Don't get pregnant in Texass

[Lutherf]

You've been told many times that biology doesnt determine value or rights. Homo sapiens is a species categorization. The unborn are a stage of that species. Science recognizes no value or rights for any species.

So your dependence on that straw is useless. Remember this? Me: "Who says abortion is wrong? Why is that strangers' business?"

Your "because it's a human" isnt the answer. Science doesnt decide "right and wrong."

So, so far all you have is your feelings or belief. Anything else that would be justifiable to impose on American women that dont believe the same? If so, justify away....

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

If all rights and definitions of what is and isn't "human" come from government then government can choose to abolish ANY rights. They can, if they choose, redefine YOU as something other than human, take away your rights and kill you...presuming they initially assumed that you were alive. It's what Hitler did to the Jews and it's what you and your kind are choosing to do to other humans.

 

[Lursa]

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

If all rights and definitions of what is and isn't "human" come from government then government can choose to abolish ANY rights. They can, if they choose, redefine YOU as something other than human, take away your rights and kill you...presuming they initially assumed that you were alive. It's what Hitler did to the Jews and it's what you and your kind are choosing to do to other humans.

Rights are a man-made concept. Where else would rights "come from?" From man's brain. And the the govt records and enforces/protects them. We use the Constitution. Civics lesson over.

The definition of "human" is strictly scientific, basic biology, Homo sapiens. The govt nowhere attempts to change or disregard that definition. It does clarify it a bit tho:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant​

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​

​

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

But you've seen that before, why do you post as if you havent? It makes your posts look unprepared and ignorant.

 

[Lutherf]

Rights are a man-made concept. Where else would rights "come from?" From man's brain. And the the govt records and enforces/protects them. We use the Constitution. Civics lesson over.

The definition of "human" is strictly scientific, basic biology, Homo sapiens. The govt nowhere attempts to change or disregard that definition. It does clarify it a bit tho:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant​

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​

​

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

But you've seen that before, why do you post as if you havent? It makes your posts look unprepared and ignorant.

I just want to make sure I've got where you're coming from. If the government says, "Kill everyone that has even a drop of black blood because we have taken away their rights" you're good with that because, at that point, blacks have no rights and therefore aren't human?

 

[Real blank]

Great band name

 

[year2late]

They claim they are pro life, but between their gun laws with all their mass shootings and their abortion laws, I don’t think so

They are not pro-life they are pro fetus.

 

[Lursa]

I just want to make sure I've got where you're coming from. If the government says, "Kill everyone that has even a drop of black blood because we have taken away their rights" you're good with that because, at that point, blacks have no rights and therefore aren't human?

Are those "everyones" inside someone else who they are harming, risking their lives? Are they inside someone else where the govt cannot protect them without ending their protection of the woman? And violating her most sacred rights? Those of her bodily autonomy, her health, her life, her self-determination?

Please answer that and then dont ask me anything more until you answer, directly, the questions I asked you. They are relevant exactly to what you are posting. These especially:

Here it is again. Can you prove it's wrong?​

​

The state is replacing the slave owner, taking away a woman's right to consent to her own life, health, reproduction, self-determination, bodily autonomy, due process, etc.​

​

Isnt that exactly what slave owners did to their slaves? If not, explain how it's different and be specific. In the US, nowhere else do we deny people safer medical procedures because they have accidents performing normal social behaviors like skiing or driving.​

​

Judges have already drawn similar conclusions. We just need to get this into another challenge case.​

​

And..."where else do rights come from?" Remember that one?

​

​

 

[year2late]

Last I checked abortions were the same or higher. Shit laws from pro fetus assholes just make life difficult for more people.

I said in the years preceding the end of R v W that that was an obvious effect.

1. Woman freaks we she gets pregnant. Instead of taking a few weeks to decide how things could work ....she knows if she decides on abortion - it needs to be "now". The extra few weeks could have given her time to figure out whether she had access to decent healthcare for her pregnancy and the means to care for herself and her born children if she went through with the pregnancy
2. Accessibility of Medical Abortion. Even if out of state legal sources dry up.....I guarantee your neighborhood drug dealer will be glad to rake in the bucks.
3. The total crap misunderstanding that abortions are usually about convenience. They underestimate the desperation these women feel. Barely making ends meet. Deciding whether to pay the heat or water bill. Not having decent access to proper healthcare, etc.

Of course, abortions went up. The right made desperate women feel more desperate.

 

[Lutherf]

Are those "everyones" inside someone else who they are harming, risking their lives? Are they inside someone else where the govt cannot protect them without ending their protection of the woman? And violating her most sacred rights? Those of her bodily autonomy, her health, her life, her self-determination?

Please answer that and then dont ask me anything more until you answer, directly, the questions I asked you. They are relevant exactly to what you are posting. These especially:

Here it is again. Can you prove it's wrong?​

​

The state is replacing the slave owner, taking away a woman's right to consent to her own life, health, reproduction, self-determination, bodily autonomy, due process, etc.​

​

Isnt that exactly what slave owners did to their slaves? If not, explain how it's different and be specific. In the US, nowhere else do we deny people safer medical procedures because they have accidents performing normal social behaviors like skiing or driving.​

​

Judges have already drawn similar conclusions. We just need to get this into another challenge case.​

​

And..."where else do rights come from?" Remember that one?

​

​

Your argument has been that all rights originate with government and that an unborn child isn't human because government hasn't endowed it with rights. If that's the case then government can pick and choose what rights anyone or anything has. Again, are you good with killing anyone with even a drop of black blood in them just because government tells you they aren't human and therefore have no rights? Bear in mind that nobody with black ethnicity had any more choice in their situation than an unborn child does.

It's your laws, I'm just pitching out the questions so that I really know where you stand.

 

[Lursa]

Your argument has been that all rights originate with government and that an unborn child isn't human because government hasn't endowed it with rights. If that's the case then government can pick and choose what rights anyone or anything has. Again, are you good with killing anyone with even a drop of black blood in them just because government tells you they aren't human and therefore have no rights? Bear in mind that nobody with black ethnicity had any more choice in their situation than an unborn child does.

It's your laws, I'm just pitching out the questions so that I really know where you stand.

Dont tell me my argument, and you're already wrong with your first sentence. And then you lie as well, because I specifically said the unborn is human, Homo sapiens. Please answer my questions...that's how debates work. You dont TELL me my argument. I asked you where our rights do come from. Where is your answer?

Btw, that legal code didnt say the unborn isnt human. It explained who our federal govt recognizes rights for. Is your ability to read compromised? In any case, that doesnt excuse the lie.

 

[Lutherf]

Dont tell me my argument, and you're already wrong with your first sentence. And then you lie as well, because I specifically said the unborn is human, Homo sapiens. Please answer my questions...that's how debates work. You dont TELL me my argument. I asked you where our rights do come from. Where is your answer?

Btw, that legal code didnt say the unborn isnt human. It explained who our federal govt recognizes rights for. Is your ability to read compromised? In any case, that doesnt excuse the lie.

With your interpretation of rights we can kill anyone or anything as long as government doesn't proscribe it.

Certain rights, such as the right to exist and, by extension, the right to self defense are natural. They exist whether government is involved or not. Likewise, the right to personal liberty and the right to possess and use our own skills and the fruit of our labor exist without regard to government. The only action government can take with regard to those rights is to obstruct them. The right to communicate through words, acts and art is also a natural right. Government can't create that right, it can only restrict it.

What you are suggesting is that the ONLY rights people have are those rights which government allows them to have and that includes the right to life. What you are telling ALL of us is that if government doesn't expressly state that you can live then you have no right to live. That means that, on nothing more than the word of government we are "free" to kill, enslave, and abuse anyone or anything government chooses not to recognize as worthy or protection. Like I said, your mentality is EXACTLY the same as those that embraced slavery and the murder of Jews.

 

[Lursa]

With your interpretation of rights we can kill anyone or anything as long as government doesn't proscribe it.

Still wrong about my 'interpretation.'

Certain rights, such as the right to exist and, by extension, the right to self defense are natural. They exist whether government is involved or not. Likewise, the right to personal liberty and the right to possess and use our own skills and the fruit of our labor exist without regard to government. The only action government can take with regard to those rights is to obstruct them. The right to communicate through words, acts and art is also a natural right. Government can't create that right, it can only restrict it.

Who says? Where do they come from? If man didnt "think them up," we wouldnt even consider them, recognize them, protect them, enforce them. Are they biological, inherent? If so, why dont other animal species have rights?

I realize that this is a philosophy and often a religious belief. In each case, rights are still a man-made concept. Did you think they came from a deity? Yours? They dont exist unless recognized and expressed as part of a social contract of some kind.

We exercise 'living' without a right to life. So do other animals. And anyone can kill us at anytime...no "right" prevents it. But as a system of laws and justice, we can reduce such incidents, "protecting" that right to life, by recognizing, codifying, and protecting it...and enforcing it when someone violates it. That "threat" of punishment helps protect that right.

It also prevents the govt from taking your life without due process and proper cause.

What you are suggesting is that the ONLY rights people have are those rights which government allows them to have and that includes the right to life.

Rights are a concept, conceived for a purpose(s). The only rights we have are those recognized by our govt and which are codified and protected by our govt. If you want to imagine other rights, not codified by our govt...who protects those? You may imagine all the rights you like, of course.

What you are telling ALL of us is that if government doesn't expressly state that you can live then you have no right to live. That means that, on nothing more than the word of government we are "free" to kill, enslave, and abuse anyone or anything government chooses not to recognize as worthy or protection. Like I said, your mentality is EXACTLY the same as those that embraced slavery and the murder of Jews.

Stop telling me what I'm telling anyone. You are always wrong. You can live...people live all over the world with no such recognized right. Animals live with no such rights. And those rights conceived by man and are codified and recorded in the Const in the US specifically to protect the citizens from the govt. Holy shit. Please take a civics course. And then tell me where our rights come from.

Now. Are you going to discuss "real life?" Please do:

Here it is again. Can you prove it's wrong?​

The state is replacing the slave owner, taking away a woman's right to consent to her own life, health, reproduction, self-determination, bodily autonomy, due process, etc.​

​

Isnt that exactly what slave owners did to their slaves? If not, explain how it's different and be specific. In the US, nowhere else do we deny people safer medical procedures because they have accidents performing normal social behaviors like skiing or driving.​

Judges have already drawn similar conclusions. We just need to get this into another challenge case.​

 

[Bodecea]

Some Texans started such a campaign a couple decades ago. Build a wall to keep out riff-raff. Each donation buys you an engraved brick. They gave it up when it turned out that 2/3 of their donations were from out-of-staters wating to keep the Texans IN.

 

[Gordy327]

With your interpretation of rights we can kill anyone or anything as long as government doesn't proscribe it.

Certain rights, such as the right to exist and, by extension, the right to self defense are natural. They exist whether government is involved or not. Likewise, the right to personal liberty and the right to possess and use our own skills and the fruit of our labor exist without regard to government. The only action government can take with regard to those rights is to obstruct them. The right to communicate through words, acts and art is also a natural right. Government can't create that right, it can only restrict it.

What you are suggesting is that the ONLY rights people have are those rights which government allows them to have and that includes the right to life. What you are telling ALL of us is that if government doesn't expressly state that you can live then you have no right to live. That means that, on nothing more than the word of government we are "free" to kill, enslave, and abuse anyone or anything government chooses not to recognize as worthy or protection. Like I said, your mentality is EXACTLY the same as those that embraced slavery and the murder of Jews.

Why should the unborn have any rights? Especially over that of he pregnant woman? It's impossible to grant rights to both equally. Why should anyone be forced to lose their bodily autonomy or have it restricted just because of a physiological condition?

 

[Lutherf]

Still wrong about my 'interpretation.'



Who says? Where do they come from? If man didnt "think them up," we wouldnt even consider them, recognize them, protect them, enforce them. Are they biological, inherent? If so, why dont other animal species have rights?

I realize that this is a philosophy and often a religious belief. In each case, rights are still a man-made concept. Did you think they came from a deity? Yours? They dont exist unless recognized and expressed as part of a social contract of some kind.

We exercise 'living' without a right to life. So do other animals. And anyone can kill us at anytime...no "right" prevents it. But as a system of laws and justice, we can reduce such incidents, "protecting" that right to life, by recognizing, codifying, and protecting it...and enforcing it when someone violates it. That "threat" of punishment helps protect that right.

It also prevents the govt from taking your life without due process and proper cause.



Rights are a concept, conceived for a purpose(s). The only rights we have are those recognized by our govt and which are codified and protected by our govt. If you want to imagine other rights, not codified by our govt...who protects those? You may imagine all the rights you like, of course.



Stop telling me what I'm telling anyone. You are always wrong. You can live...people live all over the world with no such recognized right. Animals live with no such rights. And those rights conceived by man and are codified and recorded in the Const in the US specifically to protect the citizens from the govt. Holy shit. Please take a civics course. And then tell me where our rights come from.

Now. Are you going to discuss "real life?" Please do:

Here it is again. Can you prove it's wrong?​

The state is replacing the slave owner, taking away a woman's right to consent to her own life, health, reproduction, self-determination, bodily autonomy, due process, etc.​

​

Isnt that exactly what slave owners did to their slaves? If not, explain how it's different and be specific. In the US, nowhere else do we deny people safer medical procedures because they have accidents performing normal social behaviors like skiing or driving.​

Judges have already drawn similar conclusions. We just need to get this into another challenge case.​

What the heck are you talking about? Yes, even animals have and RECOGNIZE basic rights. Try to take a ball away from a puppy. That's HIS ball and he knows it. Why do birds make nests? It's so they have a place to lay their eggs and then care for them even BEFORE the baby bird is born. Birds recognize life before they can physically see that life. The right to communicate is a natural right. Even PLANTS communicate with color and fragrance. It's how they get pollinated. I don't know if you're one of those absolutist atheists or what but if you can't comprehend that certain rights are completely natural and exist whether government is involved or not then you're missing out on a big part of not just humanity but life as a whole.

 

[Gordy327]

What the heck are you talking about? Yes, even animals have and RECOGNIZE basic rights. Try to take a ball away from a puppy. That's HIS ball and he knows it. Why do birds make nests? It's so they have a place to lay their eggs and then care for them even BEFORE the baby bird is born. Birds recognize life before they can physically see that life. The right to communicate is a natural right. Even PLANTS communicate with color and fragrance. It's how they get pollinated. I don't know if you're one of those absolutist atheists or what but if you can't comprehend that certain rights are completely natural and exist whether government is involved or not then you're missing out on a big part of not just humanity but life as a whole.

Those are not examples of rights. Those are examples of instincts and evolutionary traits. You're really grasping at straws here.

 

[Lutherf]

Those are not examples of rights. Those are examples of instincts and evolutionary traits. You're really grasping at straws here.

OK. So in your view the only rights that exist are positive rights (those which government creates and enforces).

Based on that, may I ask why slavery was a bad thing?

 

[Gordy327]

OK. So in your view the only rights that exist are positive rights (those which government creates and enforces).

Based on that, may I ask why slavery was a bad thing?

Depends on whom you ask. The Confederacy didn't think so.

 

[Lutherf]

Depends on whom you ask. The Confederacy didn't think so.

Was slavery wrong? Government had vested slaves with no rights whatsoever. They could be sold, beaten and killed with impunity because they weren’t human, as you and others view rights.

 

[Gordy327]

Was slavery wrong? Government had vested slaves with no rights whatsoever. They could be sold, beaten and killed with impunity because they weren’t human, as you and others view rights.

Post #92.

 

[Lutherf]

Post #92.

That isn’t answering the question. It’s avoiding answering the question.

If some people believed that slaves had no rights and weren’t human and others believed the opposite then which side was right and why were they right?

 

[Gordy327]

That isn’t answering the question. It’s avoiding answering the question.

If some people believed that slaves had no rights and weren’t human and others believed the opposite then which side was right and why were they right?

That was the answer. It's simple fact too. Now you're trying to reword the question. Meanwhile, you dodged the questions posed in post #88. Answer those before you ask your own.

 

[Lutherf]

That was the answer. It's simple fact too. Now you're trying to reword the question. Meanwhile, you dodged the questions posed in post #88. Answer those before you ask your own.

Pregnancy isn't just some random "physiological condition". It's the way we get more humans. Unless we treat nascent life as the life that it is we run the very serious risk of damaging the prospects of a future for our species.

 

[Gordy327]

Pregnancy isn't just some random "physiological condition". It's the way we get more humans. Unless we treat nascent life as the life that it is we run the very serious risk of damaging the prospects of a future for our species.

There are around 8 billion members of our species. We're in no danger of running out of members. If anything, we're overpopulated. Reducing population growth is not a bad thing.

 

[Lutherf]

There are around 8 billion members of our species. We're in no danger of running out of members. If anything, we're overpopulated. Reducing population growth is not a bad thing.

Great. Chinese method. Government only allows one baby per couple. All other pregnancies get terminated per government directive. Back in the day we generally thought that was rather barbaric but today we have half the damned country that sees it as a good thing because we're all "smarter" now.

 

[Gordy327]

Great. Chinese method. Government only allows one baby per couple. All other pregnancies get terminated per government directive. Back in the day we generally thought that was rather barbaric but today we have half the damned country that sees it as a good thing because we're all "smarter" now.

Great, more melodrama on your part. And yes, overpopulation is a problem. Especially if a child is not wanted or can be cared for in the first place. But it seems some are more focused on quantity over quality.