. It seems like a facetious argument to me and I don't believe the pro-abortion crowd thinks a fetus is personal property.

Oyster's illustration is oblique - no surprise. The writer uses the term "property" in a case-law context - not someone declaring a fetus is "my property"

And there's no indication that the speaker is a "pro-abortion" - which is the whole point here kiddie s - that "pro-abortion" people use the term "property". all the person you cited is doing is being speaking lawyer-ese.

BZZZZT! Air ball, Oyster. You can read Kim's post, and other tin-foil blogger's writings, to find where conservatives use the term "property" to describe an unborn fetus. Context is your friend.