• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abortion is NOT a woman's right

Luce said:
You compared women getting abortions to you beating your neighbor up.

There was no giant leap here. I just responded to what you actually said.
Click to expand...
Failed to answer the questions I see. And what I am doing to trying to show that the idea of something not being someone else business is not a clear cut reason for any given law, or rather lack thereof. Even if we just limit the idea to the self, then it's noone's business if I put drugs into myself. Heck that is even more so because there is no secondary life involved.
 
NatMorton said:
You keep injecting claims I've never made. For example I have not used or implied that somehow the fetus becomes a "person" with all that word implies.

Please read this carefully, at least twice:

Roe allows -- but in no way obligates -- states to assert a fetal right to life in the third trimester that can supersede a woman's Constitutional right to privacy.​

Please have your response limited to those exact words and not words you merely imagine I've said.
Click to expand...

Where is that quote in bold from? You? :rolleyes:

It doesnt matter, btw. It's wrong. Nowhere have you ever shown where SCOTUS implies or intends or asserts that their ruling allows states to recognize a right to life for the unborn. Their wording is clear. The state may take an interest in protecting the potentiality of life. They did not use 'right' anywhere with reference to the unborn.

However they did in the quotes from their decision that I posted in post 279 where they clearly and consistently say that the unborn has no rights, even after viability.

Every time you attempt this, you make it painfully (for you) clear that you cannot answer this question:
​
Where did SCOTUS imply or intend that the state's interest in protecting the potentiality of life means it allows the state to recognize (assert) a right to life for the unborn?​
​
Even tweaked the wording for ya, to use your 'terms'.
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
I hadn't realized I typoed from what I intended. Allow me to try again please.

When has the inability to enforce a law ever stop them from passing it?
Click to expand...

How about the time when Republicans refuse to accept Barack Obama's call for quick action to pass a gun control law in response to the Batman and Sandy Hook mass shootings? I can only guess, but with the number of mass shootings going up, it seems laws that are intended to stop them don't work.
 
Lursa said:
Where is that quote in bold from? You? :rolleyes:

It doesnt matter, btw. It's wrong. Nowhere have you ever shown where SCOTUS implies or intends or asserts that their ruling allows states to recognize a right to life for the unborn. Their wording is clear. The state may take an interest in protecting the potentiality of life. They did not use 'right' anywhere with reference to the unborn.

However they did in the quotes from their decision that I posted in post 279 where they clearly and consistently say that the unborn has no rights, even after viability.

Every time you attempt this, you make it painfully (for you) clear that you cannot answer this question:
​
Where did SCOTUS imply or intend that the state's interest in protecting the potentiality of life means it allows the state to recognize (assert) a right to life for the unborn?​
​
Even tweaked the wording for ya, to use your 'terms'.
Click to expand...
Okay, this is you just flat out lying, again. Time for you to someplace special.

Toodles.
 
NatMorton said:
Okay, this is you just flat out lying, again. Time for you to someplace special.

Toodles.
Click to expand...

Nah, once again you cut and run...you ran out of road trying to finesse word by word what you asserted...and it finally caught up with you. You cant answer the question.

Where is that quote in bold from? You? :rolleyes:​
​
It doesnt matter, btw. It's wrong. Nowhere have you ever shown where SCOTUS implies or intends or asserts that their ruling allows states to recognize a right to life for the unborn. Their wording is clear. The state may take an interest in protecting the potentiality of life. They did not use 'right' anywhere with reference to the unborn.​
​
However they did in the quotes from their decision that I posted in post 279 where they clearly and consistently say that the unborn has no rights, even after viability.​
​
Every time you attempt this, you make it painfully (for you) clear that you cannot answer this question:​
Where did SCOTUS imply or intend that the state's interest in protecting the potentiality of life means it allows the state to recognize (assert) a right to life for the unborn?​

Even tweaked the wording for ya, to use your 'terms'. Anyone can refer to post 279 for the sourced facts, their own words, and the proof. Color-coded and everything :D​
 
Jackfrost_LDS8128 said:
Before abortion, we must first look at reproduction. A woman is unable to asexually reproduce.

Reproduction requires both a man and a woman (preferably between husband and wife). One sex can't monopolize reproduction. Therefore, abortion can't be a woman's right.
Click to expand...
So....if a woman (or a man)...says no to sex...they have monopolized reproduction.

If a man and woman decide when to have sex to reproduce....they have monopolized reproduction.

If a man and/or woman decide to have operations to prevent pregnancies on their end...they have monopolized reproduction.

If a man and/or woman decide to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancies on their end...they have monopolized reproduction.

Abortion...outside of reasons of rape, incest and medical reasons...is the LEAST chosen course of action to monopolize reproduction.

SIDE NOTE - Creating artificial sperm is currently being worked on with some success in animals. Far, far away from humans being able to do it...but not out of the realm of possibility...actually, it is thought to be eventual in the next few decades. Should that happen...then, absolutely yes....women can monopolize reproduction.
 
weaver2 said:
Roe does not say that the fetus's right to life is more important than the mother's right to privacy.
Click to expand...
NatMorton said:
I never said that it did. Pls cite the post where you think I said this.
Click to expand...

Yes you did say that; several times

NatMorton said:
Yes, it does. It confers a right on them that literally trumps your right to privacy and your right to bodily autonomy. That's what being prevented from having an abortion means. The decision is no longer yours alone
Click to expand...
NatMorton said:
In the third trimester, a state is free to assert a fetus's right to life supersedes a mother's right to privacy. I know this bothers you, but it's the truth.
Click to expand...
NatMorton said:
Glad we both agree the state has the authority to declare a fetus's right to life is more important than the mother's right to privacy. Perhaps you'll have better luck convincing Lursa of that. She's still denying the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...
NatMorton said:
If you’re denied an abortion today because of the future rights of a “potential life” or the rights of a present life, what is the difference?

The semantic games you’re playing mean nothing in this context. The intent of the legislatures that pass these restrictions is clear. The end result is the same. The third trimester fetus’s right to live supersedes your right to privacy.
Click to expand...
 
Jackfrost_LDS8128 said:
Before abortion, we must first look at reproduction. A woman is unable to asexually reproduce.

Reproduction requires both a man and a woman (preferably between husband and wife). One sex can't monopolize reproduction. Therefore, abortion can't be a woman's right.
Click to expand...

Lmao oh this is going to get you in some trouble
 
HangLow said:
Good, this should not take too long...
When did you have your last abortion???
Don't you dare lie to me...
-peace
Click to expand...
I have never had an abortion, but that hardly seems relevant to this discussion. We are not debating whether abortion is morally a good or bad thing. We are discussing where and when states have the authority to restrict it and why they restrict it.

BTW, I am fabulously wealthy, stunningly handsome, have the abs of a middle-weight prize fighter, and am regularly chased by a string of gorgeous blonde twenty-somethings who will just not leave me alone. (Hey, I love a dare).
 
NatMorton said:
I have never had an abortion, but that hardly seems relevant to this discussion. We are not debating whether abortion is morally a good or bad thing. We are discussing where and when states have the authority to restrict it and why they restrict it.

BTW, I am fabulously wealthy, stunningly handsome, have the abs of a middle-weight prize fighter, and am regularly chased by a string of gorgeous blonde twenty-somethings who will just not leave me alone. (Hey, I love a dare).
Click to expand...
Thank you, Nat...
You're a good sport...
Enjoy your weekend and be careful...
-Peace
 
Jason Warfield said:
SIDE NOTE - Creating artificial sperm is currently being worked on with some success in animals. Far, far away from humans being able to do it...but not out of the realm of possibility...actually, it is thought to be eventual in the next few decades. Should that happen...then, absolutely yes....women can monopolize reproduction.
Click to expand...

I doubt that, but only because artificial womb technology is also underway and advancing well. Add to that, if they can manage artificial sperm (BTW, I'd love a link to that), then they should have no problem with artificial eggs. Thus neither can monopolize reproduction. It will just free individuals from having to have sex, or a cooperative partner (such as for IVF) in order to do so.
 
HangLow said:
It has been 15 minutes...
I rest my case...
-Peace
Click to expand...
What the hell does this mean? That because he didn't answer in your arbitrary time frame anything he says is invalid or proves a point? We do have actual lives outside this forum you know. Sometimes I have a chance to respond to a couple of post while on a break at work and then it will be hours before I can get back on. Hell, I have gone for days before just because so much at home came up. This is even weaker than trying to strawman an argument.
 
NatMorton said:
I have never had an abortion, but that hardly seems relevant to this discussion. We are not debating whether abortion is morally a good or bad thing. We are discussing where and when states have the authority to restrict it and why they restrict it.

BTW, I am fabulously wealthy, stunningly handsome, have the abs of a middle-weight prize fighter, and am regularly chased by a string of gorgeous blonde twenty-somethings who will just not leave me alone. (Hey, I love a dare).
Click to expand...
Pffft! I have the redheads chasing after me. Granted some of them are trying to hurt me, but that's just detail.
 
NatMorton said:
With this sentence you’ve just contradicted your opening point and acknowledged the state does have the authority to proscribe abortion.
Click to expand...
No I did not contradict myself. I simply pointed out the absurdity of you demanding women get third semester abortion on a whim.
As well you have completely ignored the fact that doctors also have a standard of ethics. At a third semester stage the doctors will do everything possible to keep a preemie alive.

Your bullshit paranoia about the government simply shows a lack of understanding and a fear of government rather than an observation of reality.
 
soylentgreen said:
No I did not contradict myself. I simply pointed out the absurdity of you demanding women get third semester abortion on a whim.
As well you have completely ignored the fact that doctors also have a standard of ethics. At a third semester stage the doctors will do everything possible to keep a preemie alive.

Your bullshit paranoia about the government simply shows a lack of understanding and a fear of government rather than an observation of reality.
Click to expand...
You, like most of the others arguing against me in this thread, simply cannot avoid building straw men. When you do please understand that to any objective reader you are raising the white flag. At no point in this thread — or any other across the entire internet — have I ever demanded a woman get a third trimester (not “semester”) abortion on a whim. You are doing nothing more than making a clumsy effort to try and sound like you’re right about something. You’re fooling no one; it’s nonsense.

Further along these lines, at no point I have expressed paranoia or fear about the government in this thread. I have simply stated what Roe does not allow, what it does allow, and what states have done within the bounds of what Roe allows. You going off on this “fear” rant is nothing more than a demonstration of your frustration from not having a more effective counterargument.
 
NatMorton said:
If you can’t explain it simply then you simply don’t understand it.
Click to expand...
Justice Blackmun wrote the majority decision in clear straightforward language so the average citizen could read and understand it.

I understand Roe and in spite of your request for explanations, so do you. You've obviously combed the decision for the one sentence you can use to claim the states are free to restrict women's ability to get an abortion and this means giving the fetus the right to life.

103 (c) "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

You are treating the words "right to life" as if it were a specific legal term that confers legal personhood on a fetus in spite of Blackmun's very clear statement that personhood and right to life are not being given to a fetus by the Roe decision.

People in the anti-abortion movement typically focuses on things that are not happening in the 3rd trimester: abortion on demand, abortion 30 minutes before birth, abortion due to insignificant birth defects by parents demanding a perfect child, abortion after birth; or on things like the D and E are happening because they are medically "best practice" for the mother. They claim that one sentence in Roe confers the right to life on a fetus, giving personhood to the fetus. Typically the anti-abortion movement is big on declaring that the right to life of the fetus nullifies women's rights in the 3rd trimester.

#275 "It (Roe) confers a right on them that literally trumps your right to privacy and your right to bodily autonomy. That's what being prevented from having an abortion means. The decision is no longer yours alone"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom