Yes, really. After all, you're posting on a debate forum. If all you can intellectually muster is a SUGGESTION, may I suggest purchasing and affixing a relevant bumper sticker to your car. (or wheelchair)Really, seems like I'm living in most of your heads, by simply SUGGESTING that a baby's right to life is more important than a woman's ability to act irresponsibly.
Yes, really. After all, you're posting on a debate forum. If all you can intellectually muster is a SUGGESTION, may I suggest purchasing and affixing a relevant bumper sticker to your car. (or wheelchair)
What you've expressed here is your every right to personally choose to challenge abortion. Which is fine.I've already made my position pretty clear.
Roe was a flawed ruling because it didn't address the issue of human life, and it found a fanciful right to privacy that doesn't exist..
While I detest abortion, I think outlawing it is impractical. Prohibition was impractical, but the country still gave it the old college try for a decade. The war on drugs is impractical, yet it still goes on. Prostitution laws are impractical, but they are the law in 49 states.
It doesn't mean that I can't show my disgust for people who think dismembering a baby is a morally acceptable form of contraception. Just like I have contempt for dopers, drunks, and hookers.
I also believe that we should do a lot more to prevent the need for abortion - Universal Health Care, Paid family leave, extensive sex education, access to contraception.
But there's no rational discussion with people who have either had or facilitated abortions, and want to feel better about themselves.
And?
Either was sufficient by the eye of SCOTUS.
It should. Drugs should be legal and regulated anyway, like alcohol and tobacco.Why, exactly, doesn’t this ‘right to privacy’ (personal choice?) apply to the use of recreational drugs?
There's arguments for and against. Does this hold any significance to the abortion debate for you?Why, exactly, doesn’t this ‘right to privacy’ (personal choice?) apply to the use of recreational drugs?
There's arguments for and against. Does this hold any significance to the abortion debate for you?
Arguing bodily autonomy and relevant legal precedents would be a mire effective Argument. Regardless, there is no rational or legal basis for abortion restrictions anyway. Such laws are more emotionally driven than anything.Absolutely, since the basis for the alleged (nationwide?) abortion ‘right’ was based on some (non-enumerated) 9A/14A (personal) privacy right. Oddly, in both the Roe and Casey rulings, this abortion (privacy) ‘right’ was limited based on the level of fetal development.
Yes. It was ruled at the development point of viability the state had a "compelling interest" in the unborn.Absolutely, since the basis for the alleged (nationwide?) abortion ‘right’ was based on some (non-enumerated) 9A/14A (personal) privacy right. Oddly, in both the Roe and Casey rulings, this abortion (privacy) ‘right’ was limited based on the level of fetal development.
Yes. It was ruled at the development point of viability the state had a "compelling interest" in the unborn.
Not seeing any parallel here?
The laws were still in effect. They were simply interpreted tpo establish when they can be in effect. Thats not making up a new law.Based purely on SCOTUS opinion, which changed between Roe and Casey. That was clearly law making by the SCOTUS.
Elective abortions are slowly becoming illegal because you overplayed your hand and dismissed the moral concerns of half the country.
That's a pretty dumb argument. A dog doesn't look like a baby. A fetus most certainly does.
Yes, really. After all, you're posting on a debate forum. If all you can intellectually muster is a SUGGESTION, may I suggest purchasing and affixing a relevant bumper sticker to your car. (or wheelchair)
Roe was a flawed ruling because it didn't address the issue of human life, and it found a fanciful right to privacy that doesn't exist..
I've already made my position pretty clear.
It doesn't mean that I can't show my disgust for people who think dismembering a baby is a morally acceptable form of contraception. Just like I have contempt for dopers, drunks, and hookers.
And also, any abortions that take place late enough (about 2%) for the unborn to feel pain, doctors are required to administer a lethal dose of anesthetic before any removal process so there is no pain.
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.
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.
Absolutely, since the basis for the alleged (nationwide?) abortion ‘right’ was based on some (non-enumerated) 9A/14A (personal) privacy right. Oddly, in both the Roe and Casey rulings, this abortion (privacy) ‘right’ was limited based on the level of fetal development.
Says the one whining about perceived irresponsibility and "babies" being killedWow, so much whining that I don't fully endorse your lack of responsibility.
Nope. Life is a scientific issue, not a legal one. In law, personhood is the issue, of which the unborn are not.Actually, it's the issue that the Courts have avoided for 50 years, but at some point, they'll have to.
As i said before, people are stupid and irrational.This isn't about Trump, who really doesn't spend a lot of time talking about abortion, anyway. It's probably why he won, because there was a nudge, nudge, wink, wink that he'd appoint anti-choice judges.
It's why so many Christians voted for him even after Granny keeled over from Covid
Where is this so called "right" enumerated?Really, seems like I'm living in most of your heads, by simply SUGGESTING that a baby's right to life is more important than a woman's ability to act irresponsibly.
a fetus is still neither a baby or a person.That's a pretty dumb argument. A dog doesn't look like a baby. A fetus most certainly does.
Abortion is still allowed and performed in most of the country. People's moral qualms is their own.Elective abortions are slowly becoming illegal because you overplayed your hand and dismissed the moral concerns of half the country.
View attachment 67573845
My brother in Christ... not only did you completely miss the point of the argument but now your basically saying looking like a baby is an argument. You're wrong on this since they pretty much do look like a baby in the early stages. No parent would walk around saying "I have a fetus growing in my stomach!" even if they believed babies and fetuses are the same or not. And no part of this proves personhood or what makes a "person" objectively.That's a pretty dumb argument. A dog doesn't look like a baby. A fetus most certainly does.
Seems like that's what you guys do when you use terms like "Embyro" or "Fetus".
Killing a baby is never responsible.
Using birth control is responsible.
Putting it up for adoption is responsible.
Making sure he's a decent man before you spread your legs is responsible.
Happy to have cleared that up for you.
My brother in Christ...
not only did you completely miss the point of the argument but now your basically saying looking like a baby is an argument. You're wrong on this since they pretty much do look like a baby in the early stages. No parent would walk around saying "I have a fetus growing in my stomach!" even if they believed babies and fetuses are the same or not. And no part of this proves personhood or what makes a "person" objectively.
What you've expressed here is your every right to personally choose to challenge abortion. Which is fine.
Where you err is in "suggesting" the volition of those that disagree with you must be restricted (by law). That transcends a mere level of suggestion and requires a counter-challenge.
As such. You're coming off cowardly and appearing intellectually disingenuous.
Nope. Life is a scientific issue, not a legal one. In law, personhood is the issue, of which the unborn are not.
My brother in Christ... not only did you completely miss the point of the argument but now your basically saying looking like a baby is an argument. You're wrong on this since they pretty much do look like a baby in the early stages. No parent would walk around saying "I have a fetus growing in my stomach!" even if they believed babies and fetuses are the same or not. And no part of this proves personhood or what makes a "person" objectively.
How is your question to control women and treat them as second-class citizens going?
I agree. We need the courts to rule on this issue of personhood, with a better answer than, "Five seconds before the Umbilical chord is cut."
Says the one whining about perceived irresponsibility and "babies" being killed
Nope. Life is a scientific issue, not a legal one. In law, personhood is the issue, of which the unborn are not.
As i said before, people are stupid and irrational.
Where is this so called "right" enumerated?
a fetus is still neither a baby or a person.
Abortion is still allowed and performed in most of the country. People's moral qualms is their own.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?