I've noticed something has changed about the abortion debate on DP

[weaver2]

I don't need to give a reason as I'm not advocating for a specific abortion policy. What is not up for debate is the reality that a legal framework was established under Roe for fetuses in the third trimester: states may protect them if they wish: fact, not opinion. After Roe is gone, states will be free to extend those protections to the first and second trimester.

OK, you are just making a statement so there is nothing to debate, which is what your OP says.So why do you keep telling people they are too stupid to understand the argument. There isn't any argument, just a statement: states will be free to ban abortions.

 

[minnie616]

Sorry, no, you are in full blown cognitive dissonance. You cannot reconcile your absolutist view of a woman's right to privacy against the fact that the author of the Roe decision literally gave states permission to violate that right if they had a compelling interest in fetal life in the third trimester. So you're just inventing reasoning in Roe that is never been there.

Roe was the compromise.

I know for a fact the fetus cannot possibly survive outside the biological moms womb until viability.

Until it can be separated from the womans womb and still survive it is not an independent life.

It needs her nutrition and her biological functions to grow it into a living being separate from her.

 

[NatMorton]

And there has been no compelling definition or argument as to what that "state's interest" is.

That is a nonsensical argument. See post 2267, again.

 

[NatMorton]

The article you posted doesn't give any reasons for the fetus being more important than the already born and the statement about immeasurable value isn't a reason. Neither you or any of the articles you have posted give any reasons.

Yes, it does. You just don't want to process it.

AZ's elected officials are putting the life of the fetus above the privacy rights of the mother because they value fetal life, as they've defined it, more than they value the mother's right to an abortion.

It could not be more clear to anyone with an open mind.

 

[NatMorton]

OK, you are just making a statement so there is nothing to debate, which is what your OP says.So why do you keep telling people they are too stupid to understand the argument. There isn't any argument, just a statement: states will be free to ban abortions.

There are some things that really aren't open to debate. The Earth is round. Evolution is real. And Roe allows states to establish a fetal right to life in the third trimester.

 

[Gordy327]

That is a nonsensical argument. See post 2267, again.

I did. You made no argument. So elaborate: what specifically is "state's interest?"

 

[NatMorton]

Roe was the compromise.

I know for a fact the fetus cannot possibly survive outside the biological moms womb until viability.

Until it can be separated from the womans womb and still survive it is not an independent life.

It needs her nutrition and her biological functions to grow it into a living being separate from her.

Call it a compromise if it eases your mind some, but it doesn't really matter what you call it. Roe does not create an unlimited right to an abortion and allows states to establish a fetal right to life in the third trimester.

 

[NatMorton]

I did. You made no argument. So elaborate: what specifically is "state's interest?"

The life of the fetus.

 

[Gordy327]

Roe does not create an unlimited right to an abortion and allows states to establish a fetal right to life in the third trimester.

Strawman argument. No one ever said abortion rights were unlimited.

 

[weaver2]

Off to warp the loom.

 

[Gordy327]

The life of the fetus.

What's so special about it that it's an "interest?" If that were a genuine state's interest, then a state can compel women to reproduce. As it is, no one is required to do so.

 

[Lursa]

It's likely because you can't see beyond your own opinions.

No it's because you cant present any arguments to counter what I've provided and sourced. You can keep writing 'na huh' but that's not making any of this go away.

Your OP is drowning in failure and it actually started out with you crowing over your 'successful arguments.' None of which have made an appearance in this thread

 

[Lursa]

Are you seriously suggesting that you - and others who hold your views - have a greater "compelling interest" over what happens within a woman's uterus than she herself does???

Yes.

Please explain that with a focus on a legal basis.

It's been answered multiple times in this thread alone, and you know the answer. Your question is not an honest one.

No, you have not. Please articulate your answer or give a post number where you answered this directly and clearly.

But dont lie that you've answered it...I'd remember and I dont even remember seeing that question asked from that perspective before.

It wasn't a lie, and you know it.

I know you lied and if you didnt, feel free to quote it and prove me wrong. Why wont you?

 

[NatMorton]

Strawman argument. No one ever said abortion rights were unlimited.

You've certainly implied it, here:



Lursa certainly things it's absolute. Minnie is tying her argument into knots to avoid acknowledging it.

It's not a straw-man. There are several people here in this thread who do not understand that a woman's right to privacy is not absolute, even under Roe.

 

[Lursa]

Sorry, no, you are in full blown cognitive dissonance. You cannot reconcile your absolutist view of a woman's right to privacy against the fact that the author of the Roe decision literally gave states permission to violate that right if they had a compelling interest in fetal life in the third trimester. So you're just inventing reasoning in Roe that is never been there.

There's nothing absolutist in the decision or in Minnie's posts or opinion. Stop using knee-jerk condescension to try and divert from the fact that you have no counter-argument to directly address her argument. And what is absolutist about my arguments?

Your silly dismissals arent fooling anyone. You have run out of road in your OP and refuse to even keep up a decent discussion.

 

[minnie616]

Unless the state's interest is not just in the third trimester and also extends into the second or first. See post 2267.

You personally, like so many other pro life have done way before you are trying twist the true meaning of the
“ compelling interest “


I am borrowing the words of my friend and attorney.

“ Roe v Wade was an "admission that the United States Government" Constitutionally failed to recognize women as PERSONS equal to MEN...period. The End!”

“ Roe v Wade ****ed up royally by giving into Pro-life by creating the " Compelling interest “ for the yet to be born.
By doing so, the United States Government once again "diminished women's equal rights under the law".

 

[NatMorton]

What's so special about it that it's an "interest?" If that were a genuine state's interest, then a state can compel women to reproduce. As it is, no one is required to do so.

What's so special? Why, it's compelling.

You can try to say this is somehow not a genuine compelling interest, but all you're doing is pissing into the wind. Public opinion and elected officials in many states want to expand fetal right to life policies beyond Roe, and there's no getting around this is a real and genuine public interest in many parts of the country.

You're blind to it because you're just to accustom to dismissing these arguments and I doubt you've ever given them real consideration. Which, if you think about it, brings us right back to the OP.

 

[minnie616]

You've certainly implied it, here:

View attachment 67393683

Lursa certainly things it's absolute. Minnie is tying her argument into knots to avoid acknowledging it.

It's not a straw-man. There are several people here in this thread who do not understand that a woman's right to privacy is not absolute, even under Roe.

Your thoughts not mine.

I know a fetus cannot survive separate from the woman until viability.

It is that simple.

 

[Lursa]

I've been arguing off and on with you for months about whether Roe is a valid decision or not and the reasons why it should be overturned.

And your arguments have not stood up to mine or anyone elses. And your arrogant OP just highlighted it. As has this entire thread.

When the court's current term ends and their remaining decisions are released, it will be interesting to see which of us has been proven correct.

Yes it will. That has nothing do with the fact that you havent identified any arguments that stood up to scrutiny...including what's been "indicated" in the leaked decision. Disagree? Prove it...present something.

 

[NatMorton]

You personally, like so many other pro life have done way before you are trying twist the true meaning of the
“ compelling interest “


I am borrowing the words of my friend and attorney.

“ Roe v Wade was an "admission that the United States Government" Constitutionally failed to recognize women as PERSONS equal to MEN...period. The End!”

“ Roe v Wade ****ed up royally by giving into Pro-life by creating the " Compelling interest “ for the yet to be born.
By doing so, the United States Government once again "diminished women's equal rights under the law".

You're welcome to your opinion, though a right to abortion on demand through the third trimester is an extremist view.

(@Gordy327, see above as confirmation it was no strawman.)

 

[NatMorton]

I know a fetus cannot survive separate from the woman until viability.

And do you believe that statement is a bone of contention here?

 

[Gordy327]

What's so special? Why, it's compelling.

So you do not have an answer. Just emotional platitudes. Got it.

You can try to say this is somehow not a genuine compelling interest, but all you're doing is pissing into the wind. Public opinion and elected officials in many states want to expand fetal right to life policies beyond Roe, and there's no getting around this is a real and genuine public interest in many parts of the country.

And yet, no one can make a valid reason why that should be the case. It also ignores the rights of the woman. Fetal rights cannot be granted without revoking the rights of the woman.

You're blind to it because you're just to accustom to dismissing these arguments and I doubt you've ever given them real consideration. Which, if you think about it, brings us right back to the OP.

Spare me your erroneous presumptions. I have asked for a logical reason why abortion should be limited, especially before viability. "State's interest" is a cop out answer. Neither has it been rationally explained why it's an interest. Most people seem stupidly guided by their emotions on the issue rather than logical reasoning.

 

[NatMorton]

And your arguments have not stood up to mine or anyone elses. And your arrogant OP just highlighted it. As has this entire thread.



Yes it will. That has nothing do with the fact that you havent identified any arguments that stood up to scrutiny...including what's been "indicated" in the leaked decision. Disagree? Prove it...present something.

I have. You've Willfully ignored it.

 

[minnie616]

What's so special? Why, it's compelling.

It is compelling because at that point it has 50/50 chance of survival if the mom died.

Public opinion says Roe should not be overturned.

 

[Lursa]

That is where you are wrong. States can establish fetal rights in the third trimester. And once Dobbs is released, also in the first and second.

You continue to lie.

Source where any state recognizes rights for the unborn.

You can lie about this over and over...you cant prove it true. Why do you keep lying about it, that is not debate. It's completely dishonest.