Abortion is NOT a woman's right

[NatMorton]

Right Everyone else is wrong.

See post 279, color-coded and everything , demonstrating you're wrong and just dont want to lose 'face.'

Everyone is not wrong. You are wrong, and color-coding your mistakes only serves to highlight them.

 

[Lursa]

If you’re not building straw-men you’re wasting time with non sequitors. That one can travel to a state with different abortion laws is not the issue. The quantity of late term abortion requests is not the issue. What authority a state has or doesn’t over third trimester abortions is the issue we are discussing here.

I just answered the question asked.

I've answered the rest before. See post 279. (And that's for everyone else...so they can confirm the facts)

 

[NatMorton]

Yeah that post of mine was either up before your response, or was made before I had gotten down to your response. No need for me to make the response again. Just scroll up a bit.

Sorry, I’ve lost the flow, too. Specifically, which post/point would you like me to address?

 

[Lursa]

Everyone is not wrong. You are wrong, and color-coding your mistakes only serves to highlight them.

And yet you have failed to directly refute it and show were the court intended or implied rights for the unborn anywhere. As noted, their words were very specific, consistent, and clear. And apparently, even the colors dont help you.

All you do is ask questions, you dont answer them...cowardly debate tactic.

Show were SCOTUS intended or implied rights for the unborn. We'll wait.

 

[AGENT J]

This is the legal reasoning the pro-choice radicals cannot grasp. Government's ability to supercede a woman's right to privacy can only be Constitutional when exercising that privacy right harms another. And in cases of third-trimester abortion restrictions, that other has to be the fetus; no other justification makes sense.

yet the verbiage is states interest, go figure

 

[NatMorton]

Technically some states...and all of Canada...have no such limits.

And no such abortions of healthy, viable fetuses take place. Obviously no laws are necessary. Not only that, no doctor is forced to do such an abortion.

It’s somewhat fascinating to read you — literally — describe (correctly) the legal framework that allows states — if they so choose — to superseded a woman’s right to privacy in the third trimester and then blindly argue how they’re not allowed to do that.

It’s compartmentalization gone wild.

 

[NatMorton]

and show were the court intended or implied rights for the unborn anywhere.

^^^ you doing the straw-man thing again. You’re not fooling anyone.

 

[Gordy327]

Technically some states...and all of Canada...have no such limits.

And no such abortions of healthy, viable fetuses take place. Obviously no laws are necessary. Not only that, no doctor is forced to do such an abortion.

Beyond that, it's an extremely difficult procedure at that point and there's only 3-4 places in the US that can do them...and they're only doing ones where the fetuses are severely defective. @minnie616 has the sources for this. It's more dangerous and painful for the woman than labor, since (for one reason) her body does not prepare for labor, like dilating the cervix.

It's the last bastion of those with no real argument against abortion...pretending that this happens. Yet they can never show that any take place. And why would they? At that point, labor is safer and less painful and she can make a cool $20,000 or more in a private adoption.

I've lost count of how many times ive heard an anti-abortionist make the argument along the lines of late term abortions becoming the norm. It's clearly a sign of a lost argument, or not having one at all.

 

[maquiscat]

Sorry, I’ve lost the flow, too. Specifically, which post/point would you like me to address?

You already did

 

[Lursa]

A state can provide you the right to a cut on your taxes if you dance a jig, properly, in front of the state capitol building. That doesn't extend that right to another state. Likewise a state can make it a crime to dance a jig in front of the capital building, but that crime doesn't extend to another state. You pointing out that a woman cannot be charged with a crime in state A for the same action done in state B does nothing to address the fact that it is a crime in state A. You are making a strawman, because not of his arguments are about going out of state for the procedure that illegal in state.

It's not a crime...they cant make it a crime to have an abortion in any state. They can only restrict the procedure.

Again, it hasnt been challenged in the courts because no women have abortions of healthy viable fetuses.

One reason that privacy was used as a basis for the RvW decision is that no woman ever has to make her condition known and she's protected by privacy and due process.

Also the fact that the unborn isnt a person would not allow the state to charge murder.

They'd need medical records that she'd been pregnant...no woman has to go to a Dr to have that confirmed anymore. They cant stop her from travelling. THey cant 'ask' or check her reproductive status. The list is very long. Women get abortions very early, over 95%, and if they didnt want a baby, they just would keep their status a secret.

No one has ever been able to explain how the states would get around all these things...and you cant just cherry-pick one...it hasnt been challenged in the courts, either because it doesnt happen or women wont come forward.

But the McFail vs Shimp decision that I posted earlier...and published in the Harvard Law Review with an application to abortion, shows why the govt cannot and would not violate a woman's right to bodily autonomy. See post 264.

If no one ever got abortions at all, would the right to an abortion still exist?

Of course. And a right is not the same as a law.

 

[Lursa]

It’s somewhat fascinating to read you — literally — describe (correctly) the legal framework that allows states — if they so choose — to superseded a woman’s right to privacy in the third trimester and then blindly argue how they’re not allowed to do that.

No, all they did, as they clearly stated, was to allow states to protect the potentiality of life if they chose.

It’s compartmentalization gone wild.

LOL yours is certainly out of control, as is your ability to understand basic words or answer the basic question myself and others have asked: where did SCOTUS imply or indicate any recognition of rights or being person for fetuses?

See post 279 to show, again, how you're wrong.

 

[Lursa]

^^^ you doing the straw-man thing again. You’re not fooling anyone.

Great, answer the question then. You are claiming they did intend for states to do so, that protecting the potentiality of life means the unborn has a right to life.

Show where they said that...when they clearly, over and over, said the exact opposite.

Post 279 for reference.

 

[maquiscat]

Of course. And a right is not the same as a law.

Exactly. So whether or not any women actually seek a late term abortion with no medical issues is irrelevant to whether they have a right to.

 

[maquiscat]

Great, answer the question then. You are claiming they did intend for states to do so, that protecting the potentiality of life means the unborn has a right to life.

Show where they said that...when they clearly, over and over, said the exact opposite.

Post 279 for reference.

Everything thing he has written has been an argument that they allowed for it, not that they intended for it. I may be against his overall position, but you are still strawman arguing when you keep changing that point.

 

[Gordy327]

Exactly. So whether or not any women actually seek a late term abortion with no medical issues is irrelevant to whether they have a right to.

I would also add that it's also no one else's business either.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Maybe I have the wrong state, but I could have sworn that I read where one law was treating the intent to go out of state for the abortion as conspiracy or intent to commit murder.

How would any state government be able to determine he reason for traveling out of state is to get an abortion? It is very unlikely the same LEO will see her driving out of state with a baby bump and back into her state with a normal abdominal/pelvic area.

 

[maquiscat]

I would also add that it's also no one else's business either.

It's no one else's business when I beat up my neighbor is it?

 

[maquiscat]

How would any state government be able to determine he reason for traveling out of state is to get an abortion? It is very unlikely the same LEO will see her driving out of state with a baby bump and back into her state with a normal abdominal/pelvic area.

Since when has an ability to enforce a law ever stopped them from passing it?

 

[NatMorton]

I've lost count of how many times ive heard an anti-abortionist make the argument along the lines of late term abortions becoming the norm. It's clearly a sign of a lost argument, or not having one at all.

Who in this thread do you think is making that argument?

 

[Lursa]

Exactly. So whether or not any women actually seek a late term abortion with no medical issues is irrelevant to whether they have a right to.

No, it's not. As I also wrote, it's never been challenged in the courts. Since it doenst happen, it's also unlikely to.

 

[NatMorton]

No, all they did, as they clearly stated, was to allow states to protect the potentiality of life if they chose.

In what meaningful way does protecting the potential of life differ from protecting actual life?

 

[Lursa]

Since when has an ability to enforce a law ever stopped them from passing it?

Exactly and it's bullshit.

As I've written many times, I am against useless, feel-good legislation.

The entire country of Canada has no limits...and no such abortions of healthy, viable fetuses take place.

 

[maquiscat]

No, it's not. As I also wrote, it's never been challenged in the courts. Since it doenst happen, it's also unlikely to.

So then does a woman have a right to a late term abortion without any threat to her life?

 

[NatMorton]

where did SCOTUS imply or indicate any recognition of rights or being person for fetuses?

As I have said many times, it doesn't.

How many more times are you going to pretend that I haven't answered that question or that that question is relevant to my point?

 

[Lursa]

In what meaningful way does protecting the potential of life differ from protecting actual life?

Stop asking questions and answer mine.