• 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!

Sorry, i just don't get it.

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,676
Reaction score
4,282
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Let's see...







And your avoidance of a direct answer:


Me, course-correcting you:


And yet he still refuses to admit (or deny) it's justifiable:




And yet...no such admission 👆 🤷 :

But here is where you did admit that "all the examples" in our conversation "boiled down to self defense." So that would include abortion. And it would be justifiable.👇
You said that I said that all abortions were self defense, I did not.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,676
Reaction score
4,282
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It doesnt 'do' anything but define terms. Which are then applied accordingly in laws and courts.

I never said it granted nor denied anything. Please quote where I did?

It's used in debate to support the fact that no federal laws or federal court decisions recognize rights for the unborn. It clearly defines why the unborn are not included.


Look, this can only be explained so simply...and then it's beyond the reader. If you are that reader, I cant help you.
It ASLO does not deny such rights. Now go read the 9th Amendment or show me a law that DOES deny rights or recognition of the unborn.

p.s. 1 us s 8 does, however recognize that unborn humans are members of the species homo sapien. Just throwing that out there.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,017
Reaction score
56,546
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
You said that I said that all abortions were self defense, I did not.

Nope, read it again. You said the only justifiable homicides are self-defense. And then you concluded that all the homicides we discussed "boiled down to self defense." Abortion was right in there in the discussion. LOLOLOL It's all right there.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,017
Reaction score
56,546
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
It ASLO does not deny such rights.

It doesnt do anything but define the terms regarding which Homo sapiens have rights recognized.

Now go read the 9th Amendment or show me a law that DOES deny rights or recognition of the unborn.

The 14th Amendment specifically excludes the unborn. That is the way that section and amendment have continually been interpreted since its writing. If you disagree, source examples.

Now, show me where any federal law or federal court decision does recognize rights for the unborn?

p.s. 1 us s 8 does, however recognize that unborn humans are members of the species homo sapien. Just throwing that out there.

Yes, I bolded it. It was being very specific on WHICH members of Homo sapiens were covered in the terms defined in the Code. It as clear that the unborn were NOT included.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,676
Reaction score
4,282
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It doesnt 'do' anything but define terms. Which are then applied accordingly in laws and courts.

I never said it granted nor denied anything. Please quote where I did?

It's used in debate to support the fact that no federal laws or federal court decisions recognize rights for the unborn. It clearly defines why the unborn are not included.


Look, this can only be explained so simply...and then it's beyond the reader. If you are that reader, I cant help you.
(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.
 

AZRWinger

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
1,333
Reaction score
341
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Your 'na huh' didnt refute my sourced proof. Let's see yours.

Cool beans. The 14th Amendment states that persons must be born or naturalized citizens to have their rights recognized. Very first sentence...and yes, that has been interpreted to apply to the entire amendment. Unless you can find interpretations otherwise?
So the 5th does not apply to the unborn.​
No federal laws or court decisions recognize any rights for the unborn. Here is legal guidance defining that: (US Code, see post 429)​
Did this clarify it for you? If not, please provide sourced examples where the fed govt recognizes any rights for the unborn.?
Only in a Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland where "words mean what I want them to mean when I use them" sense have you refuted anything. Your declaration is not sufficient to nullify the 5th or 14th Amendment protections for the unborn. The rampant dishonesty of excluding section C in the Federal statue you cite as "proof" only people born have rights speaks volumes about how lacking in integrity the argument is.

But since you're plainly struggling to roll the obviously false assertion that rights have to be selectively recognized to be valid up the mythical hill, let me add tp your burden. The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, among these are ... you know the thing as Biden says. There is no so-called recognition from of the right to life from a jumped up demigod in black robes or slimeball poliricians, the Creator has provided the "interpretation."
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,327
Reaction score
10,346
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
actually its very reasonable since it involves forcing against the woman will, that's what is key . . not odds
forcing the woman to risk her health and life against her will is where the wheels fall off and due to the location of the child equal rights is factually impossible

using that logic if you are a sky diving instructor, you have two chutes and you have done 10000 jumps but for some reason, you don't want to jump today and i force you to jump against your will and somehow you die I'm totally not to blame them right?i mean it was only like a 1% change of you dying, that's not my fault right? because of odds

what are the changes that anybody in your home are going to kill you? do odds matter there?
what if its a bigger stronger, trained guy and its a smaller woman the broken in to his house . . whats the odds he can be killed? not allowed to use self-dense?

im not saying you are im just speaking in general and ill never be ok with treating the woman as a lesser, as a human incubator and this is why the vast majority of 1st world countries with governments based on rights and freedom have prochoice laws
I agree. The castle doctrine applies when a reasonable person would be in imminent fear of death. I just think that the "castle doctrine"/self-defense scenario doesn't apply to most abortions. Why try to shoehorn all abortions into it? In most cases, it is not reasonable to assume that an otherwise healthy woman with a healthy fetus would be in imminent threat of death. The pro-life have a point when they balk at this. It's a spurious comparison legally speaking. It only allows for abortion to save the life of the mother. The notion that 100% of pregnancies are an imminent danger to the life of the mother doesn't hold water. There would be no humans if that were the case.

In the very few instances where it is the case that a pregnancy is in imminent threat of being fatal to the mother (generally in an emergency room setting,) then fine: apply the self-defense justification to justify the abortion. But in the rest of the 99.99% of circumstances a different legal standard needs to be applied if you want a woman to have the choice to terminate her pregnancy. I suggest either the standard that the unborn have no rights and a woman can do whatever she wants with her own body, or that whatever rights the unborn have are subordinate to the mother's due to its location inside of her body and the impossibility of safely removing the fetus. In either case, the choice of abortion can legally rest with the mother and her healthcare professional without creating any contradictions.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,017
Reaction score
56,546
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
(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.

LMAO, that's a 'disclaimer.' You, like many people, apparently dont understand it. It also says it doesnt 'affirm' it.

It's clarifying there are no considerations given AT ALL "prior to being born alive." :rolleyes:

LOL, why would they include something that completely negates sections a and b? Good lord, think!

Otherwise, what level of writing do you require? I'm not sure it's been translated for grammar school.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,017
Reaction score
56,546
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Only in a Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland where "words mean what I want them to mean when I use them" sense have you refuted anything. Your declaration is not sufficient to nullify the 5th or 14th Amendment protections for the unborn. The rampant dishonesty of excluding section C in the Federal statue you cite as "proof" only people born have rights speaks volumes about how lacking in integrity the argument is.

But since you're plainly struggling to roll the obviously false assertion that rights have to be selectively recognized to be valid up the mythical hill, let me add tp your burden. The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, among these are ... you know the thing as Biden says. There is no so-called recognition from of the right to life from a jumped up demigod in black robes or slimeball poliricians, the Creator has provided the "interpretation."

I didnt ask you to take my word for it. I sourced mine and then asked you to source yours. Where is it?

Here's a reminder:

The 14th Amendment states that persons must be born or naturalized citizens to have their rights recognized. Very first sentence...and yes, that has been interpreted to apply to the entire amendment. Unless you can find interpretations otherwise?
So the 5th does not apply to the unborn.​
No federal laws or court decisions recognize any rights for the unborn. Here is legal guidance defining that: (US Code, see post 429)​
Did this clarify it for you? If not, please provide sourced examples where the fed govt recognizes any rights for the unborn.?
 
Last edited:

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,327
Reaction score
10,346
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Every single pregnancy risks the woman's life and at a much higher rate, severe health damage, even permanent. (86,700 women/yr in the US)

This is not always predictable or preventable. What entitles the govt to demand women take this significant risk against our will?

It certainly affects those individual women. The deaths/disability of those women affect everyone around them. Their loved ones, dependents, ability to provide, to fulfill obligations to employer, community, society. The loss of the unborn affects no one except the woman and perhaps the father. It does not negatively affect others or society.
I don't think the government is entitled to make this decision for women. I simply don't agree that the same standard of "self-defense" that justifies the killing of another adult when you are in reasonable fear of imminent death should be applied to the case of elective abortion. No one believes that every single pregnancy is an imminent risk to a woman's life. This is a spurious justification, and it weakens the pro-choice argument. It isn't the right to "kill another person in self-defense" that gives a woman the right to choose to have an abortion. It is her right to privacy and bodily autonomy that gives her the right to choose to have an abortion.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,017
Reaction score
56,546
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't think the government is entitled to make this decision for women. I simply don't agree that the same standard of "self-defense" that justifies the killing of another adult when you are in reasonable fear of imminent death should be applied to the case of elective abortion.

I dont believe in that reason.

No one believes that every single pregnancy is an imminent risk to a woman's life.

That's too bad, because it's absolutely true. Any pregnancy can kill a woman...with no early signs, no prediction. Happened to my friend...his wife, 2nd kid, completely unexpected. And that's far from unusual...most people have such a story...I have 3 over a lifetime of 62 yrs.

This is a spurious justification, and it weakens the pro-choice argument. It isn't the right to "kill another person in self-defense" that gives a woman the right to choose to have an abortion.

The risks to the woman are absolutely justification, as is the fact that the govt shouldnt have the power to insist she take that risk against her will when there is a much much safer medical procedure available if she doesnt want to be pregnant.

It is her right to privacy and bodily autonomy that gives her the right to choose to have an abortion.

Correct. And due process. And when they bring in 'compelling states interest in the unborn' we can add the 13th A.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,017
Reaction score
56,546
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, you don't have a right to the fruits of anyone else's labor.

I like that. So when states insist they have a compelling interest in the unborn...too bad, they arent entitled to the fruits of her labor.

Agreed? If not, why not?

(from post 235)
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,327
Reaction score
10,346
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not so, the reasoning is: action is waranted when the risk rises above normal.
That is nebulous. How high above "normal" does it have to rise? If the person driving next to you flips you the bird, are you justified in shooting him? What if he runs his finger across his neck in a threatening fashion? What if you are legitimately afraid for your life? Can you roll down your window, pull out your gun and shoot him in the forehead? The risk has risen above normal in that scenario. You were afraid for your life. When does the risk hit the point that self-defense is justified?

And how does the method of conception raise the risk to a healthy woman with a healthy pregnancy to the point of justifying killing another human in self defense? Obviously the act of rape itself is threatening, but if the rapist is in prison and the woman gets a clean bill of health from her obstetrician, then where is the threat? And how much "above normal" does it have to get?
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,017
Reaction score
56,546
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
That is nebulous. How high above "normal" does it have to rise? If the person driving next to you flips you the bird, are you justified in shooting him? What if he runs his finger across his neck in a threatening fashion? What if you are legitimately afraid for your life? Can you roll down your window, pull out your gun and shoot him in the forehead? The risk has risen above normal in that scenario. You were afraid for your life. When does the risk hit the point that self-defense is justified?

And how does the method of conception raise the risk to a healthy woman with a healthy pregnancy to the point of justifying killing another human in self defense? Obviously the act of rape itself is threatening, but if the rapist is in prison and the woman gets a clean bill of health from her obstetrician, then where is the threat? And how much "above normal" does it have to get?

There are legal guidelines, things like 'disparity of force' and your ability to defuse or retreat, your involvement in escalation, etc.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,327
Reaction score
10,346
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That's too bad, because it's absolutely true. Any pregnancy can kill a woman...with no early signs, no prediction. Happened to my friend...his wife, 2nd kid, completely unexpected. And that's far from unusual...most people have such a story...I have 3 over a lifetime of 62 yrs.
I am sorry for your losses. Certainly in those situations, abortion in self-defense once the mother's life was endangered would have been a reasonable justification for abortion. However, I don't think they should have had to wait for this point, and if you are solely using the legal concept of "self-defense" to justify abortion, then logically and legally they would have had to. Consider:

In 2018 there were 660 maternal deaths. There were 36,560 people killed in car accidents. Riding in a vehicle is a FAR greater risk than getting pregnant. Any trip in a car can kill a woman. That doesn't make it reasonable for her to kill other drivers because they are "absolutely a threat to her life." Do you see the error you are making here? That something is dangerous and objectively kills even large numbers of people does not automatically warrant killing in the name of self-defense in those situations. Homicide in self-defense not something you can just redefine and stretch around something or someone in order to make killing them neatly fit into an imaginary legal justification. "Self-defense" is not a justification for 99.99% of abortions, nor does it need to be.

The risks to the woman are absolutely justification, as is the fact that the govt shouldnt have the power to insist she take that risk against her will when there is a much much safer medical procedure available if she doesnt want to be pregnant.
The risks to the woman are in no way a justification for most abortions under the legal right to self-defense. Self-defense doesn't apply in vast majority of pregnancies. And the government is not forcing her to take what little risk there is. The risk is either chosen by the woman, or forced by her rapist. The government in some red states is simply preventing her from choosing to alleviate this risk through abortion, which I do not believe is within their scope of power, nor should it be.


Correct. And due process. And when they bring in 'compelling states interest in the unborn' we can add the 13th A.
I agree.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,017
Reaction score
56,546
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I am sorry for your losses. Certainly in those situations, abortion in self-defense once the mother's life was endangered would have been a reasonable justification for abortion.

There was no warning...no signs, no time to change anything. That risk is possible with ANY pregnancy.

However, I don't think they should have had to wait for this point, and if you are solely using the legal concept of "self-defense" to justify abortion, then logically and legally they would have had to. Consider:

And that's why a woman should have the right to abort, period. It's ALWAYS a risk, so the govt should never be entitled to demand she take that higher risk against her will.

What would be the justification for that? The govt is obligated to protect our rights under the Const. It has no such obligation to the unborn.

In 2018 there were 660 maternal deaths. There were 36,560 people killed in car accidents. Riding in a vehicle is a FAR greater risk than getting pregnant. Any trip in a car can kill a woman. That doesn't make it reasonable for her to kill other drivers because they are "absolutely a threat to her life." Do you see the error you are making here? That something is dangerous and objectively kills even large numbers of people does not automatically warrant killing in the name of self-defense in those situations. Homicide in self-defense not something you can just redefine and stretch around something or someone in order to make killing them neatly fit into an imaginary legal justification. "Self-defense" is not a justification for 99.99% of abortions, nor does it need to be.

Does anyone force adults to get in a car against their will? No. So it's not the same.

The risks to the woman are in no way a justification for most abortions under the legal right to self-defense. Self-defense doesn't apply in vast majority of pregnancies.

I never said it did. Why do you keep posting like I did?

And the government is not forcing her to take what little risk there is. The risk is either chosen by the woman,

There is a much safer medical procedure...and women know that. It is the govt that is choosing to deny it to women.


or forced by her rapist. The government in some red states is simply preventing her from choosing to alleviate this risk through abortion, which I do not believe is within their scope of power, nor should it be.

Agreed.

 

Gordy327

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
5,645
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Read the 9th.
Read the 14th.
Actually the very law you quote says otherwise.
Specify where!
Because those aren't the parts you're ignoring.
I looked at all parts. They do not support your position.
So what? Unless it specifically denies them, then they exist. Read the 9th.
Specify precisely where the Federal or any state government grants rights for the unborn! Simply claiming the unborn have rights does not automatically make it true.
And where is that law that says PERSON, or Human Being (as described in 1 USC s 8) is only those that have been BORN ALIVE?
Where is a the law that says an unborn is a person?
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
25,705
Reaction score
29,744
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
…..

Why did you leave out (C)? Oh, I know why.... "(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."

That's just dishonest, Lursa, shame on you.
And just to clear ...
Part C of US Code >title 1 refers to a born alive infant.

The requirements of this Section shall not be construed to prevent an infant’s parent(s) or guardian(s) from refusing to give consent to medical treatment or surgical care which is not medically necessary or reasonable, including care or treatment which either:
(1) Is not necessary to save the life of the infant;
(2) Has a potential risk to the infant’s life or health that outweighs the potential benefit to the infant of the treatment or care; or
(3) Is treatment that will do no more than temporarily prolong the act of dying when death is imminent.
 

quip

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
881
Reaction score
498
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
In 2018 there were 660 maternal deaths. There were 36,560 people killed in car accidents. Riding in a vehicle is a FAR greater risk than getting pregnant. Any trip in a car can kill a woman. That doesn't make it reasonable for her to kill other drivers because they are "absolutely a threat to her life." Do you see the error you are making here?
Well, it would surely be impractical! Then again so is this analogy since exactly who is this anonymous "they" and how'd she ever pin-point who "they" are? (I mean she's fully aware of the fetus inside her body and its possible threat to said body.)
Though....🤔
Perhaps, if she's a psychic would she then be justified in killing the driver prior to the accident? Nah!

But there is another analogous option: She could simply abort the car from the scenario, no car, no accident to be had ..... nothing gets dead! 🥳 Wholly unlike the human abortion dillema or your misdirected analogy!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lwf

Scrabaholic

certified batshit crazy
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
26,017
Reaction score
18,319
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Excerpt from the 5th amendment text.

"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"

Many states have laws protecting the unborn from harm including harm from the mother. Roe limited abortion to prior to the so-called line of viability. But to bloodthirsty pro abortion zealots the unborn child is subhuman subject to liquidation on a whim at any time prior to completing the birthing process.
Too funny.
 

Scrabaholic

certified batshit crazy
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
26,017
Reaction score
18,319
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is not a fetus that has been aborted either chemically or surgically. That is a natural spontaneously aborted fetus, probably and anomaly preserved in formaldehyde almost certainly from a medical school lab, used for study and training purposes.
Many years ago, I was in hospital and my roomie and I snuck off the ward after midnight one night and went to the Queen's University lab (within the hospital). I don't know why it was open that late, but we went in and looked around. There were a lot of specimen jars, including one of half an infant's head - IIRC age about 9 months according the label. The child had died from a brain tumour and they preserved half the head, including the brain and tumour.

Then we went to an unused ward and smoked a joint....
 

Scrabaholic

certified batshit crazy
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
26,017
Reaction score
18,319
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The law doesn't deny it either.

It does in my country.

When child becomes human being

  • 223 (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
    • (a) it has breathed;
    • (b) it has an independent circulation; or
    • (c) the navel string is severed.
  • Marginal note:Killing child
    (2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

 

Scrabaholic

certified batshit crazy
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
26,017
Reaction score
18,319
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Let's set aside for the moment the callous disregard for a human life in the "fetus is an afterthought" statement so we can focus in on viability.

The assertion "there is no logical reason to limit abortion before viabilty" implies there are logical reasons to at least limit abortion after viability. This clashes with the popular notion of unlimited abortion before birth because the unborn child has no rights.

To the abortionist facilitators any restriction on abortion is heresy. Viability is a convenient soapbox to mask the mass slaughter.
LMAO @ "mass slaughter". No such thing is happening except at abbatoirs.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,676
Reaction score
4,282
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The 14th Amendment specifically excludes the unborn. /quote
From Citizenship, Pythagoras.
Now, show me where any federal law or federal court decision does recognize rights for the unborn?/quote
the 9th Amendment.
Yes, I bolded it. It was being very specific on WHICH members of Homo sapiens were covered in the terms defined in the Code. It as clear that the unborn were NOT included. /quote
No, becuase the code specifically states that nothing in the code denies anything to the unborn members of the species homo sapien. Seriously, it's like kindergarten in here.
 
Top Bottom