Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

[JoeB131]

You have.

Given I'm an atheist, I kind of doubt it.

Again...why? You are making statements. Why is abortion wrong?

And the unborn is not a person at any time until outside the woman. "Person" is a legal status.

You might have a point.

Slaves weren't people until the 13-15th Amendments... legally.

 

[JoeB131]

False. And it's still not why it's wrong to kill the unborn. "Duh"



Yet, you have.



Hide hide hide hide. I know you cant answer it.

I have given you an answer, just not one you like.

 

[Lursa]

Given I'm an atheist, I kind of doubt it.

I guess you shed your Catholic upbringing then.

You might have a point.

Slaves weren't people until the 13-15th Amendments... legally.

Slaves were considered property, freed Blacks were persons. So...not the same.

 

[Gordy327]

Because it's killing a baby. Duh.

No, it's not. Still no explanation why abortion is wrong. Try again.

And if you think that our society is in a good place with the systematic destruction of the family over the last 50 years, then you must be willfully blind.

What destruction? Families are still a thing. What does abortion have to do with that?

Tell you what, take a walk at midnight in some urban area, and then you can tell them how we'd all be better off if they had been aborted.

I wrote an article as to why abortion is a good thing.

 

[Lursa]

I have given you an answer, just not one you like.

You can keep typing that but you still cant explain why abortion is wrong. So all your "points" and complaints are baseless.

 

[Gordy327]

I don't think I've said "God" at all, other than saying that is what a lot of people believe.

Belief doesn't equal fact.

If a fetus is a person at some point between conception and when the umbilical chord is cut, then, yes, they are entitled to protections.

A fetus is not a person until birth. Legal fact.

That has little to do with God.

God is irrelevant anyway.

That said, this has to be a change in the culture, not the law. Change the law, you will have an unworkable law people will break.

Why? You still haven't explained why abortion is wrong or even a problem.

 

[_.sokoa]

Then they should be charged as assault, not homicide.

Labeling of a crime as homicide doesn't automatically imply the fetus is a legal person either, it just reflects the legal interest in the potential life that was lost. That's legislative compromise. Can't assume fetal personhood from the statute when the law explicitly avoids making that claim.

Why not argue Connor wasn't a person? That would reduce the number of murder charges.

Because legal strategy isn't a philosophy seminar. Public defenders don't just gamble on controversial metaphysical arguments that have a near zero shot at persuading a jury, especially in a case already basically dripping with public outrage. His lawyers aimed to beat all charges and not just slowly nitpick at definitions that could backfire in front of 12 emotionally reactive strangers.

Because popular opinion is how we make laws. If we are horrified by a stranger killing an 8 month old fetus or even his father, we should be horrified when the woman it's inside does.

But you just said emotion led to a bad verdict, now you want to build laws on that same emotion? Popular opinion changes, personhood needs consistent, rational criteria. Consciousness, sentience, self-awareness. We were once horrified by interracial couples. Doesn't mean that emotional revulsion was ever a valid moral compass. We aren't building law this way. A woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy isn't the same as someone else violently taking it. One's a decision that is tied to bodily autonomy and the other's an assault on it.

 

[bomberfox]

Then they should be charged as assault, not homicide.



Why not argue Connor wasn't a person? That would reduce the number of murder charges. Then he could still argue he didn't do it. However, his position was that he was a victim, and Connor and Lacy were taken from him by actors unknown.



Because popular opinion is how we make laws. If we are horrified by a stranger killing an 8 month old fetus or even his father, we should be horrified when the woman it's inside does.




Um, no. The thing that closed down the Mental Hospitals wasn't Reagan, it was the ruling O'Connor vs. Donaldson (1975) that ruled that a person cannot be institutionalized against their will. The Homeless actually started filling our streets before Reagan got there. Now, you can (and should) fault Reagan for not doing enough (but neither did Carter or Clinton).

Time to first lie first sentence. Reagan repealed it. who had made major efforts during his governorship to reduce funding and enlistment for California mental institutions, pushed a political effort through the Democratically controlled House of Representatives and a Republican controlled Senate to repeal most of MHSA. The MHSA was considered landmark legislation in mental health care policy.

Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Lursa]

Labeling of a crime as homicide doesn't automatically imply the fetus is a legal person either, it just reflects the legal interest in the potential life that was lost. That's legislative compromise. Can't assume fetal personhood from the statute when the law explicitly avoids making that claim.

And homicide isnt always even a crime. Killing in self-defense isnt a crime, but it's a homicide.

 

[bomberfox]

Given I'm an atheist, I kind of doubt it.




You might have a point.

Slaves weren't people until the 13-15th Amendments... legally.

Slaves were fully independent of their mothers and did not have to be hooked up to life support past braindeath to live. Thats a huge difference.

 

[Lursa]

Slaves were fully independent of their mothers and did not have to be hooked up to life support past braindeath to live. Thats a huge difference.

They were also fully capable of exercising their rights once freed. The unborn cannot exercise single right independently, it's physiology is completely intertwined with the woman's. OTOH, she's not dependent on it.

To me that's a very clear example of why the unborn should not have equal status with born people. It's not equal, it's incapable of exercising any rights independently if it had them.

 

[JoeB131]

I guess you shed your Catholic upbringing then.

I admit, my catholic upbringing influences my moral stances.

You know, like dismembering a baby because someone is foolish about relationships is wrong.

Slaves were considered property, freed Blacks were persons. So...not the same.

So by that logic (and it's dubious) is that a fetus only becomes a person when it gets past the birth canal is equally silly. Slaves were people. Fetuses are people.

What destruction? Families are still a thing. What does abortion have to do with that?

40% illegitimacy rate. 50% divorce rate. Families are not doing well.

A fetus is not a person until birth. Legal fact.

Yes, the slaveholders and Nazis used the same kind of "legal" reasoning.

Labeling of a crime as homicide doesn't automatically imply the fetus is a legal person either, it just reflects the legal interest in the potential life that was lost. That's legislative compromise. Can't assume fetal personhood from the statute when the law explicitly avoids making that claim.

Homicide : the killing of one person by another.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Because legal strategy isn't a philosophy seminar. Public defenders don't just gamble on controversial metaphysical arguments that have a near zero shot at persuading a jury, especially in a case already basically dripping with public outrage. His lawyers aimed to beat all charges and not just slowly nitpick at definitions that could backfire in front of 12 emotionally reactive strangers.

I was referring to the appeals process, not the jury, which was running purely on "He was cheating on his wife, he must be guilty". Appeals process, you litigate every part of the sentence. But even his lawyers weren't foolish enough to claim Connor wasn't a person.

But you just said emotion led to a bad verdict, now you want to build laws on that same emotion? Popular opinion changes, personhood needs consistent, rational criteria. Consciousness, sentience, self-awareness. We were once horrified by interracial couples. Doesn't mean that emotional revulsion was ever a valid moral compass. We aren't building law this way. A woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy isn't the same as someone else violently taking it. One's a decision that is tied to bodily autonomy and the other's an assault on it.

It was a bad verdict because the evidence isn't really there. If he IS the killer, I'd personally be for strapping him down and giving him the hot-shot.

Time to first lie first sentence. Reagan repealed it. who had made major efforts during his governorship to reduce funding and enlistment for California mental institutions, pushed a political effort through the Democratically controlled House of Representatives and a Republican controlled Senate to repeal most of MHSA. The MHSA was considered landmark legislation in mental health care policy.

Until they realized you can't make a stewbum come in for treatment.

We didn't have a homeless problem because Reagan and a DEMOCRATIC congress didn't fund an ill-considered law.

We had a homeless problem because - Wait for it - because idiot liberal judges emptied out the insane asylums. And other Goo-goos decided that we had to tear down the Skid Rows of the world.

(The term "Goo-Goo" is one that the late Mayor Richard J. Daley used to describe fellow Democrats whose hearts were bigger than their brains).

 

[JoeB131]

hey were also fully capable of exercising their rights once freed. The unborn cannot exercise single right independently, it's physiology is completely intertwined with the woman's. OTOH, she's not dependent on it.

Um, how many rights can newborns exercise? They look pretty dependent to me.

 

[Gordy327]

I admit, my catholic upbringing influences my moral stances.

You know, like dismembering a baby because someone is foolish about relationships is wrong.

Sounds like a 'you' problem. Fortunately not everyone has such moral qualms.

So by that logic (and it's dubious) is that a fetus only becomes a person when it gets past the birth canal is equally silly. Slaves were people. Fetuses are people.

Fetuses are not people. Repeating that tripe doesn't make you right. Only wilfully ignorant and foolish, especially since the law proves you wrong!

40% illegitimacy rate. 50% divorce rate. Families are not doing well.

Sounds like abortion is 1 solution. Why bring a child into such dysfunctionality?

Yes, the slaveholders and Nazis used the same kind of "legal" reasoning.

Legally, a fetus is not a person. Thats a matter of the constitution.

Homicide : the killing of one person by another.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Not applicable to abortion.

 

[Gordy327]

Um, how many rights can newborns exercise? They look pretty dependent to me.

They're not physically attached or dependent on the gestator anymore. anyone can provide care at that point.

 

[bomberfox]

I admit, my catholic upbringing influences my moral stances.

You know, like dismembering a baby because someone is foolish about relationships is wrong.



So by that logic (and it's dubious) is that a fetus only becomes a person when it gets past the birth canal is equally silly. Slaves were people. Fetuses are people.



40% illegitimacy rate. 50% divorce rate. Families are not doing well.



Yes, the slaveholders and Nazis used the same kind of "legal" reasoning.



Homicide : the killing of one person by another.

Seems pretty clear to me.


I was referring to the appeals process, not the jury, which was running purely on "He was cheating on his wife, he must be guilty". Appeals process, you litigate every part of the sentence. But even his lawyers weren't foolish enough to claim Connor wasn't a person.



It was a bad verdict because the evidence isn't really there. If he IS the killer, I'd personally be for strapping him down and giving him the hot-shot.



Until they realized you can't make a stewbum come in for treatment.

We didn't have a homeless problem because Reagan and a DEMOCRATIC congress didn't fund an ill-considered law.

We had a homeless problem because - Wait for it - because idiot liberal judges emptied out the insane asylums. And other Goo-goos decided that we had to tear down the Skid Rows of the world.

(The term "Goo-Goo" is one that the late Mayor Richard J. Daley used to describe fellow Democrats whose hearts were bigger than their brains).

It was actually slang for Tammany Hall government officials in the late 1800s and picked up by ex bircher Paul Weyrich who wanted to rob people like me of their voice in government. The john birch society was so crazy they called Eisenhower a secret communist. Time to first lie, first sentence. Reagan defunded mental hospitals even as governor of California.

Republicans are usually penny wise but pound foolish like that as their schemes rarely work.

 

[bomberfox]

Um, how many rights can newborns exercise? They look pretty dependent to me.

They are detached from the body of the mother.

 

[Lursa]

Um, how many rights can newborns exercise? They look pretty dependent to me.

Life. Without being physically attached to someone else. It can live without that connection. And then anyone can care for it, no physiological dependency is needed. You really need to think things thru before posting them.

 

[Gordy327]

You really need to think things thru before posting them.

That hasn't happened yet and I dont expect it to change anytime soon either.

 

[Lursa]

I admit, my catholic upbringing influences my moral stances.

You know, like dismembering a baby because someone is foolish about relationships is wrong.

Let us know when you can explain WHY abortion is wrong.

And your desperate need to add uselessly emotional language shows you're floundering. Why should a dead fetus not be dismembered if it's big enough to internally damage the woman on removal? It receives a lethal injection of anesthetic first, so it feels nothing. You seem to prefer she endure additional pain and harm. Why?

It's just another demonstration of how unchristian or just plain inhumane your views are...who cares about the harm to the woman? And since almost all such late abortions would be medically necessary, we're talking about a woman/couple that wanted to have a baby. You'd punish her further, grieving the loss, anyway. Disgusting.

Lordy, keep posting. Your posts become more and more monstrous as we go on. Like blaming kids waiting to be adopted for being born.

So by that logic (and it's dubious) is that a fetus only becomes a person when it gets past the birth canal is equally silly. Slaves were people. Fetuses are people.

That is the law, which you already know. And again...it wasnt about being a human. Freed blacks were persons. At the time, the Southern govt classified slaves as property. So again, not about being human.

We can keep going in circles. The more we do, the more inhumane and amoral your posts become as you desperately try to justify your views without even knowing why abortion is wrong. Clearly, understanding morality is not your strong point.

 

[Bodi]

I have given you an answer, just not one you like.

At least you have stopped pretending to be Pro-Choice. LOL.

/

 

[Bodi]

They look pretty dependent to me.

Abortion just removes a trespasser from the woman.


.

 

[Gordy327]

Abortion just removes a trespasser from the woman.


.

Its more of an unwanted parasite.

 

[Bodi]

Its more of an unwanted parasite.

Killing a parasite doesn't anger people though... removing a trespassing baby does.


.

 

[Gordy327]

Killing a parasite doesn't anger people though... removing a trespassing baby does.


.

Rather odd, is it not. Eh, go figure.