14th Amendment

[MAGAnificent]

Define "potential." Potential for what? Potential is not the same as "actual" and nothing more than wishful thinking-hardly a solid basis to forcefully alter a gestator's actual life and their own "Potential."

That's quite a word salad. Did you learn that from the Harris campaign?

And yes, it is a lump of fetal tissue. That's simple biology, but also irrelevant. It seems the only argument you can make is an appeal to emotion, which isn't even am argument.

that so called lump of fetal tissue if carried to term becomes an infant with a potential lifetime of decades. Is that too hard to work out?

 

[redbeer]

<
<<<=== “They let you do it if you’re a star. You can do anything.” - Donald Felonious Trump
<



Of course. Why should the government ever have anything to say about it at all?



It is no one's business beyonr the woman involved - and whoever she chooses to be involved. The government should NOT be involved at all.
Woudl you support the government getting involved in determining what you do with your sperm?

Oh, but the government is heavily involved in abortion......don't you remember the meltdown of Roe vs Wade being returned back to the States. Pro-abortion advocates went ballistic, sad it's not in the federal governments' hands anymore.

 

[Gordy327]

That's quite a word salad. Did you learn that from the Harris campaign?

IIs it too complicated for you? I see you cannot refute it.

that so called lump of fetal tissue if carried to term becomes an infant with a potential lifetime of decades. Is that too hard to work out?

So what? That doesn't answer the questions, " Potential" for what? Why should something as ambiguous as "potential" be a basis, legal or otherwise, to restrict someone's choice and bodily autonomy?
Potential is not the same as "actual" and nothing more than wishful thinking-hardly a solid basis to forcefully alter a gestator's actual life and their own "Potential."

 

[Stealers Wheel]

You all sure do like to read words into a discussion out of thin air, lol. Not at all, I'm saying and now need to repeat it once again for the slower or those who cannot keep up that abortion should NOT be used for some excuses or reasons, matters not if they believe that unborn is her actual body, it's not to be used as a birth control alternative.

In other words, you wish to approve the motivation of the woman before allowing her an abortion. If you approve, she can have her abortion. If not, she has that option removed. It's not about the sanctity of life. It's not about some moral high ground. It is about controlling the woman.

 

[BabaVoss]

We are not trying to control women...

Yet you are doing exactly that. Pretending you aren't isn't helping your cause.
How about this; if you think abortion is a bad thing, don't have one.
You are male? Then why teh hell are you even weighing in? Let the woman make her own decisions. Its called personal lliberty.

\We are trying to protect the life of the unborn...

The "unborn" are destroyed regularly as a normal part of our biology.
Why are you ok with them being 'killed"?
Why does your concern over this "life" only exist when you can us it to justify interfering with someone else's life and personal decisions?

I have a solution;
All males should undergo a government mandated reversible sterilization until they are fully capable and willing to support a child - then be required to comply.
You would support that, yes?
It would absolutely eliminate a great number of abortions. Your big issue goes away. All good? You would agree with that, surely?
No?
Ask yourself why you wouldn't.

... and cease the movement they are nothing but to be killed out of being unwanted, needed, or some imagined threat to society. They are innocent children, once born.

Yes, once born. And once they are born, the government considers them people - citizens. You should make some effort to be concerned about those lives - people who actually exist.

 

[BabaVoss]

Oh, but the government is heavily involved in abortion......don't you remember the meltdown of Roe vs Wade being returned back to the States. Pro-abortion advocates went ballistic, sad it's not in the federal governments' hands anymore.

The government shouldn't be involved at all.
No one is "pro-abortion", btw.

 

[MAGAnificent]

IIs it too complicated for you? I see you cannot refute it.

So what? That doesn't answer the questions, " Potential" for what? Why should something as ambiguous as "potential" be a basis, legal or otherwise, to restrict someone's choice and bodily autonomy?
Potential is not the same as "actual" and nothing more than wishful thinking-hardly a solid basis to forcefully alter a gestator's actual life and their own "Potential."

You are making no sense whatsover.

 

[redbeer]

In other words, you wish to approve the motivation of the woman before allowing her an abortion. If you approve, she can have her abortion. If not, she has that option removed. It's not about the sanctity of life. It's not about some moral high ground. It is about controlling the woman.

But you sure do love taking a high moral ground position by accusing me of wanting to control women, lol......that's rather hypocritical, imo. You open a door for the woman to be rid of the pregnancy to remove yourself from responsibility. It looks as if you have it backwards.

 

[BabaVoss]

<
<<<=== “They let you do it if you’re a star. You can do anything.” - Donald Felonious Trump
<

You are making no sense whatsover.

Hmmm. I thought it made perfect sense. You said;

"that so called lump of fetal tissue if carried to term becomes an infant with a potential lifetime of decades. Is that too hard to work out?"

The reply was;

"Why should something as ambiguous as "potential" be a basis, legal or otherwise, to restrict someone's choice and bodily autonomy?"

It's a pretty simple question. Your position implies - strongly states, in fact - that the government is justified in making personal decisions on a woman's behalf because of a "potential" life. Correct?
Yes or no?

.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

But you sure do love taking a high moral ground position by accusing me of wanting to control women, lol......that's rather hypocritical, imo. You open a door for the woman to be rid of the pregnancy to remove yourself from responsibility. It looks as if you have it backwards.

Your own words accuse you. You have stated it is the motivation of the woman that must be considered. If the motive is met with approval, she has your blessing to kill the baby. If not, the baby gets to live.

If that does not meet the definition of controlling, nothing does.

 

[Gordy327]

You are making no sense whatsover.

I cannot dumb it down any further for you. If you do not understand, that is your (unique) problem, not mine.

 

[soylentgreen]

Wtf are you talking about? Please pay more attention to the postings of those you respond before posting such nonsense. Anyone with a little sense and reading comprehension knows by now that I support abortion if the mothers or babies health are in danger, then it's a medical procedure to save the life of the woman. I do not support abortion out of convenience or as a measure of birth control.

The above post solely represents a severe lack of knowledge.

Your restriction that health be the only reason is anothingmore than another example of a man thinking he has the right to tell women what they can do with their bodies. Do not try an pass your misogynistic crap off as if you are doing women a favour.

No my above post represents an argument you cannot refute.

 

[quip]

Why are you twisting my words? I was clear as a bell in saying that a woman who has been raped against her will has a right to abortion. There's no need to add or subtract from that simple statement. Birth control even if used correctly 100% of the time can still fail to protect from pregnancy. I would think this is a given, seeing how it's common knowledge. Do I have to spell everything out to you and why do I have to keep repeating myself?

I'm simply assessing your motives....while it seems I'm clearly hitting my mark.

I'm sure it would widen the accusation of rape tenfold if it could get them an abortion from only having unprotected sex. So, in this your solution would be to let them have an abortion without reason or excuse, yes?

Yes. Frankly, her reasons for an abortion is of no concern nor business of mine nor anyone else not involved with her situation.

Because I simply do not believe in the killing of innocent future life because of the false pretense they are not persons without rights, so it's perfectly alright to end its life.

There is no "false pretense" to be had, the unborn have no inherent right-to-life. You haven't sufficiently demonstrated why the unborn must be granted such rights at the expense of the mother's. Your objections are prescriptive in nature rather than objectively descriptive.

Many great people have arisen from severe poverty and lifelong hardships being born into 'not so good' families or circumstances and removing these future persons from society would diminish the greatness of our nation.....there is always light at the end of the tunnel. It has been living through these hard-life experiences which helped and caused these great persons to spring forth. Simply to kill them like they are garbage to be throwed away and forgotten is a true sign of a degraded society, imo.

Projection of potential greatness is no more relevant than a projection of its opposite. A complete waste of effort.

 

[redbeer]

Yet you are doing exactly that. Pretending you aren't isn't helping your cause.
How about this; if you think abortion is a bad thing, don't have one.
You are male? Then why teh hell are you even weighing in? Let the woman make her own decisions. Its called personal lliberty.

Other than rape or medical reasons to save her life, that unborn child has the right to life, imo. To you, it's nothing with no rights whatsoever to be killed on a whim. The problem lies in educating and pre-pregnancy birth control.

Another reason is scientific.....did you know an unborn has their own dna and a different circulatory blood supply from the maternal circulatory blood supply, as there are two, the maternal and fetal blood circulatory systems. Even though in the early states the unborn is entirely dependent upon the mother, it has these things mentioned with a completely separate circulatory blood system. Kind of makes the slogan, "my body, my choice" a thing of the past.

How does a fetus retain a blood group different from its mother?

It's a well-established fact that blood group is decided by genotype. But, when a new child starts its journey in the womb, the mother's blood (along with it's agglutinins and agglutinogens) flows ...

biology.stackexchange.com

The "unborn" are destroyed regularly as a normal part of our biology.
Why are you ok with them being 'killed"?
Why does your concern over this "life" only exist when you can us it to justify interfering with someone else's life and personal decisions?

Because the open door to freely without guilt or conscious care to kill an unborn child might one day cause someone in my family or friends family go down that road.....they could've have been by friend.

I have a solution;
All males should undergo a government mandated reversible sterilization until they are fully capable and willing to support a child - then be required to comply.
You would support that, yes?
It would absolutely eliminate a great number of abortions. Your big issue goes away. All good? You would agree with that, surely?
No?
Ask yourself why you wouldn't.


Yes, once born. And once they are born, the government considers them people - citizens. You should make some effort to be concerned about those lives - people who actually exist.

You're mad because I want to protect those whom you have no respect or care or even exist......well that breaks my heart.

 

[Gordy327]

You're mad because I want to protect those whom you have no respect or care or even exist......well that breaks my heart.

That sounds like a 'you' problem. Why should anyone else have your problems, especially by legal force?

 

[redbeer]

Your own words accuse you. You have stated it is the motivation of the woman that must be considered. If the motive is met with approval, she has your blessing to kill the baby. If not, the baby gets to live.

If that does not meet the definition of controlling, nothing does.

She was raped against her will or of a medical condition which the continuance of the pregnancy would kill the mother are motivations which must meet my personal approval, lol. Nothing but a lame, blame copout. You have run out of material and are just farting crap into the air.

 

[BabaVoss]

"Yet you are doing exactly that (wanting to control women). Pretending you aren't isn't helping your cause.
How about this; if you think abortion is a bad thing, don't have one.
You are male? Then why the hell are you even weighing in? Let the woman make her own decisions. Its called personal lliberty."

Other than rape or medical reasons to save her life, that unborn child has the right to life, imo.

Thats your opinion, but you don't even have a uterus. You offer no real basis for that idea, and ytiou8 suggest that thsi imaginary right supercedes a woman's rights.

To you, it's nothing with no rights whatsoever to be killed on a whim.

You know little about what I feel. Assuming that anyone contemplates such a decision "on a whim" is condescending at best, and degrading and obnoxious. You are wholly ignorant of what women may or may not be dealing with at that point in time.

The problem lies in educating and pre-pregnancy birth control.

The problem is actually sperm. I just started another thread that offers a solution.

A solution to the abortion issue; simple and straightforward

I have a solution to the abortion issue. At least, it will greatly reduce the number of abortions in our country. Anyone who wants that outcome should approve. Here it is; All males should undergo a government mandated reversible sterilization at some point not long after birth - to her...

debatepolitics.com

Another reason is scientific.....did you know an unborn has their own dna and a different circulatory blood supply from the maternal circulatory blood supply, as there are two, the maternal and fetal blood circulatory systems. Even though in the early states the unborn is entirely dependent upon the mother, it has these things mentioned with a completely separate circulatory blood system. Kind of makes the slogan, "my body, my choice" a thing of the past.

Not at all. It is very much still 'her body". The idea that the government should be making decisions about her body is an appalling attack on personal liberty.

Because the open door to freely without guilt or conscious care to kill an unborn child might one day cause someone in my family or friends family go down that road.....they could've have been by friend.

?

You're mad because I want to protect those whom you have no respect or care or even exist......well that breaks my heart.

But you don't . You ONLY want to "protect those" where you can override someone else's personal liberty.
You don't care at all to protect those "unborn children" who are lost all the time as a result of our biology.
But you continue with the fantasy that you care so much about THIS clump of cells but not at all about THAT clump of cells - when they both have the exact same potential.
It is undeniable truth.
Which leads us back to the fact that you simply want to control women.
But you want the government to do it for you.
You, without even a uterus.

 

[Lursa]

Did I say that?

What does this mean then, please explain?

Lol, whatever. My point stands......the 14th amendment and the phrase 'my body, my choice' does not cut it.

You've posted the 14th A. Why doesnt the 14th protect women's rights to a much safer medical procedure? You understand now that it does not recognize any rights for the unborn, correct? So why doesnt the 14th "cut it" to protect women's rights to life, health, bodily autonomy, due process, etc? In other words, "choice?"

 

[Lursa]

She was raped against her will or of a medical condition which the continuance of the pregnancy would kill the mother are motivations which must meet my personal approval, lol. Nothing but a lame, blame copout. You have run out of material and are just farting crap into the air.

Why is it acceptable to "murder a baby" if the mother was raped? Even as a compromise, please explain that?

 

[Gordy327]

Why is it acceptable to "murder a baby" if the mother was raped? Even as a compromise, please explain that?

I pointed out the hypocricy of that position too. No surprise it was ignored. He seems to think his opinions whould matter or weigh more than actual Constitutional law, likely because feelings.

 

[Lursa]

The 14th Amendment speaks nothing of the unborn. It's speaking during the time after the Civil War to heal the nation and give liberties to those oppressed. They're similar to trinitarians who read false doctrine into the text. Then their slogan, "my body, my choice" is an oxymoron even in their false rendering of the 14th amendment.

It specifically excludes them. Right in the first section. The 3rd word.

 

[Lursa]

Taking language out of the 14th amendment which was written to give rights to slaves post civil war then placing them falsely upon the unborn is the perfect example of "out of context". T

Odd, it specifies "born" but it doesnt specify "slaves." The history is one thing but by no means was it meant to be applied specifically to freed slaves. Nor is it. It has been applied to women's rights to vote, women's equal rights, and SSM, for examples.

So...drop the 'slaves only' bit.

he racists of that time didn't give them any rights whatsoever, even not thinking they were human beings, hence the language of the 14th amendment.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, albeit exempts abortion, still the recognition is there.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.


Then of course section c here shows the error of using their 2nd 'go to' law for support......does it need explanation? Just two sections later in the same context proves their 'out of context' error.

This again? It's discourteous to keep attempting to use this in debate with "new meat" when it's been refuted. Post 44.

Please quote anywhere in those laws where the unborn have any rights recognized? OTOH, they explicitly exempt abortion and still allow women to kill their unborn, so obviously there is no right to life recognized.​

​

The govt uses laws to protect many things, endangered species, forests, livestock, coral reefs, etc. None of them have any rights recognized, correct?​

​

Protect/penalize does not = rights​

​

Anyone may consider and answer...it appears this poster chooses not to. @redbeer you have seen this before and refuse to accept it...please reiterate your reasoning? Do you have something new?​

 

[Lursa]

Although exempting abortion, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 gives the unborn legal rights. Any person including the mother does hurts or kills that unborn child, exempting abortion, they will answer to the authorities with possible imprisonment. They do have some rights and are not some type of nonhuman dehumanized blob that can be killed at any time such nonsense.

Quote from the law where rights are recognized for the unborn? You've been asked many times. Please quote it or stop lying about it.

 

[Lursa]

The billions and billions of women who have suffered through pregnancy and proudly raised families might tend to disagree with your hypothesis, lol.

So just the hell with the billions and billions that "didnt proudly raise families"...died, became crippled for life, starved, their other kids starved, abusive partners continued with them and the kids, etc etc etc? "You" know what's best for those billions of families? Apparently not.

Is your perspective on this issue really so blind and limited? So one-sided?

You exemplify the anti-choice goal of "as long as both survive the birth with a heartbeat". No matter if one or both on a ventilator, brain mush, missing organs, terminal pain, no chance for any quality of life, etc. That's dehumanizing and inhumane for both.

 

[Lursa]

Can women make this choice within the first trimester? Why should it be permitted beyond this time frame unless there's medical issues?

OK...good. Now please explain what distinctions there are between the first and 2nd trimestsers that make some kind of significant difference? What makes that not 'arbitrary?' What differences in the unborn's humanity or status are the focus here for the timeframe?

Anyone? No one ever answers this. All they post is, "she had plenty of time to make up her mind." Which is judgement and punishment, it's about the woman and has nothing to do with the unborn at all. Or, "but it's a compromise!" Yet one with no meaning they can describe.