Sorry, i just don't get it.

[Lursa]

Ah, so killing the innocent baby is now self defense? And the harmful effects resulting from rape are worse than killing an innocent? What are those harmful effects that are worse than murder?

That's a very good way to put it, well said. I'm curious about the justification. We dont 'compromise' about murder of people, do we?

But we do recognize many types of legal homicide, such as killing in war, self-defense, abortion, "pulling the plug, the death penalty, assisted suicide, etc.

Our society, for the most part, considers these things justifiable killing. Not all agree on all of them, but as a society overall.

And if a woman needs an abortion, how is that not justifiable? Do strangers believe they know her risks and circumstances and needs better than she does? America is founded on a belief in individual liberty.

 

[mac]

Without supporting legal text for your assertions, your opinion is still wong and summarily dismissed./quote

We are not in a court of law, buddy, and the word "homicide" applies. You really should look up the definition

All persons BORN means one has to be born first to be considered a person. There is no law or legal text which recognizes the unborn as a person./quote

That not what that is saying. What that is saying all persons born in the us are us citizens. Context, read it for comprehension.

But that "human" only remains there at the consent of its host. If the host does not want it there, then it cannot remain against the host's will. Neither can the host be legally compelled to donate her body for the benefit of another.

Not so.

 

[mac]

I think you are hairsplitting here. "Enter" vs. "created there" is a distinction without a difference. And obviously it is possible for a woman to have sex without the intent to get pregnant./quote

No, it concerns intent in regards to a self defense argument.

One of the difficulties with the abortion argument is that there is no reasonable analog with which to compare it. So if if we use our imaginations to invent a fanciful comparison: Let's say you meet and befriend a wizard. One day he gets angry with you and he waves his magic wand and magics me inside of your body against both of our wills. I am unconscious and kept alive by feeding off of your body. You suffer some very uncomfortable health issues due to this, need to buy new clothes to accommodate your new body which has been distorted by having me inside, and find it difficult to do your job. The wizard assures you he will reverse the spell in 9 months, provided both of us survive that long. Keep in mind, I didn't "enter" your body. I was magically teleported there through no fault or desire of my own or yours. You willingly interacted with this wizard, so you should have known that this could happen. /qoute

Or we can just recognize that the right to life is fundamental to all rights, without it no other rights exist.

What are your options here? What should your options be? Where do your rights end and my rights begin? I say that because I am located inside of your body and neither one of us can do anything about it, you have the right to hire a surgeon to remove me from your body by any means necessary, even if it results in my unfortunate death. Yes, that sucks for me, but your right to your own bodily autonomy outweighs my right to life in this specific case. Under normal circumstances, my right to life outweighs all other rights, but not when I am actively violating your bodily autonomy, even if it is not a willing violation.

Not a close enough, but rather fanciful hypothetical. In your story, the occupation is not a result of the host's own choices.

 

[Lursa]

If it puts the mother's life at risk. I agree that it's a stretch, but see it as a necessary exception.

Every single pregnancy risks the mother's life. It cannot always be predictable or preventable. ~1000 women die in the US every year...with 86,700 severely harmed by things like stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, pre-eclampsia, etc that can permanently disable her and impact her ability to care for her family, hold a job, etcc.

What gives the govt or strangers the right to demand women take that significant risk against their will? Esp. when there is a much safer procedure available? None of them will pay her consequences.

 

[Gordy327]

We are not in a court of law, buddy, and the word "homicide" applies. You really should look up the definition

That not what that is saying. What that is saying all persons born in the us are us citizens. Context, read it for comprehension.

Not so.

We don't need to be in a court. We need the legal text as it applies in law. Just like every other law. Homicide does not apply to abortion, no matter how much you think otherwise. And unless you can show me where the law books equate elective abortion with homicide or cite a case where a woman was charged with a homicide for having an elective abortion, then you have nothing and your argument falls flat.
And yes, all persons BORN in the US are citizens. They are legal person. But "born" is the key word here. If one is not born, then one is not yet a person or a citizen. You also have failed to demonstrate otherwise.

 

[mac]

Agreed, and having an abortion can be a very responsible option (previously posted):

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you cant afford and expecting tax payers to take up that burden with public assistance.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you arent emotionally prepared to have and believe you will abuse or neglect.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid if you know you wont stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc that will lead to mental and physical defects in a baby.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant and dropping out of high school or college or missing work and not fulfilling your potential in society.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant/having a child and not being able to fulfill your other responsibilities and obligations to family, dependents, employer, church, community, society.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid and giving it up for adoption when there are already over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted. It means one less child waiting will find a home.​

If your objection is about responsibility, dont you agree then, that if birth control fails, as it can...abortion can be a responsible choice?

If:


Then it is awfully hard to ignore that list and still believe that a woman who chooses an abortion is not being responsible.

Adoption is the more reasonable answer to all of those than is abortion. Even that last one. The majority of infants put up for adoption are adopted within the first month.

 

[Gordy327]

Not so.

Yes so. Established legal precedent affirms that no individual can be forced or compelled to donate a part or all of their body for the benefit of anything, even if it would save a life. A woman is donating and/or allowing her body to be used by the unborn for its benefit. But if does not want to allow it, she should be able to abort, especially if one is going to argue the unborn are persons.

 

[mac]

We don't need to be in a court. /quote

We do for your argument to be even close to valid, but even then it's not. The meaning of homicide isn't changed in court, and it applies to abortion.

 

[Gordy327]

Adoption is the more reasonable answer to all of those than is abortion. Even that last one. The majority of infants put up for adoption are adopted within the first month.

Why should a woman be forced to gestation and give birth against her will, especially just for adoption? There are already too many kids in need of adoption or foster care. It's illogical to add more.

 

[Lursa]

Still no.

As applied to statements by Congress. Context is important. And the phrases "All persons Born..." implies that there are unborn persons. Besides, that phrase is defining citizenship, not personhood.

Sorry, you inventing different context for the US Code and the 14th A dont change the fact that that is how SCOTUS has interpreted them and how the federal govt applies them.

No federal law or federal court decision recognizes rights for the unborn.

 

[mac]

Every single pregnancy risks the mother's life. It cannot always be predictable or preventable. ~1000 women die in the US every year...with 86,700 severely harmed by things like stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, pre-eclampsia, etc that can permanently disable her and impact her ability to care for her family, hold a job, etcc. /quote

Logicaly self defense would apply if the risk is greater than the norm.

What gives the govt or strangers the right to demand women take that significant risk against their will? Esp. when there is a much safer procedure available? None of them will pay her consequences. /quote

The citizenry.

 

[mac]

Why should a woman be forced to gestation and give birth against her will, especially just for adoption? There are already too many kids in need of adoption or foster care. It's illogical to add more.

She is not forced to gestate, her actions led her to that. What she would be "forced" to do is not commit homicide.

 

[mac]

N

Sorry, you inventing different context for the US Code and the 14th A dont change the fact that that is how SCOTUS has interpreted them and how the federal govt applies them.

No federal law or federal court decision recognizes rights for the unborn.

No I'm not. The first liine of the code tells you what it applies to. And the 14th ammendment is defining citizenship, not personhood.

 

[Gordy327]

We do for your argument to be even close to valid, but even then it's not. The meaning of homicide isn't changed in court, and it applies to abortion.

My argument is valid because it's legally supported. Yours is not. You've offered nothing to support your position besides your own opinion. Neither have you offered any legal source to support your position, much less refute mine, despite repeated challenges made to that effect.

 

[Lursa]

Adoption is the more reasonable answer to all of those than is abortion. Even that last one. The majority of infants put up for adoption are adopted within the first month.

Why did you ignore where I wrote there are more than 100,000 already waiting to be adopted? It's heartless IMO to unnecessarily add more kids to that huge pool while there are so many waiting and hoping for homes...it directly harms those waiting.

And that doesnt change the fact that if she doenst give up drugs, drinking, etc then she's more likely to birth a defective special needs baby...unlikely to be adopted.

Or the costs of her not being able to keep her job because she's too sick and has other dependents to feed...elderly, kids, disabled...more public assistance or maybe they end up living in her car?

You just cherry-picked one thing to avoid addressing the overal argument made...that choosing abortion can be a responsible act. Does that mean you cannot disagree with it?

 

[mac]

Why did you ignore where I wrote there are more than 100,000 already waiting to be adopted? /quote

I didn't ignore it. But we're talking about infants and the majority of infants placed for adoption are adopted within the first month.

 

[Lursa]

N

No I'm not. The first liine of the code tells you what it applies to. And the 14th ammendment is defining citizenship, not personhood.

Na huh is not a counter argument. If you disagree, find proof otherwise. The words are clear and your personal interpretation out of convenience isnt a valid counter.

 

[mac]

My argument is valid because it's legally supported. Yours is not. You've offered nothing to support your position besides your own opinion. Neither have you offered any legal source to support your position, much less refute mine, despite repeated challenges made to that effect.

No it isn't. Nothing changes the meaning of the word homicide. You rally should look it up.

 

[Gordy327]

N

No I'm not. The first liine of the code tells you what it applies to. And the 14th ammendment is defining citizenship, not personhood.

"All PERSONS BORN...." It's there in black and white and also reinforced by 1 US Code ss 8.

 

[mac]

Na huh is not a counter argument. If you disagree, find proof otherwise. The words are clear and your personal interpretation out of convenience isnt a valid counter.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

 

[Lursa]

I didn't ignore it. But we're talking about infants and the majority of infants placed for adoption are adopted within the first month.

Sure you did and you did it again. The infants have to be perfect for one thing. I showed that many will not be, and are not.

And if you're right, why are all those 100,000 unadopted? Most (not all) were infants when then were put up for adoption. Why are they still there?

And it doesnt address her dependence on the state if she loses her job while pregnant....

 

[mac]

"All PERSONS BORN...." It's there in black and white and also reinforced by 1 US Code ss 8.

Which also implies there are unborn persons. The rest of that sentence is a description of a US citizen, not a person.

 

[Gordy327]

No it isn't. Nothing changes the meaning of the word homicide. You rally should look it up.

You seem to ignore the legal definition and application of the term homicide. The unborn are not considered legal human beings. Therefore, your use and application of the term is incorrect.

 

[Lursa]

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

Correct, any laws or rights pertaining to those blue terms only apply to born Homo sapiens. It's very clear.

So what point are you trying to make besides Gordy and I am are correct?

 

[mac]

Sure you did and you did it again. The infants have to be perfect for one thing. I showed that many will not be, and are not.

And if you're right, why are all those 100,000 unadopted? Most (not all) were infants when then were put up for adoption. Why are they still there? /quote

Most of those that wait a period of up to two years to get adopted where not infants when they entered the foster system, they were older children.