I don't say "don't tell me what I can do with my body" because I know the right to privacy is not about what a person can do with their body. The right to privacy is about reproductive rights so your analogy that it is the equivalent of someone saying " don't tell me I can't shoot some random dude with my gun" is just wrong.
What the hell are you talking about?
Do you not understand what "reasonable doubt" means? it means doubt that an individual violated the law - the law that is truth.
It's almost like you're trying to argue law is theory or really doesn't exist.
Here is absolute truth. 720 ILCS 5 - that is the criminal code for Second Degree Murder in Illinois. That code exists, hence it is the truth.
Oh so shooting someone in the privacy of their own home is fine with you using your flawed logic.
A fetus is an individual NOT a body part. There is nothing private about that. Abortion has absolutely NOTHING to do with an individuals right to privacy.
What about that fetuses right to live?
Since I've never said anything about what I believe concerning right and wrong, it would be your dishonest argument that is the problem, coupled with your continued reliance on ad hom arguments, which are inherently fallacious.
Do you seriously believe what you type?
Are really trying to imply murder is a fallacy?
My argument is against your justification of abortion - not you.
Furthermore, ever time progressives like you get the business spit at you - you start deflecting the facts with your ad hominem mirror.
Do you have any idea how many times I have been through this stage of debate with a progressive?
Everything from here on out will in your mind be a personal attack or a fallacy...
A fetis has no right to live. Only a person has such a right and a fetus is not a person, as the word is used in the constitution
WHen it comes to what the law is, it most certainly does matter.
You free to hold opinions on matters of truth. There's nothing wrong with that (quite the opposite in fact). However, we live in a nation whose laws are determined by a legal document known as the constitution, and not by some random individuals philosophical beliefs.
BTW, as a factual matter, one need not show when something was created in order to prove that it exists. One need to show proof that it exists. Let me know when you can prove that a "moment of conception" actually exists. The scientific evidence proves that conception is a process, with no clear moment that can be used to mark its' beginning.
... Abortion has absolutely NOTHING to do with an individuals right to privacy.
Right of privacy: personal autonomy
The right of privacy has evolved to protect the freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to perform certain acts or subject themselves to certain experiences. This personal autonomy has grown into a 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
However, this liberty is narrowly defined and generally only protects privacy of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.
There have been attempts to further extend the right of privacy under the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; however, a general right to personal autonomy has yet to take hold beyond limited circumstances.
The personal autonomy dimension of the right of privacy has been overwhelmingly developed in cases dealing with reproductive rights.
The Supreme Court first recognized an independent right of privacy within the 'penumbra' (fringe area) of the Bill of Rights in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). In this case, a right of marital privacy was invoked to void a law prohibiting contraception. Later cases expanded upon this fundamental right, and in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the right of privacy was firmly established under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court classified this right as fundamental, thus requiring any governmental infringement to be justified by a compelling state interest.
Roe held that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability.
Before viability, it was held, the mother's liberty of personal privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.
A fetis has no right to live. Only a person has such a right and a fetus is not a person, as the word is used in the constitution
The fact is that for several posts in a row you have presented no factual argument relating to abortion, and have made several ad hom arguments.
Abortion does have something to do with an individuals right to privacy.
I think perhaps you do not understand what right to privacy is really about:
From this article:
Personal Autonomy | LII / Legal Information Institute
...
Funny how someone can be charged with murder for shooting or punching a pregnant woman in the stomach, however that same woman on that same day could go get an abortion and it's perfectly fine... If a "fetus" isn't human, than how can the criminal system charge someone with murder? oh yeah, because the only thing that matters in that instance is NOT weather the fetus was valid but its about weather or not the mother wanted the baby.
See how that works?
You have anything to say about that?
A fetis has no right to live. Only a person has such a right and a fetus is not a person, as the word is used in the constitution
You have said (If I remember correctly from your post) that a child is not a person until it is born. Is that your personal belief, or is that simply the law as it exists today, or both?
Actually a fetus is not person / baby/ child until it born. Once it becomes viaible it becomes a " potential person" as defined byYou have said (If I remember correctly from your post) that a child is not a person until it is born. Is that your personal belief, or is that simply the law as it exists today, or both?
Some states have feticide laws but that does not mean a fetus is a person.
All those feticide laws do allow for legal abortions.
Roe vs Wade is a federal law and is the law of the land so the state feticide laws had to exempt legal abortion or those laws would have been struck down very quickly.
Actually a fetus is not person / baby/ child until it born. Once it becomes viaible it becomes a " potential person" as defined by
Roe vs Wade.
Abortion has nothing to do with privacy - there is absolutely nothing private about it considering we're talking about TWO individuals...
I disagree. I believe it is a privacy issue as it does have to with motherhood and procreation.
No woman should ever be forced to risk their health and possibly their life to gestate and give birth.
I will not support a law or a country that would force a woman to give birth.
On the other side of the coin...
I will not support a law or a country that would force a woman to have an abortion.
Actually a fetus is not person / baby/ child until it born. Once it becomes viaible it becomes a " potential person" as defined by
Roe vs Wade.
That's why I used my birth date as an example. I was born 4 weeks early, does that not make me a person? I mean I didn't come out when I was supposed to... Obviously I survived but using his logic it would have been ok to abort me because I wasn't a "person" when I was born on September 17th and not October 12th.
Well apparently a fetus is an individual if someone is charged with murder for murdering a fetus. How can a person be charged with killing another person if that said person is not a person?
So in other words a person is only a person in the womb only if the mother wants the child. If she doesn't want the child that child is not a person.... Yeah got it!
Do you agree that a mother and child are two different individuals?
So what gives the mother the right to kill a completely separate individual?
This has absolutely nothing to do with privacy.
I have no problem with abortions in life or death situations like ectopic pregnancies and such.
As I said before...the woman has a right to privacy. Women have to right to control reproductivity. It really is not about PROPERTY.
It is not about her owning her body.
I think that is where your confusion lies.
For one thing, you haven't been shy about asking people questions about matters they didn't raise in the first place, so you really aren't in a good place to object when someone does the same to you.
For another, unlike your questions, which seem to be more related to your interest in constitutional theory, my question is directly related to the matter at hand (ie abortion)
With that said, I do appreciate your taking the time to try and answer my question
I have seen you argue (and correct me if I've misunderstood you) that the fed govt only has those powers which the constitution has explicitely delegated to it. However, no matter how hard I look, I can't find anything in the constitution which says that the govt has been given the power to regulate abortion. Considering the possibility that I have overlooked it, I am asking you to please locate and identify the passage which grants our govt this power.
While I do (again) appreciate your taking the time to respond, I did not ask you to outline your reasoning for why you think the govt has (or does not have) the power to regulate abortion. What I did ask was for you to quote from the Constitution where it authorizes the govt to regulate abortion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?