I'm Pro-Life: Change My Mind

[JH Oldoc]

So you lied

Nope - I said I do, but I can't give it to you. It's instruments aren't physical in the usual sense.
. One can only know through direct experience, although having some of that, believe/trust in the teachings of others is developed.
...I also said this is only a side discussion aimed at making clear why religion shouldn't insinuate itself into government activities.
You have people saying life begins at conception, but offering no proof, or even a rudimentary definition of life.
Others might insist that life is in all things and so doesn't "begin" when sperm fertilizes egg. Some would add that where human life is concerned that something uniquely individual and human has to be added to the purely mechanical vessel, the physical body, which on it's own is no more than a fleshy biological machine - when does that happen?
. What is your view on all of this - the subject the OP brought?

 

[Eriech]

The constitution outlines our rights in this country. Last I checked God was not one of the signers of that document.
Feel free to be as religious as you like. Just leave everyone else out of it, especially me.

Yes it does. The right to an abortion was not among them.

 

[JH Oldoc]

Yes it does. The right to an abortion was not among them.

Neither is being an utter buffoon and yet 74 million people voted for Donald Trump, and no one is threatening them with legal action.
The constitution isn't encyclopedic in listing individual rights.
...on the other hand, since there were no prohibitions against abortion in 1787 one might infer that the founders had no cause to mention it, or the right to chose one's own diet or aperatif..

 

[Eriech]

Neither is being an utter buffoon and yet 74 million people voted for Donald Trump, and no one is threatening them with legal action.
The constitution isn't encyclopedic in listing individual rights.
...on the other hand, since there were no prohibitions against abortion in 1787 one might infer that the founders had no cause to mention it, or the right to chose ones own diet or aperatif..

Roe and Dobbs were about who can regulate abortion. To take the decision away from legislative branches in Roe a right to an abortion was invented. Dobbs restored the right to regulate back to the legislatures by negating the fantasy of the 7 in black at the time.

 

[minnie616]

The "right" to Abortion was granted by a decree of government. The "right" was taken away by decree in Dodd. If it was truly a right codified in the constitution it could not be taken away except by ammendment. The decision did not make abortion illegal but rather returned the issue to legislatures where it belongs.

There is no executive privilege mentioned in the Constitution either.
Perhaps someone might want to mention that to past President Trump or his supporters.

Oh , and abortion was not granted by a decree . The right to privacy regarding a medical procedure was granted to a doctor and his /her patient.

From the following:


Abortion is very safe, she adds, pointing out that pregnancy leads to death 14 times more often than an abortion. That means that doctors who provide abortions "are absolutely essential, actually, in the provision of reproductive health care,"

Read in NPR: https://apple.news/ALR4E0i3LSTih4uVs9vxm_Q

 

[Ethel2]

Yes it does. The right to an abortion was not among them.

Neither is the right to clean yourself with the hand of your choice. Some of the rights are not explicitly named because the framers couldn’t possibly foresee every future circumstance. The right to privacy covers the right for a woman to choose what to do with her own body, at least it did for 50 years until the current fascist activist court was appointed.
Since women are now deemed not to have the right to control their own bodies I am sure you would have no problem with everyone losing control their own bodies when the government forces everyone to get vaccinated for the common good, isn’t that correct?

 

[Gordy327]

Nope - I said I do, but I can't give it to you. It's instruments aren't physical in the usual sense

Then it's neither science or scientific. So the claim science proves it is a lie. BTW, you still haven't explained why life is "sacred."

 

[Eriech]

Neither is the right to clean yourself with the hand of your choice. Some of the rights are not explicitly named because the framers couldn’t possibly foresee every future circumstance. The right to privacy covers the right for a woman to choose what to do with her own body, at least it did for 50 years until the current fascist activist court was appointed.
Since women are now deemed not to have the right to control their own bodies I am sure you would have no problem with everyone losing control their own bodies when the government forces everyone to get vaccinated for the common good, isn’t that correct?

Except for that pesky 10th ammendment that covers all else beyond the enumerated rights.

"Since women are now deemed not to have the right to control their own bodies"
That is not what the decision says at all. It says the states (elected governments) can if they chose limit abortion.

 

[JH Oldoc]

Roe and Dobbs were about who can regulate abortion. To take the decision away from legislative branches in Roe a right to an abortion was invented. Dobbs restored the right to regulate back to the legislatures by negating the fantasy of the 7 in black at the time.

Did you write this:

Yes it does. The right to an abortion was not among them

That is what I replied to.

The question of whether the arguments and opinion in Roe were well conceived is one which RBG herself questioned, and probably with good reason, or it would have been overturned, but my point was that there is no prohibition noted by the founders regarding personal autonomy with respect to one's own body and that the entire motivation for the anti-abortion movement is religion based. ..and
. in the Constitution there is a prohibition against the advancement/promotion of religion by government.

 

[Gordy327]

"Since women are now deemed not to have the right to control their own bodies"
That is not what the decision says at all. It says the states (elected governments) can if they chose limit abortion.

So basically, it's the states that can deem women not to have the right to control their own bodies. That's been tried before. Didn't go so well.

 

[iguanaman]

The reason I am Pro life is because I believe that the termination of an innocent human life is of course horrible and that is a moral stance we all should have, so the question is when does life begin? if we want to determine whether abortions should be illegal or not this is the most important question. Me personally, I believe that life begins at conception which is why I'm pro life. I'm interested in hearing other people's opposing positions.

Being a male incapable of conception you are not qualified to make the decision for women who risk their lives to have a child. If life begins at conception 2/3rds of humans die before being born. Where is your outrage at that statistic?

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die. The findings are important to the understanding of the fundamentals of human development at the earliest stages, which have largely remained a mystery despite the attention given to human embryonic stem cell research.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101003205930.htm

 

[JH Oldoc]

Then it's neither science or scientific. So the claim science proves it is a lie.

Yes it is, you are understanding the terms science and scientific in there most rudimentary, mundane, limited forms.
It would seem this concept is as foreign to some at this time as the workings of an electric light bulb would have been to a cave dweller of 20,000 years ago, yet there is electricity and the science to utilize it whether or whether not it is understood by all.

But again - this was just a necessary side discussion for reasons previously stated.

BTW, you still haven't explained why life is "sacred."

I didn't say it was. I was perhaps incorrectly inferring that another poster thought so if their position was that life begins at conception and should not be terminated regardless of whether or not that zygote is imbued with an individual human spiritual identity. But - turned out the poster was just out to make me nostalgic for those deep philosophical discussions peers and I would have in HS homeroom period (though it passed quickly).

 

[weaver2]

I'm Pro-Life: Change My Mind

Why should I try to change your mind?
You have an acceptable belief.
The 1st amendment protects your right to hold this belief.
Catholics and evangelicals are free to call a fetus a baby, to call abortion murder and women who abort, murderers. They are free to ban abortion and punish the women of their church that get abortions. Nobody is trying to dissuade you from your belief. You find it acceptable and the law protects your right to believe.

It's when they start electing Congressmen and women to enact state and/or federal laws prohibiting Methodists, Buddhists, Atheists, Presbyterians, Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians, Jains, Sikhs, Confucianists, animists, Wiccans, Copts, naturists, Lutherans, Muslims, agnostics and hundreds of other people who have no interest in Catholicism or evangelism from getting a medical procedure to remove an embryo that was unplanned, is unwanted and will have a destructive effect on already living people.

What isn't acceptable about your pro-life belief is your efforts to make your religious belief into laws that everybody must follow. That's the only disagreement with your belief.

 

[Eriech]

So basically, it's the states that can deem women not to have the right to control their own bodies. That's been tried before. Didn't go so well.

Yes voters in the individual states can now decide the how when and if an unborn can be killed.

 

[Ethel2]

Except for that pesky 10th ammendment that covers all else beyond the enumerated rights.

"Since women are now deemed not to have the right to control their own bodies"
That is not what the decision says at all. It says the states (elected governments) can if they chose limit abortion.

That’s the effect of the ruling. In less reasonable states women have lost the right to control their own bodies. I assume you would have no problem if your own right to privacy was ruled null and void and the government or a public health agency passed a law that mandated that everyone must get vaccinated for the next significant pathogen. I mean, once you start down that road the sky’s the limit, right? Either you do have control of your own body and what goes into it or you don’t. Let’s not get hypocritical here.

 

[Gordy327]

Yes voters in the individual states can now decide the how when and if an unborn can be killed.

And women are effectively 2nd class citizens.

 

[Ethel2]

And women are effectively 2nd class citizens.

Women, who have been granted rights, including the right to privacy, have been denigrated in favor of some cells inside her body that are legally not considered a citizen. It would be as if a dog was granted the right not to be pet.

 

[FreeStorm84]

The reason I am Pro life is because I believe that the termination of an innocent human life is of course horrible ..

You think the unborn has Right to Life but what that means in the case of pregnancy is: The unborn have a Right to use the woman's body against her will. Is this a Right anyone actually recognizes for everyone?
Take the hypothetical of a child needing an organ transplant. The law doesn't force the parents to donate the organ with the reason being you can't force someone to undergo a physically risky surgery.
Now substitute child for fetus and organ removal surgery for pregnancy and child birth. Can you see there is a contradiction? There is no such thing as a fetus's Right to the Mother's body in the same way and for the same reason that there is no such thing as the child's right to his/her parent's organs.

 

[reinaert]

Change your mind? Nah. You are free to hold these beliefs.

Just want you to stop imposing them on us.

 

[Gordy327]

Women, who have been granted rights, including the right to privacy, have been denigrated in favor of some cells inside her body that are legally not considered a citizen. It would be as if a dog was granted the right not to be pet.

More like the dog owner is made to be the pet.

 

[Gordy327]

You think the unborn has Right to Life but what that means in the case of pregnancy is: The unborn have a Right to use the woman's body against her will. Is this a Right anyone actually recognizes for everyone?
Take the hypothetical of a child needing an organ transplant. The law doesn't force the parents to donate the organ with the reason being you can't force someone to undergo a physically risky surgery.
Now substitute child for fetus and organ removal surgery for pregnancy and child birth. Can you see there is a contradiction? There is no such thing as a fetus's Right to the Mother's body in the same way and for the same reason that there is no such thing as the child's right to his/her parent's organs.

It should also be noted that there is legal precedent stating a person cannot be compelled or forced to donate part or all of their body for the benefit of another, including for the purpose of saving another's life. But the states, in restricting abortions, are now forcing women to donate their bodies to benefit the unborn, which is not even a person yet.

 

[Lursa]

It has been scientifically proven by science higher than the mundane and limited science technological society glorifies.
...and no, I am not going to prove it to you for reasons already stated.

I know you're not going to prove it...it's hilarious that you think there's proof at all, much less believe that you posting about it without foundation means anything in a debate.

 

[Lursa]

Where do rights come from? The king?

Rights are a man-made concept and they are whatever the authority with the power to codify, protect, and enforce them recognizes.

If you ask what the concept/philosophy of those rights are based on, well we know that it's mostly English Common Law for the US.

 

[Eriech]

Rights are a man-made concept and they are whatever the authority with the power to codify, protect, and enforce them recognizes.

If you ask what the concept/philosophy of those rights are based on, well we know that it's mostly English Common Law for the US.

So rights are arbitrary? They can be given or taken?

 

[JH Oldoc]

I know you're not going to prove it...it's hilarious that you think there's proof at all, much less believe that you posting about it without foundation means anything in a debate.

Context, miss. maybe you didn't read back and understand the reason for the side discussion (not debate).
.None of the anti-abortion advocates can support their religious position with a generally acceptable scientific set of facts,
and the anti-abortion position is always based in religious beliefs - which should have no standing in legislation.