Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong. (2 Viewers)

[Ahlevah]

This is not a direct response to this . It's a diversion to settled law and not even comparable. Please address it directly.



I typed a response and cut it. Let's see you respond to the actual quote directly, then if you have some legitimate reason for this, I'll paste it. You are getting desperately far afield here, in an attempt to make...what point?.

Regarding the first paragraph, to be honest, I really don’t know what your point was. Yes, states need to adhere to their own and federal constitutions. And, yes, they are asserting that their interest in protecting unborn human life extends all along the continuum.

Next you wrote:

For abortion, the woman can still kill her unborn but abortion practices must be humane (they are) and no one else can kill it without her consent.

Same point. If the state asserts an interest in protecting human life, it may attempt to support that position by claiming that the fetus feels pain or suffers, but the central interest at stake is the “aborting,” or taking, of the life itself.

Your final point is where my self-defense analogy enters the picture:

To deny the woman a much safer medical procedure takes away her right to consent to her life...which you have not yet provided any legal justification for...and her rights to bodily autonomy, due process, etc. See the red above for an example of this restraining the red states. See Dobbs for not recognizing any legal protections or status federally for the unborn.

How many times do you want me to repeat the same answer? I figured you might want a change. I know I did. The legal justification is the protection of human life, just as it is the life of a criminal who decides to enter my home with the possible intent of murdering me and/or members of my family, forcing us to retreat and possibly risk our own lives for his instead of permitting us to incapacitate him. I mean, even if it’s humane (he gets a .45 ACP slug squarely between the eyes and dies instantly), do you think that would matter to the state?

So the point, again, is about balancing the state’s rights and interests against those of the individual, whoever that might be and whatever the circumstances. You think that when it comes to abortion no state interest ever outweighs the presumed right of a woman to kill the unborn life growing within her. Obviously, we disagree on that point. Most of the public, at least three-fourths, disagrees with you on it as well. So, no, don’t expect me to change my views.

 

[stealthycat]

Just because something is decided by the Supreme Court doesn’t mean it’s automatically right

who decides what's constitutional and what isn't ?

the SC does

 

[Ahlevah]

Ah....this one. Once again, not a single thought is given to the status of the woman here. Nada. Only the unborn.

No, most states make exceptions that include protecting the life of the mother. So that’s false. The handful of other ones think it’s a matter of “choice,” unless it concerns her choice to use deadly force or not with a gun in defense of her own life, in which case she has none. I mean, unless one counts “run” as a choice.

First, there are physiological differences & dependencies in the unborn between uterus and birth...a long list.

For all practical purposes, while it may not legally be a “person,” it’s a fully-developed human being. When it concerns the moral worth of that life, most people think she doesn’t have an unconditional right to kill it.

But let's move on to the common anti-abortion view, not even thinking of the woman at all. Previously posted:

If it's unborn (inside her), the govt cant violate the woman's consent, or her Const rights to things like life, due process, bodily autonomy, self-determination, etc to act on or protect that unborn.​

Once born, the govt can act to protect babies, children, teens, and any other persons, without violating the mother's rights. Anyone can care for the born. The govt still requires due process of course, if that person is a minor.​

These are federal rights. Federally the govt is obligated to protect women's rights, not the unborn. It's not random or arbitrary. It's a clearly defined distinction...one that anti-abortites never even consider and refuse to even after reading this. They just ignore it.​

However, these are moral and legal distinctions, violating women's consent to our own lives and health, and several Const rights.

Just regurgitating the same tired argument won’t make it true.

 

[Ahlevah]

Your moral qualms are of little concern. The simple fact is, before it's born, it's not a legal person and has no rights. A state's "interest" kicks in at birth. There is no rational justification for any interest before for a non-person over an actual person.

How about yours? Do you have any? I mean, like the east of society?

 

[Lursa]

An insignifigant number of women dying isn't a good reason to end the process of human reprodcution. America needs babies to continue. I hope you get this, because it seems like you don't.

If an insignificant number of women are dying during childbirth, it's usually because of poor medical care and lack of access. That's a good reason to improve our care system, it's not a good reason to kill a baby.

"An insignificant number of healthy viable fetuses being aborted isn't a good reason to end the process of human reproduction. America doesnt need more American babies to continue. There are millions of people that would love to immigrate here legally and work and pay taxes and have babies. I hope you get this, because it seems like you don't."​

​

"If an insignificant number of women need to abort viable fetuses, it's going to be because of desperation and lack of access and $ earlier. That's a good reason to improve women's access to abortion, it's not a good reason to make useless, feel-good laws that only harm women that wanted a baby and had to abort it due to medical reasons, who are grieving and suffering."​

That's what "na huh" will get ya in a debate where you are supposed to support your opinions, not make declarations.

 

[Lursa]

There’s a difference between talking the talk and walking the walk on that important point. The Catholic Church has a clear statement on where it believes human life begins.

Okay, so American-born Catholics like Joe and Nancy are hypocrites on more than one point.

Great, so you recognize that your argument re: religion and the continuation of abortion in America fails....that's honest and I appreciate it.

Flowery words, but your position is there is never a point at which something that is a “non-person” is ever worth elevating above the rights of a “person,” unless it’s a tortured animal. Is that correct?

I was referring to the generations that immigrate to America with our freedoms and how they and their children often accept and appreciate our greater freedom and the protection of peoples' rights. I dont even understand what you wrote in the context of abortion. Please clarify it...why are you comparing unborn humans to other species and introducing abuse/cruelty, which is not involved in abortion...except when the denial of abortion or medical attention due to a pregnancy causes it.

You mean change my reason and logic? No, there isn’t, especially when I’m given a debate handicap by assuming the “pro-life” point of view while you’re left to defend the “pro-death” position.

You are "pro-life" by your very words. Just grudgingly accepting that abortion cant be eliminated doesnt make you "pro-choice." Hyperbole and sarcasm permeate your post, this indicates more emotion and less reason or ability to support your position.

You do not have to support your personal feelings on abortion to me, everyone entitled to that. It gets tiresome having to type that. If you want to discuss an issue on a political debate forum, then debate on justifying demanding the govt base laws on your feelings need to be justified with political, legal, or at least moral debate.

 

[Ahlevah]

I never understood this value of people or the "sanctity" of human life. It does not exist. How often are you debating against war or crime or sweat shops or poverty or the Caste System or the homeless or abused kids or or or...? I bet next to never. Why? Because we don't care about strangers.

That’s false. How many times have people risked or sacrificed their own lives in the interest of others? Ukraine built its International Legion on that basic idea. People feel empathy naturally, although how it’s shaped is likely the result or learned or conditioned behavior. Still, time after time again we see people risk or sacrifice their own lives for those of people they had never met.



It’s natural that people would feel empathy for unborn human babies. Hence the need to dehumanize them.

 

[Lursa]

I addressed that point in a response to @Gordy327:

I answered that 3 times already. And you didnt address the main point: that the state can protect all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. I have no interest in exploring all the reasons for all laws.

Re: abortion it has to do with demanding a woman risk her life without her consent, and violating her due process, bodily autonomy, etc. rights by denying her a much safer medical procedure. I continue to ask for the justification for this. If it's out of a demand in the state's interest, that's involuntary servitude which is unconstitutional and IMO immoral...as it was considered for slavery and slave owners to demand of their slaves when they controlled their slaves reproduction. Feel free to explain how this is different?

See below:

I mean, the question is still there: what is the state interest used to justify sending “persons” to prison for torturing “non-persons” beyond a moral argument? You can’t or won’t formulate an honest answer, so you disingenuously change an assumption used to support one point in my argument (morally, people can’t torture their pets) to another one (morally, people can’t kill their own “stuff”). Next comes where you deny doing that.

I dont know the answer to that question anymore than I know the states' interest in saving the potential life of a fetus. What are the answers for both those questions? Cite them please. However no person's rights are violated by denying them the ability to be cruel to animals. We know that women's rights are violated by the state denying them abortions. There is no unborn cruelty in abortion. I still have no idea how you are conflating this stuff.

 

[Lursa]

Regarding the first paragraph, to be honest, I really don’t know what your point was. Yes, states need to adhere to their own and federal constitutions. And, yes, they are asserting that their interest in protecting unborn human life extends all along the continuum.

See below. Your SD argument is countered by Dobbs.

Next you wrote:

Same point. If the state asserts an interest in protecting human life, it may attempt to support that position by claiming that the fetus feels pain or suffers, but the central interest at stake is the “aborting,” or taking, of the life itself.

Then the state has to support that claim of fetal pain...and there is plenty of medical science surrounding it and there are abortion methods which cause no pain, so that's BS emotionally manipulative that the anti-abortites are famous for.

Your final point is where my self-defense analogy enters the picture:



How many times do you want me to repeat the same answer? I figured you might want a change. I know I did. The legal justification is the protection of human life, just as it is the life of a criminal who decides to enter my home with the possible intent of murdering me and/or members of my family, forcing us to retreat and possibly risk our own lives for his instead of permitting us to incapacitate him. I mean, even if it’s humane (he gets a .45 ACP slug squarely between the eyes and dies instantly), do you think that would matter to the state?

So the point, again, is about balancing the state’s rights and interests against those of the individual, whoever that might be and whatever the circumstances. You think that when it comes to abortion no state interest ever outweighs the presumed right of a woman to kill the unborn life growing within her. Obviously, we disagree on that point. Most of the public, at least three-fourths, disagrees with you on it as well. So, no, don’t expect me to change my views.

The unborn has no federal legal status. To charge a woman with a crime for killing her own unborn fails at the state level because the federal govt protects her Constitutional rights...and her Const rights protect her from being charged with killing something of hers that has no federal legal status. See Dobbs: it clearly enables states to allow women/their drs to kill her unborn with no due process. Dont like it? Take up your self-defense point with SCOTUS.

So your self-defense stuff doesnt work. The Supremacy Clause. And Dobbs

 

[Lursa]

No, most states make exceptions that include protecting the life of the mother. So that’s false. The handful of other ones think it’s a matter of “choice,” unless it concerns her choice to use deadly force or not with a gun in defense of her own life, in which case she has none. I mean, unless one counts “run” as a choice.

I am not aware of a single state that denies women an abortion if she is about to die. Are you? That has nothing to do with the explanation I posted. And I was talking about individuals, anti-abortites, not the laws. I was pointing out that what I explained is not even imagined by many anti-abortites, they dont even consider the woman when making that argument...they only consider the fetus.

For all practical purposes, while it may not legally be a “person,” it’s a fully-developed human being. When it concerns the moral worth of that life, most people think she doesn’t have an unconditional right to kill it.

And that's only a concern for the rabid anti-abortites that use that as an emotionally-manipulative talking point because again, women dont abort healthy, viable fetuses for non-medical reasons.

If they do, please provide some significant data showing they do. (We've covered all this so you are just trying to divert from debate.)

Just regurgitating the same tired argument won’t make it true.

Feel free to dispute it directly. Your 'na huh' doesnt mean anything but defeat.

 

[Ahlevah]

Here you go. You're talking about risking your life to defend home/family, other's lives. You're not talking about risking your life for anything higher than life - here, the issue is that some other people's lives are more important than your own, not that there may be a value higher than life.

Well, if it’s a question of whose life gets sacrificed—Mom’s or her unborn baby’s—Mom should probably win. But if it’s Mom should have the right to terminate her fetus because she’s getting close to the point of no return when it comes to avoiding stretch marks, I’m probably going to side with the authority on rights, John Locke.

If people hadn't valued certain aspects of liberty above life, the US would still be British.

I can’t think of anyone who valued liberty more than Locke. He attempted to define it, along with the words “life” and “property.” One could say that the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which led to the overthrow of King James II in favor of William and Mary, was in some ways his idea. And he, along with libertarian and physician Ron Paul, vehemently opposed abortion. So you might want to think about coming up with another idea to support your argument.

No slave would ever have taken the Underground RR to freedom. WWII would certainly not have been fought when Nazis invaded other European countries and Japanese invaded other Asian countries.

So back to the slavery argument again, this time, ironically, with Nazis tossed into the soup as well to justify the termination of human lives.

There's not a single thing you talk about that bespeaks what you would do if you were brainwash-hypnotized as in The Manchurian Candidate - because you have no higher spiritual value.

I rest my case. You haven't grappled with the more serious philosophical questions involved.

Okay, so you’re done, and I just called the person who I hope is my final witness, John Locke. Time for cross-examination, followed by redirect, and then hopefully we can call it a day so I can talk about something else that interests me more, like Altman z-scores and the deteriorating situation in the leverage loan and distressed exchange markets.

 

[Ahlevah]

If you're going to argue morality, whose morals do we go by and why? Legal arguments are more applicable and objective. Morality is little more than involving people's feelings.

Well, we know that murder (rape, robbery, extortion, etc.) is against the law. What you don’t seem to care about is why that’s the case. It’s an important distinction, nonetheless.

 

[Gordy327]

I addressed that point in a response to @Gordy327:

Which post?

I mean, the question is still there: what is the state interest used to justify sending “persons” to prison for torturing “non-persons” beyond a moral argument?

What is the states interest in a non petson over a person?

You can’t or won’t formulate an honest answer, so you disingenuously change an assumption used to support one point in my argument (morally, people can’t torture their pets) to another one (morally, people can’t kill their own “stuff”). Next comes where you deny doing that.

Torture involves pain and suffering. There is no pain and suffering for the unborn during an abortion.

 

[Gordy327]

Well, we know that murder (rape, robbery, extortion, etc.) is against the law. What you don’t seem to care about is why that’s the case. It’s an important distinction, nonetheless.

All those harms other people or society. Abortion does not. A distinction indeed.

 

[Ahlevah]

what is the "value" of human life? Its funny and telling how everyone who invokes "value" of human life never seem able to explain or quantify this so called "value."

Pretty high. People generally don’t casually throw their own away.

Who's "they?"

The people who aren’t lining up to kill themselves.

Why should a non person without rights be given greater consideration above an actual person with rights?

You mean like someone’s pet cat? I already answered that.

When human life begins isn't the issue. It's when it becomes a person with rights equal the the one gestating it.

Well, it’s not an issue to you. It is to almost everyone else. While the public is almost evenly split between “pro-life” and “pro-death” camps, a solid majority is against abortion on demand though all stages or pregnancy.

Where Do Americans Stand on Abortion?

Most Americans favor abortion being legal to some degree, and a majority self-identify as "pro-choice."

news.gallup.com

Who cares? One religious beliefs is their own business and does not apply to nor should be pushed on anyone.

People have a right to their opinions, as well as a right to vote. You support rights, correct? I mean, for persons?

 

[weaver2]

I think it’s possible to be both compassionate and morally opposed to abortion. The Catholic Church has consistently maintained its position on the the sanctity of all human life, and supports that position as well its its stance on abortion using Christian doctrine going back to the earliest-known catechism:

What the Early Church Believed: Abortion

The Catholic Church has always condemned abortion as a grave evil. Here are examples of this consistent witness from the writings of the Church Fathers.

www.catholic.com

That certainly is possible and I have absolutely no quarrel with anyone who is opposed to abortion, none. I think viewing life all life,as sacred is a moral and compassionate position to hold. My opposition comes when those opposed to abortion create laws that impose their their moral position on all women and their families. When one chooses to give birth is a private family decision based on the family's personal moral philosophy, their psychological state of mind, their personal financial stability, everyone's health and state of mind. No man, woman, church, organization, court or government has any need or right to make this kind of decision for any family. The rational, logical and most sensible moral, religious and legal position is to give everyone a choice in making family decisions. No one but the state has a vested interest in a woman's pregnancy until viability and until that time, no one should be making laws, moral judgements concerning some woman's pregnancy. It is entirely a family matter.

Regrettably the Protestant evangelical churches and the Catholic Church have made every woman's pregnancy their business. They have passed laws restricting the ways a woman can keep from getting pregnant and then attempted successfully in making abortion difficult to impossible to obtain. Subjecting women and families to evangelical and Catholic tenets is a morally corrupt position to take. Antiquity does not confer a universal legal status on dogma. Choice is the only moral position. Anything else is an invasive imposition by religion and that is unconstitutional.

 

[Ahlevah]

Forcing women to have their bodies and bodily resources used for gestation against their will (which is unconstitutional to begin with) either through force of law or religious coercion is not compassion and only demonstrates lesser "value" on the woman.

Hey, man, it wasn’t my idea to create women to be human incubators. It was Mother Nature’s. As we see with pet cats, there are limits to the value we place on the liberty of legal “persons.” It’s legal for states to regulate abortion, and has been since before the country was founded.

 

[Bodi]

who decides what's constitutional and what isn't ?

the SC does

Straw Man. I did not say anything about Constitutionality.


h

 

[Bodi]

Hey, man, it wasn’t my idea to create women to be human incubators. It was Mother Nature’s.

And Mother Nature allows for abortions as well... in fact, She induces billions of them Herself.

As we see with pet cats, there are limits to the value we place on the liberty of legal “persons.” It’s legal for states to regulate abortion, and has been since before the country was founded.

It isn't for states to decide Forced Pregnancy any more than it was for them to decide Owning a Person.


b

 

[Bodi]

That’s false. How many times have people risked or sacrificed their own lives in the interest of others?

We is obviously a General Sense Statement. For every person that will stand in front of a stranger when a gunman is pointing a gun there are hundreds of millions that would not do the same

It’s natural that people would feel empathy for unborn human babies. Hence the need to dehumanize them.

No, it isn't.


d

 

[Lursa]

That’s false. How many times have people risked or sacrificed their own lives in the interest of others?

That's a choice, isnt it? How would you feel about it if they were forced to take those risks without their consent? How would you? That view of "sacred" is personal and no woman that considers the life inside her sacred is forced to end it. What is the justification for overriding her consent to the risk of carrying it if she doesnt view it as sacred? Why should she be forced to submit to someone else's belief?

Do you value the right to consent to your own life and health? Please tell me what that means to you, as an American?

 

[Ahlevah]

And Mother Nature allows for abortions as well... in fact, She induces billions of them Herself.

Yes, and she tortures animals with things like floods, forest fires, peat bogs, and tar pits. It’s still against the law for humans to do it.

It isn't for states to decide Forced Pregnancy any more than it was for them to decide Owning a Person.

Wouldn’t it be nice and tidy if states could simply disregard the growing life within her?

 

[stealthycat]

Straw Man. I did not say anything about Constitutionality.


h

what do you think the SC does ?


right or wrong isn't what they do

 

[Lursa]

Wouldn’t it be nice and tidy if states could simply disregard the growing life within her?

Sure...then it would be left up to women and their doctors...just like it is in the entire country of Canada and some states. They trust women and doctors to make the best decisions for women and their families and any others that depend on them and care for them.

What's the problem? Is abortion wrong or not? Is the govt legislating morality here or not? So far...the feds are not.

If it's murdering babies, ban it. If it's not...when during gestation is it "not murdering babies?" When is it "not wrong?"

If it's not wrong, why should any states be entitled to deny a much safer medical procedure to pregnant women?

 

[Bodi]

Yes, and she tortures animals with things like floods, forest fires, peat bogs, and tar pits. It’s still against the law for humans to do it.

Those are about as big a stretch as I have ever seen. It is illegal to make a peat bog? LOL

Wouldn’t it be nice and tidy if states could simply disregard the growing life within her?

States that don't will be forcing Forced Slavery... just as bad as Slavery. And remember, you support this.


d