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

[Gordy327]

I've noticed the child doesn't get a say in an abortion.

Why should they? Do kids get a say in what their parents decide or other such matters? Are they able to consent? The unborn isn't even a child yet, much less able to "have a say" in anything.

That's doesn't sound like a "choice" to me.

THe choice belongs to the woman in question and no one else!

Murdering the most innocent among us is immoral.

Emotional platitude and abortion is not murder.

Don't want to be pregnant. Don't engage in those activities that will get you pregnant. There are options in life. Adults choose their options wisely.

Abortion is also an option when pregnancy occurs.

This is a lie.

No, it's not. Specify where in the law books it equates or states abortion is murder!

I find it difficult to believe that not wanting to murder children is an "extreme nutters" view.

Thinking abortion is murder or wanting to deny women their autonomy and rights is what is truly "nutters."

"Then they can Choose to not to get pregnant..."

Fixed it for ya!

They can choose to have an abortion. Fixed it for you.

 

[The Baron]

Why should they?

They're the ones your killing.

Hello?

Do kids get a say in what their parents decide or other such matters? Are they able to consent? The unborn isn't even a child yet, much less able to "have a say" in anything.

What "other such matters" are you talking about?

THe choice belongs to the woman in question and no one else!

In today's society...yes.

It's unethical and immoral but what you say is true.

Emotional platitude and abortion is not murder.

Abortion does not require an "emotional platitude" to be murder.

Abortion is also an option when pregnancy occurs.

Sadly that is horrifically true.

No, it's not. Specify where in the law books it equates or states abortion is murder!

My comment did not reference "law books". I was correctly pointing out that abortion is the murder of children.

Thinking abortion is murder or wanting to deny women their autonomy and rights is what is truly "nutters."

Killing an unborn is far more extreme in reality.

They can choose to have an abortion. Fixed it for you.

Naw, you screwed it up.

 

[Lursa]

I've noticed the child doesn't get a say in an abortion.

That's doesn't sound like a "choice" to me.

Murdering the most innocent among us is immoral.

It's disturbing that you imagine that the unborn 'gets a say' in anything. Can make a choice? How far into fantasy do you take this?

It's not immoral and that 'innocence' is meaningless...the unborn cannot act or form intent, it's 'empty,' mentally a vacuum. So again...you fantasize and invent what is not there. Why? Why would you value that empty innocence over the entire life of a woman? What is she guilty of?

What's immoral is denying women an abortion, knowing you are undermining her will as an individual citizen, and intentionally causing her pain and suffering and imposing your will to change the course of her life, her self-determination. Happily, you have no authority to do that, to commit such immoral acts against women.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government." ​

​

And to not be punished for it, like denied an abortion.​

​

TX vs Lawrence​

​

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

While not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the right to privacy has been narrowly defined by case law and various statutes.

www.livescience.com

Now do you see that your position is damaging to women and society and not the moral High Ground you thought? Why do you focus on the unborn at the expense of women?

 

[Gordy327]

They're the ones your killing.

So? Do I need to ask bacteria their choice if I take an antibiotic for an infection?

Hello?

Goodbye!

What "other such matters" are you talking about?

Anything that a child cannot consent to. Parents make the decisions for the child.

In today's society...yes.

Good. THat's how it should be in a society that supposedly values individual liberty and autonomy.

It's unethical and immoral but what you say is true.

Merely your opinion.

Abortion does not require an "emotional platitude" to be murder.

It requires a legal definition and determination, which does not exist.

Sadly that is horrifically true.

It's just a medical procedure. Big deal.

My comment did not reference "law books". I was correctly pointing out that abortion is the murder of children.

Then your comment is factually and legally incorrect.

Killing an unborn is far more extreme in reality.

It can be a simple and easy as popping a pill.

Naw, you screwed it up.

Not even a little. Especially since my statement is correct. Yours, not so much!

 

[Gordy327]

It's disturbing that you imagine that the unborn 'gets a say' in anything.

I've had people tell me they imagine an embryo to be exactly like a baby, but just miniaturized and grows in size over time. The ignorance on display by some is astounding.

Can make a choice? How far into fantasy do you take this?

Not fantasy. I'd say full blown delusion.

Now do you see that your position is damaging to women and society and not the moral High Ground you thought? Why do you focus on the unborn at the expense of women?

Some do not care. For them, it's all about a clump of cells. Not the actual person carrying it.

 

[Lursa]

I've had people tell me they imagine an embryo to be exactly like a baby, but just miniaturized and grows in size over time. The ignorance on display by some is astounding.

Not fantasy. I'd say full blown delusion.

Some do not care. For them, it's all about a clump of cells. Not the actual person carrying it.

I agree, except that I never refer to the unborn that way.

I value the unborn, but I value all born people more.

The falsehood very many pro-life people cling to is that born and unborn are the same and that they value them the same. That's bullshit in any practical sense, since they cannot be treated equally under the law. That is not possible. They deny it or avoid it, but are unable to 'prove' it wrong.

 

[Bodi]

Don't want to be pregnant. Don't engage in those activities that will get you pregnant. There are options in life. Adults choose their options wisely.

Glad you agree! There are options.

Have sex and don't get pregnant.
Have sex and get pregnant and have the baby.
Have sex and get pregnant and have an abortion.

This is a lie.

Murder is a legal definition. Abortion is not murder.

"Then they can Choose to not to get pregnant..."

Fixed it for ya!

or get pregnant and have an abortion.

Mind your own business!

 

[Bodi]

I've noticed the child doesn't get a say in an abortion.

There are no children when an abortion takes place... there is a zygote and often an early stage fetus though.

That's doesn't sound like a "choice" to me.

The "child" should not be trespassing in her body.

Murdering the most innocent among us is immoral.

It is a forced eviction, no murder.

 

[Doppelgangirl]

You may find this difficult to believe but most women get pregnant because they engage in behavior that will result in a pregnancy. As they do this willingly it can't be forced.

And just what is your "religion"?

I find it difficult to believe that not wanting to murder children is an "extreme nutters" view.

That is a description I would save for those that actually want to kill the unborn.

You do realize that there will be women fighting against you, as well, don't you?

That blade cuts both ways...why do you think you're opinion matters to strangers...or at all?

Consent to sex is not consent to *continue* any pregnancy. Ever. If you break your leg doing something, reckless or not, society doesn’t say you can’t have medical treatment and should just suffer…

My religious beliefs or lack thereof are not the point, they’re not less “sincerely held” because I don’t check a box.

No babies are being murdered. That would be despicable. Most abortions are done in the first trimester. Those third trimester ones y’all love to harp on are usually for health reasons. These are *wanted* children. You think people should have to go through bureaucratic BS at what is likely the worst time of their life? Do you send fan mail to the IRS, too? Mighty “conservative.”

Your side is trying to codify your opinion into laws my physical body will be forced to comply with… I’m not forcing women to abort, which is an apt comparison. My opinion on the subject is such that I prefer to *butt the hell out* of others’ private business, especially the sort that is likely complicated and highly personal.

That’s the point.

 

[Gordy327]

I agree, except that I never refer to the unborn that way.

It is accurate, at least in the blastocyst stage. But I digress.

I value the unborn, but I value all born people more.

Already born are certainly paramount.

The falsehood very many pro-life people cling to is that born and unborn are the same and that they value them the same. That's bullshit in any practical sense, since they cannot be treated equally under the law. That is not possible. They deny it or avoid it, but are unable to 'prove' it wrong.

I tend to agree.

 

[choiceone]

You people treat rape victims as your non religious icons.

Yet only a tiny portion of abortions are conducted on rape victims.

And for rape victims there is always the so called morning-after pill that prevents implantation (and thus pregnancy).

The morning-after pill does not prevent implantation. It prevents fertilization, except when it doesn't. It works for about 72 hours, but the ovum could already have been fertilized by the time the victim can access it.

It doesn't matter what portion of abortions we're talking about. The issue relates to every abortion.

A rape victim isn't an icon. A girl or woman who is a rape victim is a person who has been victimized. She is innocent and doesn't deserve to have a group of bullies take away her right not to continue a rape pregnancy, because that's pretty much the same as if that group of bullies were rape accomplices who were continuing the rape started by someone else. In fact, it would be far worse to be forced to continue the pregnancy and have the rape fetus go on and on violating her body, deforming it, and coming out the vagina that was previously violated. A fetus/baby is far larger than a penis and would threaten her with death and injury.

I can't believe it's still necessary to outline reasons that rape victims have to be allowed to choose re pregnancy.

 

[choiceone]

I've noticed the child doesn't get a say in an abortion.

That's doesn't sound like a "choice" to me.

Murdering the most innocent among us is immoral.

The fetus doesn't get a say or choice because they're not capable of it and have never shown any capability of it. That is basically like saying they have the innocence of rocks. So it absolutely isn't immoral.

 

[NatMorton]

If the State gives it, the State can take it away. Ip so facto, it is not a right but a privilege.

You really don't understand how government works.

The federal government and the states gave you the Bill of Rights. Via the same process that ratified those ten amendments they also can be taken away. Have you really never considered that?

 

[NatMorton]

I never said that it was in Roe.

Yeah. So?

Try to keep up with the thread.

 

[NatMorton]

I've had people tell me they imagine an embryo to be exactly like a baby, but just miniaturized and grows in size over time. The ignorance on display by some is astounding.

Not fantasy. I'd say full blown delusion.

Some do not care. For them, it's all about a clump of cells. Not the actual person carrying it.

Referring to a fetus, and even an embryo, as no more than a "clump of cells" is also a fairly ignorant statement.

 

[NatMorton]

The evangelicals, the Southern Baptist and the Church all claim a right to decide for all women. How is this not a 1st Amendment issue?

The problem with the term "right to life" is that it has been co-opted by the religious right making it almost impossible to discuss rationally because one side means one thing by the term and the other side a different meaning. The religious right has as a tenent of their religion that fertilized eggs embryos and fetuses are humans and therefore entitled to a right to life". Right to life" essentially confers personhood and all the legal rights of a person on the products of conception. In the third trimester a fetus is still a fetus and according to US Code it has no rights. It seems to me that between the US Code legally defining person and the statement in Roe that
(165) (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion....... that the state has can focus on protecting the woman so that the fetus stays healthy and viable. Should Roe be overturned it again seems to me that all hell breaks loose in denying women's right to privacy. I can't imagine that there won't be many challenges. Perhaps this is just a strategy to keep the SC fully occupied while laws giving corporations more power are enacted and given only cursory and perfunctory examination by the SC.

Haven't we had this conversation before?

In all the brouhaha over abortion during the Senate's SC justices' hearings what escaped everybody's notice is that Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch believe that corporations are people and have many rights including religious rights, that should never be constrained or restricted. These three plus Thomas and Alito will always decide in favor of big corporations.

Sorry, your problems with evangelicals and corporations aren't relevant to this discussion.

 

[NatMorton]

People have grown bored with your one trick pony comments.

... he says ... in a post ... in a thread ... that is now over 2700 posts long ... and has been averaging ... 70 replies a day for over a month.

 

[NatMorton]

Here's the text again. (Current law)
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

There's nothing here (current law) that claims a formal right-to-life. By contrast, if Roe gets shot down then yes states will regain the autonomy of giving the unborn a right-to-life, at least within their borders.

Clear enough?

Then make up your mind. When I accused you of having that position you claimed it was a joke.

Regardless, you're still wrong. Even under Roe a fetal right to life can be established in the third trimester and has in over 40 states. You can ignore these laws if you like, but they still exist.

 

[Bodi]

Try to keep up with the thread.

You said that something was not part of the argument. I said it was. You then moved the goal posts and said it was not part of Roe. I said that it was not Roe, but part of the argument. You are now apparently admitting that you are in over your head and withdrawing from honest and logical discussion.

 

[NatMorton]

You said that something was not part of the argument. I said it was. You then moved the goal posts and said it was not part of Roe. I said that it was not Roe, but part of the argument. You are now apparently admitting that you are in over your head and withdrawing from honest and logical discussion.

It started here:



You then claimed it was true under Roe. You're simply dead wrong there. A woman does not have the right to decide what happens to her body (i.e. her state of pregnancy) in the third trimester. Even under Roe she can be legally compelled to carry the fetus to term. Fact, not opinion.

 

[Gordy327]

Referring to a fetus, and even an embryo, as no more than a "clump of cells" is also a fairly ignorant statement.

It's an generally accurate one, especially in the blastocyst stage.

 

[Bodi]

It started here:

View attachment 67396415

You then claimed it was true under Roe. You're simply dead wrong there. A woman does not have the right to decide what happens to her body (i.e. her state of pregnancy) in the third trimester. Even under Roe she can be legally compelled to carry the fetus to term. Fact, not opinion.

Yes. I said that nothing has changed in the argument for abortion.

You then brought up Roe for some reason.

 

[The Baron]

So? Do I need to ask bacteria their choice if I take an antibiotic for an infection?

Invalid comparison. Bacteria is not human.

Anything that a child cannot consent to. Parents make the decisions for the child.

Typically this is in relation to what is best for the child (this was always the standard).

Good. THat's how it should be in a society that supposedly values individual liberty and autonomy.

But apparently not a society that values life. Weird how those two used to go hand-in-hand.

Merely your opinion.

Actually morality and ethics are far more than my humble opinion so you are wrong...again.

It requires a legal definition and determination, which does not exist.

Actually, it does...

Murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

It's just a medical procedure. Big deal.

It's murder and it is a big deal.

Then your comment is factually and legally incorrect.

Hardly. "Factually" abortion is the killing of a human life.

It can be a simple and easy as popping a pill.

And a nuclear holocaust is as simple as pushing a button...so what was your point again?

 

[NatMorton]

It's an generally accurate one, especially in the blastocyst stage.

But not at the embryo or fetus stage, is it?

 

[NatMorton]

Yes. I said that nothing has changed in the argument for abortion.

You then brought up Roe for some reason.

No, that's not what you said. You claimed that a woman has an absolute right to bodily autonomy while pregnant. That is simply false in the third trimester. There are only two non-evasive responses: acknowledge your error or try to explain why my counter argument is incorrect.