Can pro life defend their position

[Bodi]

You are welcome to ask the unborn child to leave.

No need when they can just be aborted.

Good luck. It is telling that you reflexitively use dishonest and misleading language to make your case.

Getting an aboriton is not "Asking someone to leave". It is brutally killing them, cutting them to pieces and dragging the pieces out, bit by bit.

You completely missed the logic behind the analogy... try this instead then, if you ask a person to leave your house because not leaving might kill you, does the homeowner have the right then?

Actually, YOUR argument is more like those of hte slavers than mine. Mine is based on all the humans having rights, while yours is the one denying some humans, human rights.

What an idiotic way to miss the point.

And you and your side, is the one that keeps citing the courts as though they define reality.

So you are arguing that slavery is allowed, in reality. Tearing up your arguments is easy as pie.

 

[quip]

I accept that not every state will write abortion laws that I personally find acceptable. Perhaps someday you will learn to accept that reality as well.

Disingenuous nonsense.

I'm quite sure your acceptance of current reality hasn't dulled your idealistic zeal for a nationwide ban on abortion. Yes?
And that notable opposition is the current reality you'd enthusiastically accept... unconditionally.

 

[jaeger19]

None of that makes sense. YOur silliness is dismissed.

I am not sure what you find silly ..
about women dying from anti abortion laws.
Please explain

 

[Corbell]

Well you didnt crush anything but I do realize then, that you dont expect the unborn to be responsible for something.

Now...what about the rest of it? Why does it matter who's responsible for "where" the unborn is?

I did crush it. Your lying about it, is just you lying.

 

[Gordy327]

I did crush it. Your lying about it, is just you lying.

When and where?

 

[Corbell]

No need when they can just be aborted.

You completely missed the logic behind the analogy... try this instead then, if you ask a person to leave your house because not leaving might kill you, does the homeowner have the right then?

No, I got the logic. YOU are the one missing the point. the mother in effect choose to have the child be were it is, when she choose to have sex.

What an idiotic way to miss the point.

So you are arguing that slavery is allowed, in reality. Tearing up your arguments is easy as pie.

Mmm, nope. My argument is that the slaves and the unborn and everyone else, has inherent human rights that should be respected.

YOUR position is that it is ok to deny rights to some groups of humans.

YOu pretending to not understand and then just assigning... arguments and posiitons to me that are the opposite of what I was arguing?

You might think that is clever, but it's not. Also, on some level, using such tactics, your brain knows that it is on the wrong side, but is doing the best it can to play the shit hand you emotions have dealt it.

 

[Citizen]

Close to 80% of the population believe abortion should be allowed, at least in some circumstances. But people in those states have to get out and start petitions to make it happen. The great thing now is that EVERY STATE can have its own laws. And it's the people involved in voting, not some distant political in Washington DC.

It shgould be an individual decision, Not a state decision

 

[quip]

My argument is that the slaves and the unborn and everyone else, has inherent human rights that should be respected.

Please explain to me exactly why inchoate human life requires more than inchoate rights/protections.

 

[Corbell]

Please explain to me exactly why inchoate human life requires more than inchoate rights/protections.

With human rights, it is more on YOU to explain why they don't. FULL HUMAN RIGHTS, is the default for all humans, all the time.

 

[quip]

With human rights, it is more on YOU to explain why they don't. FULL HUMAN RIGHTS, is the default for all humans, all the time.

As The unborn have no current standing on rights, the burden clearly rest upon you. Again, why should an incomplete human form attain no more than incomplete rights?

 

[Corbell]

As The unborn have no current standing on rights, the burden clearly rest upon you. Again, why should an incomplete human form attain no more than incomplete rights?

I disagree.

 

[quip]

I disagree.

Of course you do. I'm seeking a rational reason as to support your disagreement.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Disingenuous nonsense.

I'm quite sure your acceptance of current reality hasn't dulled your idealistic zeal for a nationwide ban on abortion. Yes?
And that notable opposition is the current reality you'd enthusiastically accept... unconditionally.

No. I would never seek an outright ban on abortion. Never have. I am simply against abortion as a common form of birth control...the usual scenario: "Oops,dammit, I did not intend to get pregnant".

 

[MAGAnificent]

You do realize that your anti abortion laws are killing women

1000% BS.

 

[Lursa]

I did crush it. Your lying about it, is just you lying.

"Na huh" is not debate, it's capitulation. I see you are incapable of even directly addressing what I wrote.

 

[Gordy327]

No, I got the logic. YOU are the one missing the point. the mother in effect choose to have the child be were it is, when she choose to have sex

What if she was raped? Clearly she didn't choose then. You conveniently avoided that question. She can also choose to end a pregnancy too. You conveniently avoid that fact too.

No, I got the logic. YOU are the one missing the point. the mother in effect choose to have the child be were it is, when she choose to have sex.




Mmm, nope. My argument is that the slaves and the unborn and everyone else, has inherent human rights that should be respected.

YOUR position is that it is ok to deny rights to some groups of humans.

You have yet to demonstrate "inherent" rights. You also fail to understand rights are assigned to born humans, i.e persons. Not to the unborn.

With human rights, it is more on YOU to explain why they don't. FULL HUMAN RIGHTS, is the default for all humans, all the time.

Nope. You're the one arguing for rights for the unborn. So make your case! A mere declaration they should have rights means nothing. Explain how to grant rights to the unborn while also protecting the rights and autonomy of the pregnant woman! The validity of your argument might hinge on that.

I disagree.

Make your case then! A "nuh-uh" is hardly convincing or persuasive. Start by refuting Constitutional and federal law.

 

[Gordy327]

"Na huh" is not debate, it's capitulation. I see you are incapable of even directly addressing what I wrote.

You're not the only one. I've noticed he also avoided some of my posts/points too.

 

[Lursa]

With human rights, it is more on YOU to explain why they don't. FULL HUMAN RIGHTS, is the default for all humans, all the time.

Or...as you've been asked first (other times, other threads), YOU could explain why our federal govt AND the Universal Human Rights Declaration (for examples) both specifically assert they only recognize rights for born people?

Why should we be justifying our positions that concur with nationally and globally recognized treatises? While numbers dont make something right or wrong...if YOU wish to take the minority position, it's up to YOU to justify YOUR view. Not us.

Not to mention that I've done so from a moral aspect a million times already but I'm not going to bother repeating it since you keep ignoring it.

 

[choiceone]

Sorry, but none of that makes any real sense.

That's because, unlike a student in a school or vocational training or an independent researcher seeking to grasp various views, you only understand yourself.

 

[Bodi]

No, I got the logic. YOU are the one missing the point. the mother in effect choose to have the child be were it is, when she choose to have sex.

WRONG. If a mother does not want to have a child then the mother did not choose to have a child in her.

Nothing could be more simple, actually.

Mmm, nope. My argument is that the slaves and the unborn and everyone else, has inherent human rights that should be respected.

YOUR position is that it is ok to deny rights to some groups of humans.

Correct. Unborn humans have essentially, only the rights that the mother grants it.

YOu pretending to not understand and then just assigning... arguments and posiitons to me that are the opposite of what I was arguing?

You might think that is clever, but it's not. Also, on some level, using such tactics, your brain knows that it is on the wrong side, but is doing the best it can to play the shit hand you emotions have dealt it.

You can't even prove inherent rights... so please don't try to play psychology on me...

 

[MAGAnificent]

That's because, unlike a student in a school or vocational training or an independent researcher seeking to grasp various views, you only understand yourself.

Word salad. You related to the cackler?

 

[Bodi]

No. I would never seek an outright ban on abortion. Never have. I am simply against abortion as a common form of birth control...the usual scenario: "Oops,dammit, I did not intend to get pregnant".

So... your belief is hypocritical. It is sometimes ok to murder the innocent little human but mot at other times. Got it.

 

[choiceone]

It was policy until it was overturned by the Dobbs decision. It is 100% dead and gone.

Policy isn't alive and overturning isn't killing. Not active as policy doesn't mean gone.

We are discussing constitutional law, not emotions and memories

You may have missed the fact that Dobbs wasn't a unanimous decision.

Who cares?

It's beating a dead horse.

No, Roe v Wade isn't a horse and it isn't dead.

 

[Bodi]

@choiceone

Word salad. You related to the cackler?

As usual, you add a lot to the debate.

 

[choiceone]

You are still a 100% died in the wool librul.

died =/= dyed