• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Missouri Lawmaker Seeks To Stop Residents From Obtaining Abortions Out Of State

Liberal7360

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2021
Messages
3,442
Reaction score
4,924
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The anti reproductive freedom radical people in Missouri are now going after women's right to freedom of movement in our nation.

They wrote a law that will allow anyone to sue someone for going across state lines to get an abortion. Something like the law that Texas passed on abortion but didn't include those who go to another state to get an abortion.

I don't know how one state can enforce their laws in a different state. That's not constitutional. If someone goes to a state and doesn't break the laws in that state, a different state can't come along to persecute a person for what they did in that other state.

The anti reproductive freedom radicals are going way too far.

 

Indlib

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
2,929
Reaction score
3,207
The anti reproductive freedom radical people in Missouri are now going after women's right to freedom of movement in our nation.

They wrote a law that will allow anyone to sue someone for going across state lines to get an abortion. Something like the law that Texas passed on abortion but didn't include those who go to another state to get an abortion.

I don't know how one state can enforce their laws in a different state. That's not constitutional. If someone goes to a state and doesn't break the laws in that state, a different state can't come along to persecute a person for what they did in that other state.

The anti reproductive freedom radicals are going way too far.

When republicans claim they don't want to ban all abortions; but simply want to leave it up to the states...do not believe them.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
100,972
Reaction score
57,814
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Well it hasnt passed yet or even come up for vote.

But it would eventually be challenged in a higher court if someone was sued.

Besides that tho, any woman that needs an abortion, knowing in advance about his law, would just keep the pregnancy a secret. No one needs to see a Dr anymore to confirm a pregnancy. And even if she did, many miscarriages also cannot be proven.

LOL it would be something to see a state trying to stop pregnant women from leaving the state. And then demanding medical exams for their conditions on return.
 
Last edited:

Demon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
8,384
Reaction score
8,830
Location
Colorado
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm surprised they haven't started tracking who buys pregnancy tests yet.
 

TheParser

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
12,917
Reaction score
6,183
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
If someone goes to a state and doesn't break the laws in that state, a different state can't come along to persecute a person for what they did in that other state.
Well, governments can do whatever they wish.

In Sweden, for example, prostitution is illegal. If a Swedish man goes to a country where it is legal and indulges, he will be prosecuted when he returns to Sweden.
 

beefheart

Ice Cream for Crow?
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
51,861
Reaction score
47,409
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Talibornagains are all for state's rights, until they aren't....
 

Liberal7360

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2021
Messages
3,442
Reaction score
4,924
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, governments can do whatever they wish.

In Sweden, for example, prostitution is illegal. If a Swedish man goes to a country where it is legal and indulges, he will be prosecuted when he returns to Sweden.


We aren't Sweden.

Sweden doesn't have our constitution.

Our constitution overrides any law any state or federal congress passes if that law is unconstitutional.

This law is unconstitutional on at least two grounds.

1. Freedom of movement in our nation

2. One law in one state can't be applied to another.

In other words, it's not illegal to purchase and use certain weapons in some states. People can go to those states and purchase weapons or use weapons as they want according to the laws in those states and another state can't impose that law on the other state.

Such as in Arizona. It was legal for a child to go to a private shooting rage to shoot an Uzi. Unfortunately a 9 year old girl did that and ended up killing the instructor. It was legal for her to use that Uzi in Arizona. She couldn't be prosecuted for using that Uzi in her home state where it is illegal to use it.

 

KingLeo

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
2,436
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Her proposed legislation also would make it illegal to manufacture, transport, possess or distribute abortion pills in Missouri.
It seems the Republican party and the Taliban keep getting closer and closer to the same ideology.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
76,547
Reaction score
26,087
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The anti reproductive freedom radical people in Missouri are now going after women's right to freedom of movement in our nation.

They wrote a law that will allow anyone to sue someone for going across state lines to get an abortion. Something like the law that Texas passed on abortion but didn't include those who go to another state to get an abortion.

I don't know how one state can enforce their laws in a different state. That's not constitutional. If someone goes to a state and doesn't break the laws in that state, a different state can't come along to persecute a person for what they did in that other state.

The anti reproductive freedom radicals are going way too far.



wow no assault on women's rights here . . . .
so sad this is where we are at in america, these nutters trying this stuff
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
12,201
Reaction score
4,726
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well, governments can do whatever they wish.

In Sweden, for example, prostitution is illegal. If a Swedish man goes to a country where it is legal and indulges, he will be prosecuted when he returns to Sweden.
You or a Swed are going to explain how this works in Sweden.

Here in America, the man wouldn't have commit the act of prostitution. The woman did. He merely paid for or "solicited" her for sexual services. That's different under pretty much all U.S. (domestic) penal codes.
 

Blue Dog

Mugwump
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
3,516
Reaction score
3,011
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Those who object to Roe strictly on the grounds it is a state issue, should object to this proposal along the same lines of reasoning.
 

Sled Dog

Banned
Joined
Mar 10, 2022
Messages
205
Reaction score
64
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
When republicans claim they don't want to ban all abortions; but simply want to leave it up to the states...do not believe them.
There's nothing wrong with banning all abortions, and it should be done on a federal level, of course. Such a law would be perfectly constitutional.

But individual states really don't have any business trying to prevent people crossing state lines to engage in commerce, even vile and evil baby-murdering commerce.

But banning the interstate sale of abortions is clearly something covered under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8n and further supported by the Fourth Amendment's requirement that no person shall be executed without a trial by jury.
 

Sled Dog

Banned
Joined
Mar 10, 2022
Messages
205
Reaction score
64
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well it hasnt passed yet or even come up for vote.

But it would eventually be challenged in a higher court if someone was sued.

Besides that tho, any woman that needs an abortion, knowing in advance about his law, would just keep the pregnancy a secret. No one needs to see a Dr anymore to confirm a pregnancy. And even if she did, many miscarriages also cannot be proven.

LOL it would be something to see a state trying to stop pregnant women from leaving the state. And then demanding medical exams for their conditions on return.
It is estimated that 50% of all homicides in the US are not solved. Since the enforcement of the law against the murder of breathing people is so lax, should we simply write the laws against murder off the books?
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
100,972
Reaction score
57,814
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
There's nothing wrong with banning all abortions, and it should be done on a federal level, of course. Such a law would be perfectly constitutional.

Can you explain why abortion is wrong? I mean, who says, what authority?

The thing about abortion is that to ban it, it would require violating many of women's Constitutional rights, which the govt is obligated to protect. That....would be wrong. And the Const is the authority that protects women.

But individual states really don't have any business trying to prevent people crossing state lines to engage in commerce, even vile and evil baby-murdering commerce.

But banning the interstate sale of abortions is clearly something covered under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8n and further supported by the Fourth Amendment's requirement that no person shall be executed without a trial by jury.

Nowhere in the Const is the unborn protected. The unborn are specifically not 'persons.' I have plenty of links/quotes that demonstrate this, but the best 'start' is the first sentence of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yet of course, women are persons and protected by the Const...and the govt and our laws are obligated to protect women and our rights. So the unborn have no status with which to supersede women's rights. Do you understand this? Recognize the terrible pain and suffering women would have forced on them against their will if the right to abortion was ended?
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
100,972
Reaction score
57,814
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
It is estimated that 50% of all homicides in the US are not solved. Since the enforcement of the law against the murder of breathing people is so lax, should we simply write the laws against murder off the books?

I'm against murder, of course, but since abortion is not murder, it's not relevant here.

But if you want to pursue it, I'd like to see you source your assertion of 50%.
 

Sled Dog

Banned
Joined
Mar 10, 2022
Messages
205
Reaction score
64
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Can you explain why abortion is wrong? I mean, who says, what authority?
I say it's wrong.

I say it on my authority as a human to determine moral behavior, and on my authority as someone who uses science and rational thought to assess my opinions on the events of the day.

And abortion is wrong for the simple reason that babies are not supposed to be murdered. Not by homicidal eugenic socialist snobs, not by desperate mother-incubators who want to be emptied quickly.

The baby becomes an individual human being the moment the process of ovum fertilization is complete, something that must happen before the fertilized egg is implanted on the uterine wall. This is simple embryology.

Since it is wrong to terminate innocent human life, it's incumbent upon both the female and the male to avoid doing things that can lead to successful fertilization if they do not wish the female to become pregnant. This is the United States. There are possibly hundreds of legal ways for the couple to avoid pregnancy if they don't want pregnancy, and their failure to succeed in avoiding pregnancy is not a crime committed by the child they created together and the burden of the pregnancy is not something the innocent child should be expected to bear.

It's not difficult, ladies and germs, don't do the crime if you don't want the bambino. If you have the bambino, shut up and take care of it. It's only nine months and then you can adopt it out. Think of it as an object lesson on what you personally (not you, Lursa) could have done differently.


The thing about abortion is that to ban it, it would require violating many of women's Constitutional rights, which the govt is obligated to protect. That....would be wrong. And the Const is the authority that protects women.

I'm totally Freedom of Choice.

I fully agree that women have every right to not get pregnant if they don't want to become pregnant.

But once they are pregnant, it's not their choice to murder the inconvenient little human they are now growing. Those little humans are...little humans and little humans have the same rights as the big humans.

Women have no Constitutional right to murder little humans, not even little humans with somewhat inconvenient geographical locations.

Cite the clause of the Constitution that grants women the right to murder inconvenient little humans.


Nowhere in the Const is the unborn protected. The unborn are specifically not 'persons.' I have plenty of links/quotes that demonstrate this, but the best 'start' is the first sentence of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yet of course, women are persons and protected by the Const...and the govt and our laws are obligated to protect women and our rights. So the unborn have no status with which to supersede women's rights. Do you understand this? Recognize the terrible pain and suffering women would have forced on them against their will if the right to abortion was ended?

Right. No state shall deprive ANY PERSON (even little ones inconveniently located) of their LIFE without due process of law.

Which thus grants little persons, not matter how small, rights under the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The science states that the unborn are unique but human individuals. The Fifth Amendment protects the rights of people by guaranteeing them a trial. What crime has an unborn child committed that warrants execution?
 

mrjurrs

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
25,295
Reaction score
12,556
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The anti reproductive freedom radical people in Missouri are now going after women's right to freedom of movement in our nation.

They wrote a law that will allow anyone to sue someone for going across state lines to get an abortion. Something like the law that Texas passed on abortion but didn't include those who go to another state to get an abortion.

I don't know how one state can enforce their laws in a different state. That's not constitutional. If someone goes to a state and doesn't break the laws in that state, a different state can't come along to persecute a person for what they did in that other state.

The anti reproductive freedom radicals are going way too far.

Is any R going to finally admit that authoritarianism is the goal of their party?
 

Sled Dog

Banned
Joined
Mar 10, 2022
Messages
205
Reaction score
64
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm against murder, of course, but since abortion is not murder, it's not relevant here.

But if you want to pursue it, I'd like to see you source your assertion of 50%.
Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human life, done without the indictment for a crime, done without permitting the accused to confront his accusers, done without trial or jury.

How is abortion not worse than what happens to people pushed in front of a NY subway train?

To be completely honest, the 50% figure is one I've seen and heard and cannot and will not attest to as being founded on any sort of published crime statistic. The figure cited was intended more as a rhetorical device. Remember this, OJ Simpson is still not guilty of murdering Nicole Brown and whatever his name was. The fact intended to be conveyed was that crimes are defined under the law with the knowledge that people will continue to commit those acts, but that the acts are criminalized in the hopes that the penalties will deter the behavior.

If there was no law against shoplifting, more shoplifting will happen. Just ask the Target stores in San Francisco. Same is true for any crime you'd care to identify, if there was lesser penalty there'd be more of the behavior.

Criminalize abortion and there will be fewer abortions and hopefully more women, and men, paying more attention to the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.

Why do you want babies killed by irresponsible women?
 
Last edited:

Sled Dog

Banned
Joined
Mar 10, 2022
Messages
205
Reaction score
64
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Is any R going to finally admit that authoritarianism is the goal of their party?
That will happen when we admit that the sun shines on the dark side of the moon.

Since the sun does not shine on the dark side of the moon and the rank and file Republican opposes the authoritarian tyranny all socialists lust for, I'm pretty certain that not only will it never happed but there's no reason it should happen.

The real authoritarians in the US embrace socialism and senile hair sniffing imbeciles when they're not mooning over the failure of a drunk harridan still unable to get over the fact that she and her party failed to steal the election in 2016.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
100,972
Reaction score
57,814
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I say it's wrong.

I say it on my authority as a human to determine moral behavior, and on my authority as someone who uses science and rational thought to assess my opinions on the events of the day.

Dont care. You are welcome to feel that way...just not to force it on women that dont 'believe' the same.

And abortion is wrong for the simple reason that babies are not supposed to be murdered. Not by homicidal eugenic socialist snobs, not by desperate mother-incubators who want to be emptied quickly.

Women dont deserve to be denied, by force of law, a safer medical procedure than pregnancy/childbirth and suffer the pain and risks and damage of pregnancy/childbirth.

The baby becomes an individual human being the moment the process of ovum fertilization is complete, something that must happen before the fertilized egg is implanted on the uterine wall. This is simple embryology.
That's just biology, it's objective. It doesnt observe rights for any species...the unborn human, or born human, doesnt mean any more or less in biological terms than a tiger or a steer.

Science studies and categorizes, it doesnt confer value or rights.

Since it is wrong to terminate innocent human life, it's incumbent upon both the female and the male to avoid doing things that can lead to successful fertilization if they do not wish the female to become pregnant. This is the United States. There are possibly hundreds of legal ways for the couple to avoid pregnancy if they don't want pregnancy, and their failure to succeed in avoiding pregnancy is not a crime committed by the child they created together and the burden of the pregnancy is not something the innocent child should be expected to bear.

Sorry, you havent made that argument successfully at all.

It's not difficult, ladies and germs, don't do the crime if you don't want the bambino. If you have the bambino, shut up and take care of it. It's only nine months and then you can adopt it out. Think of it as an object lesson on what you personally (not you, Lursa) could have done differently.

Adults are welcome to all the consensual sex they want. And women know that there is a much safer medical procedure if they dont want to take the risks of pregnancy and childbirth. Certainly not on 'your say so.'

I'm totally Freedom of Choice.

I fully agree that women have every right to not get pregnant if they don't want to become pregnant.

But once they are pregnant, it's not their choice to murder the inconvenient little human they are now growing. Those little humans are...little humans and little humans have the same rights as the big humans.

It is our choice...as recognized in the Const and codified in RvW. Kind of silly for you to write that.

Women have no Constitutional right to murder little humans, not even little humans with somewhat inconvenient geographical locations.

Cite the clause of the Constitution that grants women the right to murder inconvenient little humans.

Yes, women do have the right to kill the unborn humans inside them. Again, this is protected by the Const and our laws support that.

Right. No state shall deprive ANY PERSON (even little ones inconveniently located) of their LIFE without due process of law.

Which thus grants little persons, not matter how small, rights under the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Just showed you how the 14th Amendment does not recognize the unborn as persons. Why are you wasting all that writing?

The science states that the unborn are unique but human individuals. The Fifth Amendment protects the rights of people by guaranteeing them a trial. What crime has an unborn child committed that warrants execution?

Science has no authority on equality, status, rights, laws, value, etc. And the Const. doesnt recognize the unborn as persons. 🤷
 

mrjurrs

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
25,295
Reaction score
12,556
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
That will happen when we admit that the sun shines on the dark side of the moon.

Since the sun does not shine on the dark side of the moon and the rank and file Republican opposes the authoritarian tyranny all socialists lust for, I'm pretty certain that not only will it never happed but there's no reason it should happen.

The real authoritarians in the US embrace socialism and senile hair sniffing imbeciles when they're not mooning over the failure of a drunk harridan still unable to get over the fact that she and her party failed to steal the election in 2016.
You throw out opinions, I show you politicians trying to make laws. You have no game.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
100,972
Reaction score
57,814
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human life, done without the indictment for a crime, done without permitting the accused to confront his accusers, done without trial or jury.

How is abortion not worse than what happens to people pushed in front of a NY subway train?

We have legal support for killing under many circumstances where we believe, as a society, that it's justified. See: self-defense, in war, assisted suicide, death penalty, "pulling the plug," etc.

Not all Americans agree to all of those but most to to most of them. A woman needing an abortion is completely justifiable, and strangers do not need to agree.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
100,972
Reaction score
57,814
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Women have no Constitutional right to murder little humans, not even little humans with somewhat inconvenient geographical locations.

Cite the clause of the Constitution that grants women the right to murder inconvenient little humans.

Here are some specifics that prove you are wrong. I mean, you can personally invent all the new definitions for words and legal terms, but it doesnt make them rational or valid.

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""​

--and--

The Supreme Court’s abortion rulings include four principal elements: 1. The unborn child is a non-person and therefore has no constitutional rights; 2. The right of his mother to kill that non-person is a “ liberty Charles E. Rice 3 interest” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3. The states may impose some marginal restrictions on abortion but are barred from effectively prohibiting abortion at any stage of pregnancy; 4. Efforts undertaken in the vicinity of an abortuary to dissuade women from abortion are subject to more stringent restrictions than are other forms of speech, assembly and association.

--and--

Here is clarification on our laws that recognize the 14th Amendment (and the RvW decision):​
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

I realize that you probably wont like all that but it is the legal clarification of the legal status of the unborn. And when you consider the mother in the equation as well, her pain, suffering, losses, self-determination, it becomes clear that it's also moral. Do you consider the mother?

I value the unborn, but I value all born people more. And they cannot be treated equally under the law, it's not possible. Or, if you have some legal basis to demonstrate how, I'd be happy to hear it.
 

Sled Dog

Banned
Joined
Mar 10, 2022
Messages
205
Reaction score
64
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human life, done without the indictment for a crime, done without permitting the accused to confront his accusers, done without trial or jury.

How is abortion not worse than what happens to people pushed in front of a NY subway train?

Dont care. You are welcome to feel that way...just not to force it on women that dont 'believe' the same.
Their "belief" doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that an unborn child inside it's mother is no less a human being than the human being on the outside of the child.

That's an established fact.

Women dont deserve to be denied, by force of law, a safer medical procedure than pregnancy/childbirth and suffer the pain and risks and damage of pregnancy/childbirth.

I've no problem with safer abortions. Since there are two patients, the safer abortion procedure will protect both lives. Otherwise it's usually just a murder.
That's just biology, it's objective. It doesnt observe rights for any species...the unborn human, or born human, doesnt mean any more or less in biological terms than a tiger or a steer.

Science studies and categorizes, it doesnt confer value or rights.
NOTHING "confers" rights.

Rights are inherent in a person's humanity, regardless of age, size or mental capacity. In order to deprive the unborn human of his human rights, you have to declare, against the known and established science, that the unborn are not human.

The word inherent is rooted in the concept of inheritance, something built in by nature.


Sorry, you havent made that argument successfully at all.
Yes, I did, or you would have cited portions of that paragraph that you found refutable and refuted them. Your failure to do so means the argument was successful. Blanket and blind negation is not a successful logical rebuttal.

So you want to argue that it's acceptable to kill innocent life. What happens when the karma goes around the circle again? Women have the choice to not do things that may get them pregnant. What gives them the power to kill babies when they screw up and get pregnant?

Adults are welcome to all the consensual sex they want. And women know that there is a much safer medical procedure if they dont want to take the risks of pregnancy and childbirth. Certainly not on 'your say so.'

If a woman does not want to risk pregnancy, there's a simple way of avoiding those risks that doesn't include killing children.

Adults are not welcome to kill children to avoid other consequences of their decisions. Abortion is never a safe medical procedure. In a successful abortion one of the two patients walks out of the room, the other is sold for parts on E-bay.


 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
100,972
Reaction score
57,814
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Their "belief" doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that an unborn child inside it's mother is no less a human being than the human being on the outside of the child.

That's an established fact.

What's also established is that that unborn has no right to life and the mother can kill it.

You'll have to show the legal basis...again, science has nothing to do with rights, value, laws, status, morality, etc.

I've no problem with safer abortions. Since there are two patients, the safer abortion procedure will protect both lives. Otherwise it's usually just a murder.

I didnt say 'safer' abortions, please read better. I pointed out that it's immoral to deny women a 'safer medical procedure - abortion' when it's so much safer than pregnancy and childbirth.

Strangers have no right, nor the govt, to demand women take that greater risk. And the govt recognizes that.


NOTHING "confers" rights.

I said science did not, we're in agreement. Our Const. recognizes our rights.

Rights are inherent in a person's humanity, regardless of age, size or mental capacity. In order to deprive the unborn human of his human rights, you have to declare, against the known and established science, that the unborn are not human.

The word inherent is rooted in the concept of inheritance, something built in by nature.

That's nice, but no such declaration needs to be made, since science recognizes no rights for any animals, including humans.

And rights are not inherent...we dont pass them on genetically and they cannot be proven biologicially. "In science."

Again, you're wrong.
Yes, I did, or you would have cited portions of that paragraph that you found refutable and refuted them. Your failure to do so means the argument was successful. Blanket and blind negation is not a successful logical rebuttal.

Which paragraph(s)? Post them.

So you want to argue that it's acceptable to kill innocent life. What happens when the karma goes around the circle again? Women have the choice to not do things that may get them pregnant. What gives them the power to kill babies when they screw up and get pregnant?

Karma? And I made an argument for society finding many types of killing acceptable. Assisting a sick person's suicide doesnt mean the person dying is guilty of anything. Every woman has a reason why she needs it. Why should strangers tell her what she needs? They dont know what's in her best interests and they wont pay her consequences. They dont know who else is dependent on her, what affect her sickness, job loss, loss of income, etc etc will have on others.


If a woman does not want to risk pregnancy, there's a simple way of avoiding those risks that doesn't include killing children.

Already answered, women know they have the safer option of abortion if they dont want to be pregnant and adults are perfectly welcome to enjoy sex.

Adults are not welcome to kill children to avoid other consequences of their decisions.

Again, why do you post stupid things when you know otherwise? Women do have that right.

Abortion is never a safe medical procedure.

Note that I always write 'safer', meaning safer than pregnancy and childbirth. :D

In a successful abortion one of the two patients walks out of the room, the other is sold for parts on E-bay.

The unborn is not a patient and that unfortunately, is the result of the procedure. Are you getting frustrated? You keep repeating yourself and now are just getting 'dramatic.' Nothing from an abortion is sold on eBay.
 
Top Bottom