Emergency Abortion Blocked In Texas

[maquiscat]

OK...I have no desire to debate something with no purpose and no meaning.

All yours.

My point does have purpose and meaning. The problem is that you are trying to shift that purpose from what my point is to some other point, where purpose doesn't matter. IOW, the standard strawman that you use all too frequently.

Look, here is where most of this started.

SInce we have plenty of examples of the rights of one born person superseding the rights of another born person, e.g. free speech rights vs the rights of a broadcast signal owner, you are not showing me how the unborn having personhood would change the fact that the woman's bodily autonomy rights supersede any rights of the unborn.

I'm not asking you for what purpose the unborn got personhood. I am asking you to show how the unborn having personhood, regardless of how they got it, provide them some kind of override of other persons' right, when the born having personhood do not have that kind of override. Forget that the GOP is attempting, which is way beyond just granting personhood. We're keeping this strictly within what personhood grants. If it doesn't grant something to the born, then it doesn't grant something to the unborn. All I am looking for is how unborn personhood is different from born personhood. How born personhood means one can't override a woman's bodily autonomy but unborn personhood means they can. Remember to keep the context within the concept that if the woman did not give or withdrew consent, the unborn is in violation of her bodily autonomy and to compare that to a born who is violating the woman's bodily autonomy.

 

[roguenuke]

My point does have purpose and meaning. The problem is that you are trying to shift that purpose from what my point is to some other point, where purpose doesn't matter. IOW, the standard strawman that you use all too frequently.

Look, here is where most of this started.

I'm not asking you for what purpose the unborn got personhood. I am asking you to show how the unborn having personhood, regardless of how they got it, provide them some kind of override of other persons' right, when the born having personhood do not have that kind of override. Forget that the GOP is attempting, which is way beyond just granting personhood. We're keeping this strictly within what personhood grants. If it doesn't grant something to the born, then it doesn't grant something to the unborn. All I am looking for is how unborn personhood is different from born personhood. How born personhood means one can't override a woman's bodily autonomy but unborn personhood means they can. Remember to keep the context within the concept that if the woman did not give or withdrew consent, the unborn is in violation of her bodily autonomy and to compare that to a born who is violating the woman's bodily autonomy.

There are plenty of reasons other than abortion, right to bodily autonomy, though not to grant fetal personhood. We do not count a person as a person in our census until birth. There are times when people don't know they're pregnant nor does anyone else, but then if certain actions were taken, then the person could be charged with a crime for legal actions (such as drinking or smoking).

Fetal personhood should not be a thing.

 

[maquiscat]

There are plenty of reasons other than abortion, right to bodily autonomy, though not to grant fetal personhood. We do not count a person as a person in our census until birth. There are times when people don't know they're pregnant nor does anyone else, but then if certain actions were taken, then the person could be charged with a crime for legal actions (such as drinking or smoking).

Fetal personhood should not be a thing.

And I'm not calling for it to be a thing. I am making the point that IF it were made a thing, the unborn with personhood would have no more of a right to override a woman's bodily autonomy, than the born with personhood do. My point does not touch on any other aspect of what personhood for the unborn would entail. Anything other than that aspect is a strawman since my arguments are not based on them.

 

[roguenuke]

And I'm not calling for it to be a thing. I am making the point that IF it were made a thing, the unborn with personhood would have no more of a right to override a woman's bodily autonomy, than the born with personhood do. My point does not touch on any other aspect of what personhood for the unborn would entail. Anything other than that aspect is a strawman since my arguments are not based on them.

Unfortunately though, in the US, reality does not match the actual nature of our laws, system in general. If bodily autonomy were truly recognized, then we wouldn't be having this debate at all as it would always be seen as abortions being a bodily autonomy issue that always favored the pregnant person, basically making Roe/Casey moot as they would have been ruled properly in the first place.

 

[maquiscat]

Unfortunately though, in the US, reality does not match the actual nature of our laws, system in general. If bodily autonomy were truly recognized, then we wouldn't be having this debate at all as it would always be seen as abortions being a bodily autonomy issue that always favored the pregnant person, basically making Roe/Casey moot as they would have been ruled properly in the first place.

I agree. Right now my position is that rights are being violated when it comes to the state laws out there forbidding or restricting abortion. And I make no claim that should some state actually manage to pass personhood for the unborn, that it wouldn't be twisted to violate rights. But just as we make the argument that bodily autonomy rights mean a woman doesn't have to remain pregnant against her will, despite laws doing otherwise, we can also argue how those rights are not actually overriden by personhood, regardless of what the right would use those laws to do. IOW, my arguments are based on rights themselves, not if they end up recognized or not. We're currently fighting for where they are not being recognized.

 

[Lursa]

My point does have purpose and meaning. The problem is that you are trying to shift that purpose from what my point is to some other point, where purpose doesn't matter. IOW, the standard strawman that you use all too frequently.

Look, here is where most of this started.

I'm not asking you for what purpose the unborn got personhood. I am asking you to show how the unborn having personhood, regardless of how they got it, provide them some kind of override of other persons' right, when the born having personhood do not have that kind of override. Forget that the GOP is attempting, which is way beyond just granting personhood. We're keeping this strictly within what personhood grants. If it doesn't grant something to the born, then it doesn't grant something to the unborn. All I am looking for is how unborn personhood is different from born personhood. How born personhood means one can't override a woman's bodily autonomy but unborn personhood means they can. Remember to keep the context within the concept that if the woman did not give or withdrew consent, the unborn is in violation of her bodily autonomy and to compare that to a born who is violating the woman's bodily autonomy.

I'm not interested in that debate. SCOTUS already has created decisions that are not black and white on that issue, as @roguenuke has pointed out. So I'm not going 'round in circles with you when there's not likely to be any black and white answers, esp. since again, no right is absolute.

 

[maquiscat]

I'm not interested in that debate. SCOTUS already has created decisions that are not black and white on that issue, as @roguenuke has pointed out. So I'm not going 'round in circles with you when there's not likely to be any black and white answers, esp. since again, no right is absolute.

Which would mean the right to an abortion is not absolute, which means there are conditions under which a woman doesn't have a right to an abortion. I'd be interested to hear what you feel are those conditions per your logic.

 

[Lursa]

Which would mean the right to an abortion is not absolute, which means there are conditions under which a woman doesn't have a right to an abortion. I'd be interested to hear what you feel are those conditions per your logic.

Since the unborn has no rights and is not in anyway able to exercise any rights on its own, being completely physiologically intertwined with the woman...and therefore 'not equal' in any way to born people...that 100% dependency confirms it, my position is that the woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason at any time.

I dont like the idea of late term abortions but since women dont abort healthy viable fetuses, I dont worry about statistically insignificant events.

 

[maquiscat]

Since the unborn has no rights and is not in anyway able to exercise any rights on its own, being completely physiologically intertwined with the woman...and therefore 'not equal' in any way to born people...that 100% dependency confirms it, my position is that the woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason at any time.

I dont like the idea of late term abortions but since women dont abort healthy viable fetuses, I dont worry about statistically insignificant events.

I'm with you there. My point has been that even unborn having rights would not change a woman's right to that abortion. You are the one who keeps trying to claim I want the unborn to have rights or personhood.

 

[Lursa]

I'm with you there. My point has been that even unborn having rights would not change a woman's right to that abortion. You are the one who keeps trying to claim I want the unborn to have rights or personhood.

And yet, @roguenuke made a solid point that the courts dont necessarily agree with that. (the bold)

 

[maquiscat]

And yet, @roguenuke made a solid point that the courts dont necessarily agree with that. (the bold)

Is it your position that the rights of women are being violated by the courts upholding the state's ability to ban abortion?

 

[Lursa]

Is it your position that the rights of women are being violated by the courts upholding the state's ability to ban abortion.

I'm not interested in this, I shouldnt have responded. You are too indirect and post 'gotchas.' It just makes me tired. engage someone else.

 

[maquiscat]

I'm not interested in this, I shouldnt have responded. You are too indirect and post 'gotchas.' It just makes me tired. engage someone else.

It's not that hard. If the right of women to have an abortion can exist even when the courts dont agree with it, then the rights I am referring to can also exist even when the courts dont agree with it. Not sure why you would have any other position on it.