pro-life[W:1119] (1 Viewer)

[Jek4141]

Re: pro-life

WHICH PROVES NOTHING ABOUT ABORTION. Remember that for centuries the Christian churches claimed that ensoulment happened during an event known as "quickening" --prior to that point in a pregnancy, the unborn human was not considered to be alive. NOW remember that the Church claimed to be "infallible"! --Yet it was proved wrong in the 1800s, and that is when it decided to start claiming ensoulment happened at conception. But what if everything known today about unborn humans was known back then? That DNA, not God , forms bodies in the womb. That unborn humans act worse than parasites. That "kicking" is partially Nature's answer to a problem posed by NASA --how do you fight bone loss in a reduce-gravity environment? (exercise!) "Free will" is not-at-all involved --because we know that plenty of other mammals "kick" in the womb, too.

You pointed out how many Jews support abortion. I discredited your source. You didn't ask me to prove anything about abortion in your previous question.

 

[Lursa]

Re: pro-life

Human will should be overcome to preserve life rather than taking it. If this includes unwanted pregnancy, then yes. Especially because medical emergencies and rape/incest cases only make up 1-2% of the overall abortion rate (being generous) versus the other 98% of cases that are made up of not being ready, accidental pregnancy due to unsafe sex, or other social reasons.

OK, so then you clearly value the unborn over women.

Now the next step is to consider how that would be done under the Constitution. To force *your* will on women, it would involved violating most of our rights, including due process, privacy, liberty, right on up to our right to life...because hundreds of women die due to childbirth/pregnancy in the US every year, and those obviously are not predictable or preventable.

So starting from adolescence, women's rights to things like medical privacy would start to be violated in order to track and monitor their pregnancy status (and remember...women do not have to go to a Dr to have pregnancies confirmed...there are over the counter methods...so really think things thru)

How do you think that treating women like untrustworthy 2nd class citizens will affect society?

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: pro-life

Who speaks for those that can't speak for themselves? How does the mother's right to choose supersede the baby's right to live?

There’s no right to life for anyone.

 

[Jek4141]

Re: pro-life

The govt has not labelled the unborn as non-human. Do you have any sources indicating that?

And again, it's a subjective valuation. You have not answered: Do you think the woman's will should be overcome to give birth? It's a very direct question.

No one said it's a happy balance, but life is full of hard decisions. That doesnt make those decisions wrong.

Abortion is in society's best interests as well as women's.

Can you give me any negative effects that abortion has on society?

Roe v. Wade. Pretty big court case. Went all the way to the Judiciary Branch SCOTUS.

I already said that I believe humanity should focus on preserving life, and that, if that includes pregnancy, yes. Stop repeating yourself after I've already answered you.

 

[Lursa]

Re: pro-life

Who speaks for those that can't speak for themselves? How does the mother's right to choose supersede the baby's right to live?

How does the unborn's life supersede a woman's right to live?

Here's one source:

Why are so many U.S. women dying during childbirth? : News

Why are so many U.S. women dying during childbirth? | Metro | stltoday.com

From the article:

"the rate hovers around 15 deaths per 100,000 births"*

"each year in the U.S., about 700 women die of pregnancy-related complications and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. An additional 34,000 barely avoid death."

"The rate of severe complications during and after delivery have also doubled in the last decade, according to a 2012 federal study. Near-misses, where a woman nearly dies, increased by 27 percent."

"Deaths from*stroke*are also on the rise. A recent CDC study shows pregnancy-related strokes increased by 50 percent in 2006-2007, compared with 1994-1996."

They are not all predictable or preventable obviously.

And the death rate in the US has risen to 900/yr.

The govt recognizes that it has no right to demand women take that risk, as the govt cannot prevent it.

 

[Jek4141]

Re: pro-life

There’s no right to life for anyone.

The constitution of our country guarantees its citizens the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: pro-life

Who speaks for those that can't speak for themselves?

LIKE ALL THE ANIMALS AND PLANTS ROUTINELY KILLED BY SELFISHLY-BREEDING HUMANS?

How does the mother's right to choose supersede the [unborn mindless soulless human animal that acts worse than any parasite's] right to live?

STUPIDLY LOADED QUESTION. What is the basis for including the assumption that an unborn human has a right to live?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: pro-life

The constitution of our country guarantees its citizens the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

AND CITIZENSHIP STARTS AT BIRTH. Not before. See the 14th Amendment, for example.

 

[Lursa]

Re: pro-life

Roe v. Wade. Pretty big court case. Went all the way to the Judiciary Branch SCOTUS.

I already said that I believe humanity should focus on preserving life, and that, if that includes pregnancy, yes. Stop repeating yourself after I've already answered you.

And you seem to believe in preserving the unborn's lives over those of women.

You can believe that, that's fine, but it's no moral High Ground, it's not 'better'.

And why the random reference to RvW?

And why no answer to (a new) direct question? Can you give me any negative effects that abortion has on society?

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: pro-life

The constitution of our country guarantees its citizens the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Go to a site with the US Constitution and copy such a right and paste that right on this thread.

 

[Jek4141]

Re: pro-life

LIKE ALL THE ANIMALS AND PLANTS ROUTINELY KILLED BY SELFISHLY-BREEDING HUMANS?


STUPIDLY LOADED QUESTION. What is the basis for including the assumption that an unborn human has a right to live?

Animals and plants do not have souls. They are provided by God as resources for the human race. He tells us to tame the earth in Genesis, including ruling over the beasts of the sky, sea, and ground. The basis is that an animal or plant will never have a soul; a human being has one from the moment of conception.

 

[Jek4141]

Re: pro-life

And you seem to believe in preserving the unborn's lives over those of women.

You can believe that, that's fine, but it's no moral High Ground, it's not 'better'.

And why the random reference to RvW?

And why no answer to (a new) direct question? Can you give me any negative effects that abortion has on society?

Reference to RvW because you asked where the government declared the unborn to be not human.

What effect does mass murder have on society?

 

[Jek4141]

Re: pro-life

Go to a site with the US Constitution and copy such a right and paste that right on this thread.

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ..."

 

[Lursa]

Re: pro-life

The constitution of our country guarantees its citizens the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And we discussed how SCOTUS has already considered blacks, women, and the unborn regarding that. If it was asssumed to be granted to EVERYONE, then SCOTUS would not have had to consider those groups, would it?

But here's more relevant law:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

(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.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

 

[Lursa]

Re: pro-life

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ..."

And yet they still didnt apply to blacks and women until SCOTUS considered them/us. And it should be very very clear to you that the unborn are not remotely independent.

(And that's not law, btw)

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: pro-life

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ..."

That’s not from the Constitution. What Amendment did you copy that from?

 

[Jek4141]

Re: pro-life

And we discussed how SCOTUS has already considered blacks, women, and the unborn regarding that. If it was asssumed to be granted to EVERYONE, then SCOTUS would not have had to consider those groups, would it?

But here's more relevant law:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

"Unjust laws exist. Shall we be content to obey them, or shall we challenge them while upholding them, or shall we transgress them all at once?"

-loosely quoted from David Thoreau

 

[Lursa]

Re: pro-life

What effect does mass murder have on society?

None that I'm aware of...can you give me examples that would pertain to abortion?

 

[Lursa]

Re: pro-life

"Unjust laws exist. Shall we be content to obey them, or shall we challenge them while upholding them, or shall we transgress them all at once?"

-loosely quoted from David Thoreau

Sure...how is it just to give the unborn rights that supersede those of women?

 

[Jek4141]

Re: pro-life

That’s not from the Constitution. What Amendment did you copy that from?

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...

From the XIV Amendment

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: pro-life

Roe v. Wade. Pretty big court case. Went all the way to the Judiciary Branch SCOTUS.

TRUE. And one of the conclusions reached, that unborn humans don't qualify as persons deserving rights, has Constitutional support dating all the way back to the Founding Fathers. The Constitution mandates that every 10 years a Census be conducted of all persons (except Indians not taxed). The Founding Fathers were right there in 1790 to specify the counting of persons, for the first Census. You can see the questions they asked here. In every single Census ever conducted in the USA, unborn humans have never been counted as persons.

I already said that I believe humanity should focus on preserving life,

YET YOU DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS. It is impossible for the human population to survive, much less grow, without destroying life. So, why should humans be an exception to the world-wide killing of vast numbers of animals and plants of many thousands of different species? Are you promoting the totally evil thing which is Stupid Prejudice?

 

[Jek4141]

Re: pro-life

Sure...how is it just to give the unborn rights that supersede those of women?

My point is that the law can be unjust, whether or not it is legal.

 

[Jek4141]

Re: pro-life

TRUE. And one of the conclusions reached, that unborn humans don't qualify as persons deserving rights, has Constitutional support dating all the way back to the Founding Fathers. The Constitution mandates that every 10 years a Census be conducted of all persons (except Indians not taxed). The Founding Fathers were right there in 1790 to specify the counting of persons, for the first Census. You can see the questions they asked here. In every single Census ever conducted in the USA, unborn humans have never been counted as persons.


YET YOU DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS. It is impossible for the human population to survive, much less grow, without destroying life. So, why should humans be an exception to the world-wide killing of vast numbers of animals and plants of many thousands of different species? Are you promoting the totally evil thing which is Stupid Prejudice?

God tells us to be fruitful and multiply, and yet we kill our offspring in the womb. If God tells us to do something, it is highly likely that He has the provisions made to make it possible. Humanity only lives on 3% of the earth's surface, and yet you say that we are overpopulated?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: pro-life

You pointed out how many Jews support abortion.

NOW YOU ARE STUPIDLY LYING ABOUT WHAT I WROTE. I said they don't always oppose abortion, which is a very different thing from supporting it. (Neutrality is a real political position.)

I discredited your source.

FALSE. You discredited something on a totally different subject. You didn't provide anything that discredits the Jewish view about abortion.

You didn't ask me to prove anything about abortion in your previous question.

AND YET I HAVE DONE THAT ON OTHER OCCASIONS. I've specifically asked you to prove that something was wrong with abortion. And so far you have totally failed to offer anything that can withstand close scrutiny.

 

[Lursa]

Re: pro-life

Back up your facts. Provide a source that proves your statements, like I will right now. This way, you can't say I'm not providing my own support.

abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

Here you go:

https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

"The science shows that based on gestational age, the fetus is not capable of feeling pain until the third trimester," said Kate Connors, a spokesperson for ACOG. The third trimester begins at about 27 weeks of pregnancy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

Current theories of pain consider an intact cortical system to be both necessary and sufficient for pain experience.9,10*In support are functional imaging studies showing that activation within a network of cortical regions correlate with reported pain experience.9*Furthermore, cortical activation can generate the experience of pain even in the absence of actual noxious stimulation.10*These observations suggest thalamic projections into the cortical plate are the minimal necessary anatomy for pain experience. These projections are complete at 23 weeks' gestation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/health/complex-science-at-issue-in-politics-of-fetal-pain.html

http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429

Sadly, you seem to expect me to accept your source which comes from a "pro-life" website :roll: