Free abortions in Israel

[scatt]

not a human being established in society

You mean personhood, right? Which is subjective and totally made up.

 

[shlunka]

You mean personhood, right? Which is subjective and totally made up.

Made up and subjective? Is not your stance on a fetus being a human "made up and subjective"?

 

[Steve Ja]

The issue isnt about you. It's about women and their rights. And you do disrespect them by putting their needs below those of something not even born yet.

Am I disrespectful of the fetus? I guess you can say that. I do not accord it any rights until it is born. I fully admit that I dont believe consideration for that comes above the woman's.

And as such, it is not the same as crimes where people infringe on the rights of others by assaulting them, robbing them, killing them, etc. The fetus has no rights to infringe on in my argument. To compare how abortion 'affects' YOU compared with how it affects a woman who needs to make that decision is incredibly insensitive.

In yours (and other pro-lifers) the women still have rights....and lives and responsibilities and the potential to be more (just like a fetus)....and yet you still place the unborn above women.

And once again, you try to squirm out of it by saying....it should be the states' decisions....when you just want there to be more chances that abortion will be made illegal. That is what you're implying, you just dont want to say it. However as already pointed out, the states cannot overrule an individual's rights. And as R v. W shows, the feds are going with 'the fetus has no rights.'

Not a squirm, it's how it should be. State level. Yes I know what Roe V Wade says. I also will argue Roe V Wade is unconstitutional.

 

[AGENT J]

1. I believe the feds and states have obligations to protect.
2. That's what im saying they don't and i feel it is unjust.
3. a person and a human are the same thing to me
4. I have several alternatives. One is giving control over the issue back to the states.. something I'm fighting for 2 is illegal
5.) , except in cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother, or severe deformities in the unborn (such as no brain, no heart, missing organs, organs growing outside the body) basically making life outside the womb impossible to nearly impossible and extremely painful for the baby.
6.) another is similar to the second but putting no restrictions on the first 12 weeks.

7.)the last one is an outright ban on abortion, something I'm not talking about at all, though would support. But again also I think this should be handled at the state level and abortion federally should be hands off.
5. I agree

1.) correct they do but the state cant violate individual rights
2.) and how do you make it just? ignore the woman?
3.) legally the factually are not :shrug: also i didnt say A human (noun) i said human (adj)
4.) this violates the constitution and individual rights no thanks
5.) 2 things

A.)ALL pregnancy are a danger to the mother, ALL OF THEM, some very little danger some extreme.
B.) limits of this nature make factual violate the human/legal/civil/equal rights of the mother. Why do you view that as just but not the other way? seems hypocritical to me.
c.) this isnt bad ut it still swings things in the opposite direction of what you call unjest and is even factually worse.

RvW right now splits the rights at 24 weeks, on avg pregnancy is 40 weeks. thats 60% the woman and 40% the ZEF

Id like to make it 21 but id be ok with 20 a 50/50 split.

you want to make it 12 which is 70% ZEF and 30% woman. again i asked why is 60/40 woman unjust but 70/30 ZEF fine?

6.) well luckilly i this insanity will never happen in the US but again i have to ask where is the logic behind deeming 60/40 woman so wrong and unjust but 70/30 ZEK or 100% ZEF rights is ok?
7.) so you admit your intrest is not human/legal/civil/equal rights but something else then.

and thats fine, others have done the same they said they rank the ZEF HIGHER than the woman for various reasons and while i disagree i simply respect their honesty, some said because its NEW life, some said because its life that cant defend itself etc.

 

[AGENT J]

Not a squirm, it's how it should be. State level. Yes I know what Roe V Wade says. I also will argue Roe V Wade is unconstitutional.

individual rights are never to be state level

 

[Lursa]

State protected doesn't mean a right?

What is state-protected being applied to?

 

[AGENT J]

Is killing another human a right?

who said it is? oh thats right nobody another failed strawman

 

[Lursa]

Not a squirm, it's how it should be. State level. Yes I know what Roe V Wade says. I also will argue Roe V Wade is unconstitutional.

As J says....woman or fetus....individual rights are not decided at the state level.

 

[scatt]

What is state-protected being applied to?

Killing another human.

Made up and subjective?

Personhood.

 

[Lursa]

Killing another human.

.

Just because there are laws applied to something doesnt make them a right....or not make them a right.

Tons of laws are applied to driving....it's not a right.

 

[Steve Ja]

1.) correct they do but the state cant violate individual rights
2.) and how do you make it just? ignore the woman?
3.) legally the factually are not :shrug: also i didnt say A human (noun) i said human (adj)
4.) this violates the constitution and individual rights no thanks
5.) 2 things

A.)ALL pregnancy are a danger to the mother, ALL OF THEM, some very little danger some extreme.
B.) limits of this nature make factual violate the human/legal/civil/equal rights of the mother. Why do you view that as just but not the other way? seems hypocritical to me.
c.) this isnt bad ut it still swings things in the opposite direction of what you call unjest and is even factually worse.

RvW right now splits the rights at 24 weeks, on avg pregnancy is 40 weeks. thats 60% the woman and 40% the ZEF

Id like to make it 21 but id be ok with 20 a 50/50 split.

you want to make it 12 which is 70% ZEF and 30% woman. again i asked why is 60/40 woman unjust but 70/30 ZEF fine?

6.) well luckilly i this insanity will never happen in the US but again i have to ask where is the logic behind deeming 60/40 woman so wrong and unjust but 70/30 ZEK or 100% ZEF rights is ok?
7.) so you admit your intrest is not human/legal/civil/equal rights but something else then.

and thats fine, others have done the same they said they rank the ZEF HIGHER than the woman for various reasons and while i disagree i simply respect their honesty, some said because its NEW life, some said because its life that cant defend itself etc.

I value all life the same
this 70/30 50/50 You are talking about gestation periods. I'm talking about life. Yes it is not viable at 12 weeks, but has all its organs and the nerve system is developing. The baby can move kick, burp, hiccup, and I believe pee and poo.
Abortions come with risks too. 12 women died in 2008 or 2009 from abortions. I don't have stats on injuries and disabilities due to abortions, such as inability to become pregnant again... I understand that is a lower number then 700 that died through pregnancies. There were also 4 times the pregnancies. so if abortions and births were equal the numbers would look closer to 48 and 700.
I don't rank the unborn higher then the born. i value life the same. Most pro-choicer value the woman over the unborn. That is fine

 

[AGENT J]

1.)I value all life the same
2.)this 70/30 50/50 You are talking about gestation periods. I'm talking about life.
3.) Yes it is not viable at 12 weeks, but has all its organs and the nerve system is developing. The baby can move kick, burp, hiccup, and I believe pee and poo.
4.)Abortions come with risks too. 12 women died in 2008 or 2009 from abortions. I don't have stats on injuries and disabilities due to abortions, such as inability to become pregnant again... I understand that is a lower number then 700 that died through pregnancies. There were also 4 times the pregnancies. so if abortions and births were equal the numbers would look closer to 48 and 700.
5.)I don't rank the unborn higher then the born.

6.) i value life the same.

7.) Most pro-choicer value the woman over the unborn. That is fine

1.) well you just proved you factually dont you value the life of the ZEF over the womans
2.) no im talking about life/rights/equality

thats is the equality of life you are giving each and instead of equal you want it unequal

3.) all meaningless to trying for equality

4.) yes they certainly do but they are CHOOSEN risks and not FORCED and they are factually safer than birth

5.) yes you factually do, you already proved that

6.) see #5

7.) Ive seen no evidence to say most at all, in fact most are like me they want something close to equal, something in the middle. but you are partially right SOME do always value the woman more.



now maybe answer my question this time

why is is unjest to value the womans life 60/40 over the ZEFs
but its perfectly ok to value the ZEFS life 70/30 over the woman of evern 100% over the woman?

that is factually not caring about both lives and totally hypocritical

 

[Steve Ja]

1.) well you just proved you factually dont you value the life of the ZEF over the womans
2.) no im talking about life/rights/equality

thats is the equality of life you are giving each and instead of equal you want it unequal

3.) all meaningless to trying for equality

4.) yes they certainly do but they are CHOOSEN risks and not FORCED and they are factually safer than birth

5.) yes you factually do, you already proved that

6.) see #5

7.) Ive seen no evidence to say most at all, in fact most are like me they want something close to equal, something in the middle. but you are partially right SOME do always value the woman more.



now maybe answer my question this time

why is is unjest to value the womans life 60/40 over the ZEFs
but its perfectly ok to value the ZEFS life 70/30 over the woman of evern 100% over the woman?

that is factually not caring about both lives and totally hypocritical

As I said this 60/40 70/30 you speak of is gestation period and has no value to me at all. The life itself does. To say i value one over the other is false. I value both equally. Its not valuing it over her. Its saying it deserves the same chance as her to live. Her life is not more important, either is the unborn. Equal value. The law should not value her over the unborn, which is clearly does when giving the unborn no rights.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)As I said this 60/40 70/30 you speak of is gestation period and has no value to me at all.
2.)The life itself does.
3.) To say i value one over the other is false.
4.)I value both equally.
5.)Its not valuing it over her.
6.) Its saying it deserves the same chance as her to live.
7.) Her life is not more important, either is the unborn. Equal value.
8.) The law should not value her over the unborn, which is clearly does when giving the unborn no rights.

1.) as i said NO its not lol its life/rights and lying about it wont change this
2.) the ZEFs and not the womans
3.) no its factually accurate as your own words prove. You fACTUALLY value the ZEF over the woman hence your views of noting wanting to try for civil/equal/human rights but wanting the ZEF to have 70 to 100% of the rights.
4.)again this is factually not true, facts and your own words prove this, posting dishonestly about this fact wont change it
5.) yes it is
6.) nope you are factually giving the ZEF more rights
7.) you say this but you want to practice somethign factuallly different
8.) I agree the law should try to value them equally but since thats factually impossible all we can do is try for middle ground which the law already does right now. It gives the woman about 60% of the rights and the ZEF 40%.

so i will ask you AGAIN

why is is unjest to value the womans life 60/40 over the ZEFs
but its perfectly ok to value the ZEFS life 70/30 over the woman of evern 100% over the woman?

that is factually not caring about both lives and totally hypocritical, FACTS prove you wrong and disagree with you so simply answer the question and make an honest post

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

There honestly needs to be a corollary for every time Israel pisses on human rights and is responsible for mass killings of innocents. The irony and awfulness of that begs the comparison.

So, you want to stick to Godwin's Law, here. OK. Have at it.

 

[JayDubya]

So, you want to stick to Godwin's Law, here. OK. Have at it.

You seem to be sticking to it, sure. I've acknowledged it's existence. Heck, I've used it to criticize others when they're off on a tangent.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

When that discussion talks about a bunch of innocent human beings that are ethnically Jewish being culled by their government for being socially undesirable, the chances of that not invoking a direct comparison to the Nazis is a statistical nullity.

The directly comparable are directly comparable. It is entirely possible to make an apt 1:1 comparison to the Nazis, and I have.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Free birth control, too:

Israel will pay for abortions for women between the age of 20 and 33 in 2014, Ha’aretz reports, and health officials announced Monday they hope to expand eligibility to all women in the future.

The funding was approved as part of the 2014 list of state-subsidized medical items, and expands coverage for women who were previously eligible for state-funded abortions only in the case of a medical emergency or sexual abuse. Women under 20 and over 40 are already eligible for state-funded abortions regardless of circumstance.

The new rule will allow for 6,300 more women to have abortions next year. The director of the committee that determines the list of subsidized items said at a press conference that Israel intends to expand state-funded abortions to all women, and make contraceptive pills universally available too.

Abortion in Israel: State Expands Eligibility for Subsidized Abortions | TIME.com​

What's a hard right winger to do?

Support Israel at all costs, no matter what?

anyone that sees unflinching support for Israel as being limited to the RW and republicans needs to really question their ability to accurately observe what goes on around them. And maybe take a step back from the mindless partisanship

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Of course you believe in forcing your will on others if you support making abortion illegal. That is exactly what that would do....exert YOUR will over the will of a woman's mind, body and health and future.

as always, you're over looking the fact that we all force our wills over others. That's what laws do: restrict behavior that we find socially, ethically, and morally harmful. Also, from the perspective of many abortion advocates you are forcing your needs and wants on another individual and killing it.

So bringing up *your* rights isn't going to do much to address the issue.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

The issue isnt about you. It's about women and their rights.

actually it's about what rights, if any, the fetus has. Once that question is addressed then you can move onto the mother.

Sorry if that chafes against the "here me roar" crowds sensibilities, but it's the unquestionable central issue here and just undermines any attempt to debate the topic when it's ignored.

 

[Aekos]

So bringing up *your* rights isn't going to do much to address the issue.

You're telling her what she can do with HER body. That is defying the most basic human right: the right to self-ownership.

 

[JayDubya]

You're telling her what she can do with HER body. That is defying the most basic human right: the right to self-ownership.

Actually, the one defying basic human rights here would be you and those like you.

You're ignoring a human being entirely, calling it the property of another. That isn't "self-ownership," that's the eradication of social undesirables and the promotion of slavery.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

You're telling her what she can do with HER body.

lol, no, I am pointing out there is an undeniable question of what, if any, rights the fetus has here. Because at some point, It stops being a simple biological mass and becomes an individual accorded legal protections. And that the clear consequences of abortion carry a deeper and more permanent impact to that entity than it could ever carry for the mother.

That is defying the most basic human right: the right to self-ownership.

No it isn't. Being that short of rape, the mother's own actions have created that state of dependency: She is responsible for being pregnant and the potential consequences it carries.

 

[Gardener]

That is defying the most basic human right: the right to self-ownership.

A concept you obviously only apply to one of the two parties involved. The other one, though?

 

[Aekos]

You're ignoring a human being entirely, calling it the property of another.

You're saying a woman does not own her own body. A foetus is not a human being; a female, however, is.

Being that short of rape, the mother's own actions have created that state of dependency

Hypocritical is the best to describe this. The foetus that would have been born to a rapist and rape-victim is also a person, so why should someone be allowed to terminate its life? You're not being consistent.

---------------------------------
I say: Modus vivendi, gentlemen. This debate is moot.

 

[JayDubya]

You're saying a woman does not own her own body.

I have never said that and never will.

A foetus is not a human being; a female, however, is.

False. An organism of the species Homo sapiens in any stage of our lifespan is "a human" aka "a human being." Gender is irrelevant in this consideration.