• 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.

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,192
Reaction score
56,656
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
You claim you don't expect the reader to take your word for it then offer unsupported declarations that exclusive "interpretations" of the 14th Amendment exclude the unborn while ignoring the obvious implications for illegal aliens. Your word declares the enumerated Constitutional right to life in the 5th Amendment does not apply. Your word declares rights explicitly documented in the Constitution must be "recognized" or they aren't applicable, contradicting the meaning of rights on your edict. Your refuse to recognize that the Federal statute you quote has a section that nullifies your argument.

I note the absence of any attempt to refute the unalienable right to life specified by the DOI. We supposed to just take your silence as proof?

I did support it...that and the fact that there are no federal laws or federal court decisions that recognize rights for the unborn. Now, where are your sources that prove me wrong? This is what, the 5th time I've asked?

And the DOI isnt a legal document. But if it was, and all 'men' are created equal, then why did we have to pass amendments and precedents to ensure equal rights for blacks and women? And now...where is that for the unborn. Again...source it.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,192
Reaction score
56,656
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
If you are going by the current legal guidelines, then the mere fact that there is a fetus in your womb does not rise to the level of imminent threat to life.

I wasnt referring to pregnancy with that post.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,192
Reaction score
56,656
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I think the confusion on my part here is that you do not accept that the unborn are humans with rights, and yet you talk about the risks of pregnancy and defense of the mother's life. If the unborn are not humans with rights, then who cares whether a pregnancy is a risk or not? As humans with the right to privacy and bodily autonomy women can do whatever they want with their own bodies and any clumps of cells that may happen to be growing inside them. The government has no say in the matter. "Risk" would not be a factor here if the unborn have no rights, so why argue the point in the first place?

Basically yes but I was arguing the argument presented. However I never consider or refer to the unborn that way.

I value the unborn, but I value all born people more.

I am arguing the point because I am debating a pro-life person who believes that the unborn are humans with rights, and I am accepting this premise for the sake of argument. IF the unborn are humans and do have rights, then...

Rights are a man-made concept and as such, must be recognized legally...that's really the only focus to take on rights. Any imagined philosophical or religious 'rights' are personal and people are welcome to them as long as they dont try to force their belief on women that dont believe the same.

I think we are ultimately in agreement here. My argument is that all women should have the right to determine what they do with their own bodies because everyone has the right to privacy and bodily autonomy, and that any rights that the unborn may or may not have should be utterly subordinate to the woman's rights because the unborn are inside of her body. The safe removal of an unborn human from a woman's body removes its subordination to the woman. At that point, its right to life is equal to that of every other human. I feel that this would be a solid legal doctrine with no inherent contradictions. The pro-life may not like it, but it makes more sense than any of the arguments I've heard against the right to abortion.

(y)
 

quip

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
882
Reaction score
498
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You are correct. My analogy implies that the unborn is a human with the right to life. If you do not believe this, then the analogy doesn't work.
It doesn't work anyway you slice it:

The unborn are analogous to the car not "they", you said it best yourself: "Riding in a vehicle...".

"They" is analogous to the probabilities of her having a fatal crash/pregnancy.

She not need to "kill" anything or anybody.

It was spurious nonsense.
 

Scrabaholic

certified batshit crazy
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
26,068
Reaction score
18,341
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
  • 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.
Well 1, I care very little about Canada, as do most. 2, how about Identifying the law you quoted so I can see it's context.
Your jealousy of my country of my FREE country is apparent. At least we aren't shooting each other let, right and centre.

I did identify the law Section 223 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
10,988
Reaction score
8,739
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The legal requirement is the "reasonable person" standard. A reasonable healthy person would not be in fear for their life because "they got pregnant and, technically speaking, every pregnancy is a risk." To argue that a reasonable person would be in fear for their life in this scenario is to play semantic games with the words "reasonable," "fear," and "risk," that the pro-life and honest people don't have time for.

Keep in mind that my analogy assumes the unborn are humans with equal rights to the mother. Do you believe the unborn are humans with equal rights to the mother? If so, then your above argument is unsound for the reasons I stated. If you don't believe this, then who cares whether a pregnancy is a risk to the mother or not? A woman can choose to do whatever she wants with her own body, including removing unwanted cells. She doesn't need to justify it to you, me, or anyone else using "level of risk" and "self-defense."

My analogies in this thread assume that the unborn are humans with equal rights to the mother. I am using this premise to show the absurdity of those who believe this premise who also want to make exceptions for rape victims. (Namely, the poster I originally responded to.) If the unborn are humans with equal rights to the mother, then it doesn't make sense to make exceptions for rape victims. or to justify these abortions in the name of "self-defense." The only consistent pro-life position as far as I am concerned is: "No abortions for anyone at any time unless it is reasonable to assume that the mother's life is in imminent danger and the only way to save her life is to induce an abortion." And this assumption would not be reasonable outside of more or less an emergency room scenario.

If you don't accept the premise that the unborn are humans with rights equal to the mother, then feel free to reject the above pro-life argument and conclusion. I certainly reject it.
I have taken the same tack to show that a consistent pro-life position would be inhumane toward the woman. It is utterly unreasonable to force pregnant rape victims to continue pregnancies. It is analogous to forcing women who are being raped to have to endure the continuation of the rape instead of using lethal force to get the rapist's thing out of her sex organs. These anti-abortion people are themselves rapists. They have no moral high ground no matter what they say, because if they're consistent, they're rapists, and if they're humane, their inconsistent. It's a bad philosophical position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwf

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,676
Reaction score
4,282
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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.
That is not the wording of Part C of 1 US s 8.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,389
Reaction score
10,422
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
i dont feel any reason to care or see any reason to reconcile it
define "recover"
how many women "recover" from sexual assault? from rape? from Assult?

how many homeowners "recover" from a home invasion or burglary?


i disagree 100% because it is a risk, it is her body and the laws would FORCE her to take that risk of life
i value her rights and freedom and i cant justify taking them away and treating her as a lesser,

in fantasy world if it was 100% ZERO risk and just like now the women would be forced take on those burdens against her will and could use adoption, safe havens etc
YES . . i could be open to that idea but first id want our failed foster system totally reformed
You would be in favor of forcing pregnancy on women if it were 100% safe? Why?
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,389
Reaction score
10,422
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There is no way to grant equal rights to both the woman and the unborn. The problem is, some want the unborn to have rights over the rights and autonomy of the woman.

That point is called birth.

It's even simpler than that. A woman should not be forced to be or remain pregnant if she simply does not want to.
Agreed.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,389
Reaction score
10,422
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It doesn't work anyway you slice it:

The unborn are analogous to the car not "they", you said it best yourself: "Riding in a vehicle...".

"They" is analogous to the probabilities of her having a fatal crash/pregnancy.

She not need to "kill" anything or anybody.

It was spurious nonsense.
The analogy was whether she had the right to kill other drivers due to the risk of being involved in a fatal crash. The risk of this is comparable to the risk of dying during childbirth, so if you are using self-defense as a legal argument to justify abortion, then it doesn't work. 99.99% of women are never in danger of dying from the condition of being pregnant. Just like 99.99% of drivers are never in danger of dying from driving on the highway. That it is technically a statistical risk is not a justification for homicide in self-defense.

If you argue that women are justified in having abortions in the name of self-defense, then you are changing the definition of self-defense to suit your argument. This is equivocation.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
75,287
Reaction score
25,470
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You would be in favor of forcing pregnancy on women if it were 100% safe? Why?
no . . .i said if this was fantasy world and if it was 100% ZERO risk and just like now the women would be forced take on those burdens against her will and could use adoption, safe havens etc
YES . . i could be open to that idea but first id want our failed foster system totally reformed.

so what would be needed is:
the fantasy of ZERO risk (teleportation and artificial womb)
and legally and ZERO requirements on the woman
and our failed foster system totally reformed

in that fantasy world i could be because why not . . . it removes what my biggest issues is, in that fantasy, nobody has their rights taken away and they arent forced to risk their health/life against their will . . .
but i would still want a foster care system that works, ours doesn't
 

quip

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
882
Reaction score
498
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The analogy was whether she had the right to kill other drivers due to the risk of being involved in a fatal crash.
Well, that's what you tried to convey. It was just a fail.

Per your analogy, driving the car is analogous to being with child (gestation). Now to eliminate the threat of death from her pregnancy she aborts the fetus and to equally eliminate the fatal threat of a automobile accident she aborts the car (avoids driving the car).
The risk of this is comparable to the risk of dying during childbirth, so if you are using self-defense as a legal argument to justify abortion, then it doesn't work. 99.99% of women are never in danger of dying from the condition of being pregnant. Just like 99.99% of drivers are never in danger of dying from driving on the highway. That it is technically a statistical risk is not a justification for homicide in self-defense.
Sure, I understand your risk argument but the random "they" driver is only analogous to random pregnancy complications. She couldn't accurately predict either situation let alone act upon it. Ergo, she justifies her abortion because of the possibility of death; likewise she stops driving her car because of the same possibility.

Her "killing drivers" was classic misdirection.
If you argue that women are justified in having abortions in the name of self-defense, then you are changing the definition of self-defense to suit your argument. This is equivocation.
No definitions were harmed in the making of this rebuttal.
 
Last edited:

Bodi

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
112,147
Reaction score
24,100
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The simple fact that black slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person negates any argument that this is a definition of personhood.
Black people were not counted as 3/5 of a person... they are listed accurately in census data.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,192
Reaction score
56,656
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)
 

Scrabaholic

certified batshit crazy
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
26,068
Reaction score
18,341
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The analogy was whether she had the right to kill other drivers due to the risk of being involved in a fatal crash. The risk of this is comparable to the risk of dying during childbirth, so if you are using self-defense as a legal argument to justify abortion, then it doesn't work. 99.99% of women are never in danger of dying from the condition of being pregnant. Just like 99.99% of drivers are never in danger of dying from driving on the highway. That it is technically a statistical risk is not a justification for homicide in self-defense.

If you argue that women are justified in having abortions in the name of self-defense, then you are changing the definition of self-defense to suit your argument. This is equivocation.
Please provide a source for that figure.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,192
Reaction score
56,656
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The simple fact that black slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person negates any argument that this is a definition of personhood.

You dont understand it, simple or not. Free blacks had rights, had the legal status of persons. The 3/5 reflected the slaves' legal status as property.

It wasnt based on race, it was about legal status. Just like the unborn dont have any federally. (Unless you want to prove where they have any rights recognized but I've asked many times and you failed to produce.)
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
10,988
Reaction score
8,739
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The analogy was whether she had the right to kill other drivers due to the risk of being involved in a fatal crash. The risk of this is comparable to the risk of dying during childbirth, so if you are using self-defense as a legal argument to justify abortion, then it doesn't work. 99.99% of women are never in danger of dying from the condition of being pregnant. Just like 99.99% of drivers are never in danger of dying from driving on the highway. That it is technically a statistical risk is not a justification for homicide in self-defense.
All women are at risk of dying even though 99.+% do not die, because we don't know which women will die, as some die of medically unforeseeable complications. However, the issue of self-defense is not about just your life. Large numbers of women develop serious illnesses or have serious injuries in childbirth and may have irreparable injuries or serious problems that last three months, six months, or years. You have a right to defend your health, as a basic aspect of liberty.
If you argue that women are justified in having abortions in the name of self-defense, then you are changing the definition of self-defense to suit your argument. This is equivocation.
The risk is unnecessary to a self-defense argument. At least here in NY, you have a right to self-defense against rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, and felony robbery. Yes, they may threaten your life or health, but that isn't why they are felonies. All people have a right not to have sex with another person and no person has the right to use force to have sex with them without their consent. Ditto kidnapping. The issue is not that you might die, but that this stuff is heinous violation of bodily autonomy and integrity.
 
Last edited:

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,389
Reaction score
10,422
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
no . . .i said if this was fantasy world and if it was 100% ZERO risk and just like now the women would be forced take on those burdens against her will and could use adoption, safe havens etc
YES . . i could be open to that idea but first id want our failed foster system totally reformed.

so what would be needed is:
the fantasy of ZERO risk (teleportation and artificial womb)
and legally and ZERO requirements on the woman
and our failed foster system totally reformed

in that fantasy world i could be because why not . . . it removes what my biggest issues is, in that fantasy, nobody has their rights taken away and they arent forced to risk their health/life against their will . . .
but i would still want a foster care system that works, ours doesn't
In this hypothetical fantasy world, given the above premises, women would have their right to choose taken away.

The choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream poses zero risk to me. Yet, that doesn't make it ok for someone else to use force to take away that choice just because they happen to dislike chocolate and think that I should not be allowed to eat it.

Just because there would be no risk in your hypothetical scenario doesn't mean we ought to assume the authority to artificially limit choices based on nothing but our own personal whims and our power to do so.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
75,287
Reaction score
25,470
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In this hypothetical fantasy world, given the above premises, women would have their right to choose taken away.
choose what?
The choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream poses zero risk to me. Yet, that doesn't make it ok for someone else to use force to take away that choice just because they happen to dislike chocolate and think that I should not be allowed to eat it.
i agree
Just because there would be no risk in your hypothetical scenario doesn't mean we ought to assume the authority to artificially limit choices based on nothing but our own personal whims and our power to do so.
i agree im glad i didn't do that
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,389
Reaction score
10,422
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, that's what you tried to convey. It was just a fail.

Per your analogy, driving the car is analogous to being with child (gestation). Now to eliminate the threat of death from her pregnancy she aborts the fetus and to equally eliminate the fatal threat of a automobile accident she aborts the car (avoids driving the car).

Sure, I understand your risk argument but the random "they" driver is only analogous to random pregnancy complications. She couldn't accurately predict either situation let alone act upon it. Ergo, she justifies her abortion because of the possibility of death; likewise she stops driving her car because of the same possibility.

Her "killing drivers" was classic misdirection.
I think you are the one who is attempting misdirection here. If you want to equate choosing not to take the risk to simply "choosing to stop driving," then the analogous situation would be: "If you want to stop driving your car, then you cannot intentionally kill another driver while you are pulling over to the side of the road under the justification that 'driving is technically a risk, so it was self defense.'"

Having an abortion is the homicide of a human with an equal right to life to the mother in the analogy. Killing other drivers is homicide of another human with an equal right to life as well. When you use self-defense to justify one over the other based on "inherent risk of the activity," you are changing your standards between each scenario to suit your argument. This is equivocation.

If you do not believe that an abortion is the homicide of a human with an equal right to life to the mother, then of course the analogy breaks down. It is a pro-life analogy after all. But the point is: You can't logically believe that the unborn are humans with an equal right to life to the mother and that any abortions outside of an emergency room are justified under the legal doctrine of "self-defense." This is an unsound conclusion. You can't have your cake and eat it to.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,389
Reaction score
10,422
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,389
Reaction score
10,422
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
All women are at risk of dying even though 99.+% do not die, because we don't know which women will die, as some die of medically unforeseeable complications. However, the issue of self-defense is not about just your life. Large numbers of women develop serious illnesses or have serious injuries in childbirth and may have irreparable injuries or serious problems that last three months, six months, or years. You have a right to defend your health, as a basic aspect of liberty.

The risk is unnecessary to a self-defense argument. At least here in NY, you have a right to self-defense against rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, and felony robbery. Yes, they may threaten your life or health, but that isn't why they are felonies. All people have a right not to have sex with another person and no person has the right to use force to have sex with them without their consent. Ditto kidnapping. The issue is not that you might die, but that this stuff is heinous violation of bodily autonomy and integrity.
This is not correct. You do not have the right to kill your rapist or your kidnapper because it is a heinous crime and a violation of your bodily autonomy. You ONLY have the right to kill another human being if you reasonably believe your life is in danger. It is reasonable for a rape victim to believe that his or her life is in danger during the course of the rape. It is reasonable to believe that your life is in danger from the kidnapper who is kicking in your window. It is not self-defense to find our where your rapist or kidnapper lives after the fact and go to their home and kill them, because in that situation is it not reasonable to believe that your life is in danger, and killing them was not the only way to protect your life.

The justification of self-defense requires the reasonable belief that your life is in danger, and that the only way to prevent yourself from dying is by killing your attacker. This is fundamental to the legal doctrine of self-defense.

https://www.okayplayer.com/news/chrystul-kizer-wisconsin-murder-case.html
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,192
Reaction score
56,656
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
In 2018, there were 658 maternal deaths.

In 2018, there were 3,791,712 live births.

For the sake of argument, let's ignore miscarriages that do not take the life of the mother, since this figure would be a rough estimate anyway.

3,791,712 + 658 = 3,792,370 total pregnancies (minus survivable miscarriages.)

658 is 0.01% of 3,792,370.

Meaning 99.99%+ of mothers survive and recover from their pregnancies.

What is the point trying to be made in this conversation? By you, @quip, @choiceone, etc?

Any individual woman is at significant risk...it cant always be predicted or prevented. You also arent including the other 86,000 that suffer extreme harm, even permanent disability...Is that considfered "OK since they're alive?" Things like stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, pre-eclampsia, ectopic pregnancy, etc. This impacts the rest of their lives and ability to work, care for a family, everything.

So ALL women are at risk for every pregnancy. The only reason the numbers matter is if someone values the unborn more than the women, believing that they are entitled to demand women take that risk. The federal govt does not take that position...and it doesnt in any other circumstances either, except the draft. (Demand someone risk their life without their consent.)

If it's still about self-defense, it's not "IMO." It's about bodily autonomy and having your body used without your consent, about sacrificing your right to self-determination in order to give it to someone else without your consent. Since there is a safer medical procedure available, the govt nor strangers should have the right to deny a woman that procedure.
 

Scrabaholic

certified batshit crazy
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
26,068
Reaction score
18,341
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
In 2018, there were 658 maternal deaths.

In 2018, there were 3,791,712 live births.

For the sake of argument, let's ignore miscarriages that do not take the life of the mother, since this figure would be a rough estimate anyway.

3,791,712 + 658 = 3,792,370 total pregnancies (minus survivable miscarriages.)

658 is 0.01% of 3,792,370.

Meaning 99.99%+ of mothers survive and recover from their pregnancies.
In case you hadn't noticed, this is 2022 and maternal deaths are rising.
 
Top Bottom