All we are saying.....

[choiceone]

you think the skin cells off the buttocks of a woman is the same (DNA/genetically) as those of her unborn baby shows how little you know about biology

a living unborn it totally separate living human individual - you must know this, its biology 101

An embryo or fetus implanted in a woman's body can't be a totally separate living human individual, because, before viability, it instantly ceases to live if disimplanted - it depends biologically on her body. That's why, if she dies before it attains viability, it dies, too. The reverse is not the case - she can live whether or not it dies.

 

[choiceone]

at least you're acknowledging its a living human being - that's a start

It isn't a living human being. It's a living human embryo or fetus. That you don't know the difference suggests that English is not your native language. Are you of some other nationality or a naturalized citizen or something? In all my years teaching English as a second language, I had to explain about using an informal species designation as a modifier with "being," which always suggests human-like conscious mind and communication capacity, as in, e.g., "an extraterrestrial being," as opposed to "an extraterrestrial living entity."

 

[choiceone]

well I guess we're not "obligated" to do anything - take a gun and go kill 50 people tomorrow, you CAN do that if you want to

right?



but all the people who hate killing unborn life would be forced to live in a society where its allowed.

But these people could easily go to another society to live - they wouldn't be forced to stay. What's more, even if abortion were banned for all other reasons, it would never be banned if an embryo/fetus threatened the woman's life, so there would always be abortion in their society.

of course its forced - society forced laws on people

No, the laws would exist in society, but the people who didn't want abortions or believe in them would not have to have them, so nothing would be forced on those people.

there is no Constitutional Right to abortion. Supreme Court ruling and State Laws.

There is a Constitutional right to abortion according to an SC ruling that was largely unchanged for nearly half a century.

Moreover, there is one implied, at least, by a woman's right to life as a legal person, which the Dobbs decision acknowledged when it noted that there wasn't a single state anti-abortion law that hadn't made an exception to save a woman's life.

Meanwhile, there was never a single SC ruling or federal or state law that claimed a fetus was a legal person.

of course they'd not - they're not turning away living unborn babies and helping them. But if they DID based on "well, we don't think it a living human" people would lose their minds

treating an unborn isn't treating the mother - you do understand treating unborn living human life is treating THAT life and not the mother right ?

Of course it is treating the pregnant woman. If the pregnant woman is conscious and refuses medical treatment, no one has the right to use force to treat her. The embryo or fetus is, therefore, part of the woman, as no one has access to it without her legal consent as long as she is conscious.

example

your arguments is that the mother should/could have it killed because a baby with a defect? lots of financial burden. Lots of work. Birth defects right? Your buddy Gordy here thinks its the same as buttock skin cells

Infant Thriving After Surgery In The Womb Repairs Spina Bifida

In utero surgery restored Kennedy's brain structure, while reversing previous brain damage.

my.clevelandclinic.org

amazing huh ? notice "fetus" was never a word used in the article - baby was

that baby was deserving of life, regardless if you see it, Gordy sees it, the mother or the father see's is

The reason the woman can decide is that pregnancy is an onerous burden on her health and always in some measure threatens her health and life, as it always in some measure injures her body. She therefore has a right to decide whether or not she wants to continue to impose that burden on herself. If the defect is serious enough, she may think it's immoral to impose it on a future child. She may think the defective body is unworthy of the future child and that she should try to make a better body for it.

that's fine - you'll stick with the laws then than ban abortion too when they're passed? or are you only sticking with what you approve of ?

great

wee need to change the laws and IF we did ........ you'd become pro-life right ?

 

[stealthycat]

Not at all. There can be lots of things that are illegal that arent 'wrong.' Like not paying your taxes or not wearing shoes in public areas or tossing your garbage out the car window.
Not good for society but not morally wrong.

I agree - as we have decided, legal doesn't equal moral

I dont know, why?

to bind a few people - but not all

why don't women have to apply for the US draft when they turn 18? felons not allowed to own guns. Many laws exist that doesn't directly impact everyone. Heck some laws exist that most people don't like. Still there are laws that bind our society

What's your point? Mine is that we have a COnstitution that protects people and not the unborn. That's not going to change significantly.

As for morally, that changes nothing.

I disagree, the Constitution doesn't discuss abortion. That's more of a SC decision and they decided. Or States rights

I didnt say she went for an abortion FOR the unborn. My point was that IF she went for medical treatment for the unborn, then the unborn would be the patient.

Another fail for you.

prenatal care is for both the mother and unborn

Good for you. Forcing a family to deal with those challenges when there are others to be considered, that may suffer, be neglected, etc is also a horrible thing to do. So each woman/family decides with their doctors.

what a cold horrible thing to say - your posts stinks of eugenics and purification ... get rid of all those flawed people, right? world is better off without them

"No a fetus" what? And the humans inside women that they operate on are fetuses.

You're drowning here, emotions everywhere.

you use the word fetus to dehumanize, I do not.

Who says? What authority says that a human life inside a woman is valuable? Without a valid answer, you are welcome to your personal opinion. No one else has to care.

which brings us I guess to legal and not legal.

We simply need to pass more laws.

Been explained many times. I dont care to remove women's choice...I care about women.

And again (yeah for copy & paste!):

Anytime before birth, it requires her consent for the govt to act on her unborn. If the govt takes away her consent, it violates many of her rights up to and including her right to life.​

After birth, the govt/society can act on the baby without harming her, violating her rights to bodily autonomy, due process, life, etc.​

It's not all about the unborn...that's what you refuse to acknowledge. The woman is a participant here too...and you dont even factor her in when you say toss out the cliched, "what's the different 1 minute before and 1 minute after" BS.

we simply need laws to change then - you dance around why that baby isn't the same by talking about the woman. Why not talk about the baby ?

Correct.

I dont value born and unborn life equally. Not going further than that until you answer "What authority says killing the unborn is wrong?" Or as rephrased above, What authority says that a human life inside a woman is valuable?

ok I know that you don't value unborn but WHY ?

I don't need an "authority" I don't guess. Laws bind, laws exist. Some people have a morality tied to religion on value of life. Some people just believe in the value because they've had children and simply know it.

You're right too in that some people could no care less about human life. Serial killers place no value on any human life. Why are they wrong? Who gets to decide if Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader are really wrong in how they view human life value ?

My personal belief? Its tied up in my religious views, my personal life experiences, I see many laws protecting unborn life but only 1 allowing it to be legally killed. Logic and reason are my cornerstones.

 

[stealthycat]

People are animals and you didnt argue the analogy...there are laws to protect someone's unborn and dogs and cattle...but none of them have any right to life.

they're not humans, they have no "rights" - we agree and yet ..... for you, the unborn human life has no rights either and you'd protect that human life less than a bald eagle egg.

This is getting boring. Prove it. What authority says so?

do you not think the way our society is structured human life is considered valuable ? our laws are literally designed around human life isn't it? they don't make people moral and ethical and hey don't make people right and wrong - but they do echo

And now we imagine you stamping your feet and jumping up and down.

Your frustration at failing to make headway with "arguments" based on your feelings or beliefs is obvious. You are welcome your opinions/beliefs....everyone is. Just not forcing them by law on women that dont agree.

you've been very emotional last few posts - you ok ?

 

[Lursa]

I agree - as we have decided, legal doesn't equal moral

THen stop bringing it up.

to bind a few people - but not all

why don't women have to apply for the US draft when they turn 18? felons not allowed to own guns. Many laws exist that doesn't directly impact everyone. Heck some laws exist that most people don't like. Still there are laws that bind our society

This is not an answer to this, which you responded to:

You havent articulated why 'choice' is 'your problem.' Abortion ban/restriction does however, remove a woman's consent to her own body, health, even life...and that sure as hell affects her.​

​

So...morally it's clear the anti-abortites dont hold any moral High Ground here.​

Altho I'm against the draft, since we have it I believe women should be in it. At least the draft was intended to protect everyone. And felons not owning guns is a protection for everyone. Sorry, you have failed to explain this. The "pro-choice" position as law protects ALL women at some point in their lives. It results in fewer kids poorly raised who become criminals, it results in few people requiring taxpayer supported public assistance. So it protects society.

Please dont bother with "it protects the unborn." Only at the expense of women and the unborn arent 'anyone.' And see above why 'choice' is still the greater/moral good.

I disagree, the Constitution doesn't discuss abortion. That's more of a SC decision and they decided. Or States rights

Never said it did. However it does say in the 14th Amendment that only born people have rights. And SCOTUS didnt ever determine the unborn have any rights either.

Another fail, no matter how many times you try to twist and turn this.

prenatal care is for both the mother and unborn

And there's only prenatal care if the mother chooses it. Mostly she's not going to if she's going to have an abortion. Get it?

what a cold horrible thing to say - your posts stinks of eugenics and purification ... get rid of all those flawed people, right? world is better off without them

Spare me the drama Why do I have to repeat this because you want to make this about me and not the topic? I said it's up to the family and their needs, their circumstances. We dont need extra people, even if they're "perfectly formed." Let it go...if people cant afford or arent prepared for a kid or another kid due to circumstances at that time..."choice" is what's best for them.

It's "cold and horrible" that you dont give a shit about their lives, only some imagined unborn who suffers nothing.

you use the word fetus to dehumanize, I do not.

Yeah, all those doctors and nurses and everyone else that uses the word properly are all out to "dehumanize" the unborn.

which brings us I guess to legal and not legal.

We simply need to pass more laws.

we simply need laws to change then - you dance around why that baby isn't the same by talking about the woman. Why not talk about the baby ?

Another fail for you. During RvW, the abortion rate was going down every year during the later decades.

And I do talk about the unborn...and the women. You leave the woman out of it because you believe she should sacrifice everything, her self-determination, her health, her moral agency, her responsibilities to others, etc just to push out a kid. You believe the govt should be able to violate her rights to things like her life, bodily autonomy, due process, liberty...to remove her consent to her own life.

ok I know that you don't value unborn but WHY ?

Just answer the question first Still waiting.

 

[Lursa]

I don't need an "authority" I don't guess. Laws bind, laws exist. Some people have a morality tied to religion on value of life. Some people just believe in the value because they've had children and simply know it.

Great, so there's no authority that says abortion is wrong. I know that it's not wrong, btw. I find it sad, and sad that a woman may find herself in that difficult position, she may even want to have it. But no one should be forced to endure pregnancy against her will when there is a much safer medical procedure "that isnt wrong." Just like divorce...no one likes it but it's not wrong but people do it believing it's in their best interests for the future. Just because decision is hard doesnt mean it's wrong.

If that's your answer then why the heck should other people be bound by your beliefs or feelings? If it's not wrong...why should force of law that can destroy a woman's future, even life, be law?

You're right too in that some people could no care less about human life. Serial killers place no value on any human life. Why are they wrong? Who gets to decide if Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader are really wrong in how they view human life value ?

Are you familiar with people's rights and the Constitution? Spare me the desperate drama. If you want discuss the morality of serial killers, start another thread.

My personal belief? Its tied up in my religious views, my personal life experiences, I see many laws protecting unborn life but only 1 allowing it to be legally killed. Logic and reason are my cornerstones.

That's nice. So is mine for the most part, but mine also includes a very strong belief in and need to protect women's rights. Rights to their lives, health, bodily autonomy, self-determination, due process, etc.

And even so, I dont believe in forcing that on any women. That's why I support choice. And you should not be entitled to force yours on women either.

 

[Citizen]

Amen.

Family planning (thank you, Ms. Margaret Sanger) and abortion are absolutely constructive and positive.

First, I envy the unborn.
Second, a woman owns her body.
Third, when I read about war-mongering "leaders" and vicious violent criminals and heartless white-collar criminals, I wish that they had been aborted.

It's like jailing the drug addicted for being addicted to drugs or the homeless for being homeless. I have always been for education and government assistance for those who find that abortion is their only choice with the exception of health reason. Free birth control, education, mandatory maternity leave and access to prenatal heath care even if you can't afford it would help. But the heartless GOP thinks that abortion is a crime and should be punished. The evangelical Fire and Brimstone approach

 

[Lursa]

they're not humans, they have no "rights" - we agree and yet ..... for you, the unborn human life has no rights either and you'd protect that human life less than a bald eagle egg.

The unborn has no rights...that's a fact according to the Const and SCOTUS.

Aside from your mistake, your assumptions about what "I think" are not really relevant.

do you not think the way our society is structured human life is considered valuable ? our laws are literally designed around human life isn't it? they don't make people moral and ethical and hey don't make people right and wrong - but they do echo

Where did I say society doesnt value human life? Our govt is geared to protect human life and society by organizing it under a Constitution and laws. The Const. recognizes rights for "the born and naturalized citizens..." The majority of our society supports elective abortion.

These are gauges of how society values born and unborn...get it?

you've been very emotional last few posts - you ok ?

Not at all...dont make this about me to avoid confronting how poorly you've supported your arguments here. And your own words are clear that you are angry and frustrated. Hence me pointing out things like your dramatic rhetoric.

 

[forn]

If it's inside the woman's body without her consent, then if it's part of her body, she has the right to have it removed, and if it's not part of her body, it has no right to be there so she has the right to have it removed.

Great theory. I think somebody forgot to tell nature though...
Also, I would say that if she consents to a certain action, she would be consenting to the possible outcomes of that action.

 

[Gordy327]

Great theory. I think somebody forgot to tell nature though...
Also, I would say that if she consents to a certain action, she would be consenting to the possible outcomes of that action.

Why? Says who? Consent can be revoked.

 

[Lursa]

Great theory. I think somebody forgot to tell nature though...
Also, I would say that if she consents to a certain action, she would be consenting to the possible outcomes of that action.

Why? That assumes having an abortion is wrong. Who says so? What authority?

Not the Constitution, not SCOTUS. So...who?

 

[Citizen]

Great theory. I think somebody forgot to tell nature though...
Also, I would say that if she consents to a certain action, she would be consenting to the possible outcomes of that action.

Yes, we should punish the woman

 

[forn]

Why? Says who? Consent can be revoked.

Not after the fact.

 

[Gordy327]

Not after the fact.

Says who?

 

[forn]

Says who?

I know the uber-feminists are fine with giving consent and then later claiming #MeToo, but it's not very ethical.

 

[choiceone]

Why? Says who? Consent can be revoked.

Consent can also be contingent.

 

[choiceone]

I know the uber-feminists are fine with giving consent and then later claiming #MeToo, but it's not very ethical.

Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy. That's my moral position, not just a legal position.

I'm tired of anti-abortion people claiming that the moral and ethical position of perhaps 60-70% of the people of the US is NOT a moral or ethical position because it doesn't agree with their own.

 

[Gordy327]

I know the uber-feminists are fine with giving consent and then later claiming #MeToo, but it's not very ethical.

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[forn]

Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy.

Haven't had that chat about the birds and the bees yet, eh?

 

[Bodi]

There is no Right to abortion you're correct, only laws that allow it or don't

If there was no right to abortion then why can a woman biologically do it any time that she wants.

The argument against abortion is as stupid as saying a man can not piss standing up...it needs to be regulated. But... nope... watch this...

 

[Bodi]

Haven't had that chat about the birds and the bees yet, eh?

Never heard of technology, have ye'

Your argument is about as dumb as telling people that man can not walk on the moon.

 

[stealthycat]

The unborn has no rights...that's a fact according to the Const and SCOTUS.

Aside from your mistake, your assumptions about what "I think" are not really relevant.

Rights? maybe not in a Constitutional way in the USA although some countries recognize them that way, right?

laws protecting them ? yes

Fetal Protection Laws and the "Personhood" Problem: Toward a Relational Theory of Fetal Life and Reproductive Responsibility

Fetal Protection Laws (FPLs) are laws that define and provide punishments for any number of crimes, including homicide, committed “against a fetus.” Previous literature has suggested that FPLs need to be explicit about who the intended target of this legislation is. Specifically, comments...

scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu

Where did I say society doesnt value human life? Our govt is geared to protect human life and society by organizing it under a Constitution and laws. The Const. recognizes rights for "the born and naturalized citizens..." The majority of our society supports elective abortion.

These are gauges of how society values born and unborn...get it?

I do get it - we need to teach young kids the value of life, that abortion is wrong in in 15 year they'll vote to change our laws and destroy the practice. Its really all about society and laws isn't it ?

Not at all...dont make this about me to avoid confronting how poorly you've supported your arguments here. And your own words are clear that you are angry and frustrated. Hence me pointing out things like your dramatic rhetoric.

oh good gawd no, I'm happier than I've ever been on abortion. Roe is dead. Many states are banning abortions. GOOD THINGS .... we are protecting unborn more now than in 55 years

your side? fighting hard to be relevant

 

[stealthycat]

If there was no right to abortion then why can a woman biologically do it any time that she wants.

so that unborn life doesn't matter and has no value - the woman can do what she wants - that's your belief

what magically makes it have value when its killed in a murder and a double homicide takes place ?

same baby - how did it magically change from having no value to being valuable ?

 

[Gordy327]

Rights? maybe not in a Constitutional way in the USA although some countries recognize them that way, right?

laws protecting them ? yes

What other countries do is irrelevant to our Constitution and laws.

I do get it - we need to teach young kids the value of life, that abortion is wrong in in 15 year they'll vote to change our laws and destroy the practice. Its really all about society and laws isn't it ?

What should we tell kids when they ask to explain or quantify what the "value" of life is?

oh good gawd no, I'm happier than I've ever been on abortion. Roe is dead. Many states are banning abortions. GOOD THINGS .... we are protecting unborn more now than in 55 years

How is that a good thing? Abortion is still legal in most states.

your side? fighting hard to be relevant

Irony. Meanwhile, in states where abortion is put to vote, your "side" gets shot down.

so that unborn life doesn't matter and has no value - the woman can do what she wants - that's your belief

What is it's "value?" Especially over that of the woman? I keep asking that and you keep dodging it.

what magically makes it have value when its killed in a murder and a double homicide takes place ?

Nothing. A double homicide is just an emotionally driven BS charge. There's no rational or legal reason for it.

same baby - how did it magically change from having no value to being valuable ?

Who said it has "value " to begin with, especially since you cannot even explain or quantify this value?