[W:183]Let's have a real discussion about abortion

[prometeus]

38 states say you are wrong. It's called personhood.

None of them treat fetuses as real persons outside fetal homicide laws. How would you like to be treated as a person only if you are murdered?

If the FBI uses DNA to separate one human being from another

So?

The reality is that pro-death advocates

The reality is that uneducated ignorant morons use meaningless hyperbole because they have nothing intelligent or rational to add.

Personhood starts with the formation of unique DNA at the moment of conception.

Bull crap. It starts with birth.

 

[NWRatCon]

Merriam-Webster is technically incorrect. Fetus is not exclusively a developing human. In all mammalian species the developing form in utero is called a fetus.

Actually, the claim about the definition offered is a lie. Merriam Webster defines a fetus as ":an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind". Just for the record.

This is why we can't "have a real discussion about abortion".

 

[NWRatCon]

I have a problem with any anti-abortion advocate who isn't a strict vegetarian. Anyone for some bacon and eggs?

 

[danielpalos]

These are the same people who claim they are true patriots and believe my username is hypocritical.

If not for fallacy, most right-wingers would have no arguments at all. I prefer to not have to trust them without a corporal around.

 

[danielpalos]

Actually, the claim about the definition offered is a lie. Merriam Webster defines a fetus as ":an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind". Just for the record.

This is why we can't "have a real discussion about abortion".

Natural born is one term used in our federal Constitution regarding the franchise.

 

[Josie]

I have a problem with any anti-abortion advocate who isn't a strict vegetarian. Anyone for some bacon and eggs?

Why?

 

[maquiscat]

Actually, the claim about the definition offered is a lie. Merriam Webster defines a fetus as ":an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind". Just for the record.

This is why we can't "have a real discussion about abortion".

Only if you are going to claim that @BroHaHa 's claimed definition is a lie, because @weaver2 responded to that post and claimed definition as incorrect without referencing the actual dictionary site, which @BroHaHa didn't link or quote. And @weaver2 is absolutely correct as far as what he said in context to @BroHaHa 's post.

 

[trouble13]

That is impossible. Anti-abortion laws are specifically designed to punish pregnant girls and women. Let me know when men can get pregnant.

Anti-abortion laws are not designed to punish anyone. They are written to protect defenseless human lives.

If men ever get the capability to be pregnant, the law would apply equally to them.

You may not agree with the law but arguing that the Constitutions prohibits it is false.

Grammar problem here. This sentence is incoherent.

Should have read:
Women who have a problem with it do not have a leg to stand on.

They are not allowed to write laws that ban a fundamental human right spelled out in the Constitution.

That question is something for the courts to answer.

 

[Scrabaholic]

That's not the point.

I'm saying 38 states impute the same rights of a born human being to an unborn human being. So a child in utero is recognized as a human being from conception onward in at least thirty eight states. You then change the goal posts for your dehumanization procedure in order to murder "unborn" "non-human beings". So there is absolutely no debate over when personhood begins, if we go by legal statutes.


You keep debating about when a person is a person. I will defer to state laws and legal definitions over your judgement every day of the week. Regardless of what it says about abortion, you are changing the goal post in order to "legally" kill human beings. Just like they did to the Jews. Just like they did to the blacks.

You are saying, well, in an abortion situation, the baby is not a human yet. so we can kill it at will. Because if you actually said you were killing a human being, instead of de-humanizing it, you be on the hook for 1st degree murder.

Let this sink in.

View attachment 67364603

Even if the zef were a human being, we can kill in self defence.

 

[Scrabaholic]

If men ever get the capability to be pregnant,

Abortion would become a sacrament.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Anti-abortion laws are not designed to punish anyone. They are written to protect defenseless human lives.

Banning anything is 100% about punishing whoever does it, no matter what.

If saving defenseless human lives was the purpose, studies on abortion pills never would have been done. The FDA approved that two-drug method of inducing miscarriages.

 

[Scrabaholic]

BTW, the definition of "fetus" according to Merriam-Webster: "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth"

MW is wrong, as all but a couple mammals' unborn are fetuses. It's not just humans who do.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

And the 14th was ratified in July of 1868, a full century before the ruling. But if it was illegal to ban it by the 14th amendment, then how did all those laws get passed between 1868 and 1967?

They were unconstitutional laws, of course.

You can go back further, to 1791. The Fifth Amendment also includes the phrase "life, liberty, and property" and IIRC was used in the case that struck down a contraception ban in Massachusetts.

 

[trouble13]

Banning anything is 100% about punishing whoever does it, no matter what.

If saving defenseless human lives was the purpose, studies on abortion pills never would have been done. The FDA approved that two-drug method of inducing miscarriages.

I could cite the same example your using to claim that the laws are not designed to punish anyone

Furthermore it's not being banned. The argument is over whether this is a federal issue or a states one.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I could cite the same example you're using to claim that the laws are not designed to punish anyone

So do it - with proof from totally unbiased sources, not fake news websites.

 

[trouble13]

So do it - with proof from totally unbiased sources, not fake news websites.

If persecuting women was the purpose, studies on abortion pills never would have been done. The FDA approved that two-drug method of inducing miscarriages.

 

[Lursa]

I'm only responding to this item in your response since basically you didnt even acknowledge the rest of my response. I'm guess that's because you finally understood it, but didnt like it. I did discuss this.

2. The whole, "You can't force personal beliefs on other people," argument is specious at best. We "force" personal beliefs on other people all the time. Some people don't have a problem with stealing, yet another group of pesky people on their high horse think stealing is wrong and detrimental to a civil society—probably because of their religion—and that group just keeps forcing their personal beliefs on those people who don't have a problem with theft. Same with rape, assault, and hundreds of other things.

Anyway, rape, stealing, murder, all harm people. All violate their rights. Of course we have laws against those things, the Const. protects our rights and those laws reflect that.

What is 'wrong' with abortion? It may be your moral judgement but it's not for everyone...many, even most Americans support elective abortion. And to ban it would violate women's rights...which the Constitution protects and our laws are obligated to abide by. You may object to this, but no one is harmed in an abortion. If you choose to mischaracterize it based on your beliefs, that's up to you.

So again, I ask you...since it's just your opinion or belief...why should it be forced on women that dont believe the same?

The consistent standard for codifying personal beliefs in our society is when the exercise of your freedom causes someone else harm.

The unborn are not persons and they dont have any rights recognized. By no means should their protection supersede the rights of women.

That's not just opinion, it's supported by the Const and numerous SCOTUS decisions.

In other words, in order to make this o.k. by every other accepted societal standard, you have to minimize the status of the unborn. You may be able to successfully do so using the US constitution, but I don't see how you get around the UN document.

The unborn never had any legal status. Not even in English Common Law. Nor does the UN Human Rights accord you referred to...you just chose to expand it to do so 'hopefully.'

Equality is a legal status but it's also an attribute of individuals. The unborn are not equal to born people and this is demonstrated in many ways. Previously posted:

Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.​

​

They do not have a single right that they can exercise independently. In contrast, both black slaves and women were able to fully exercise their/our rights when legally enabled. The unborn, even if they had rights, would not be able to exercise a single one independently until birth. There's no 'individual' here yet...it's completely conjoined with the woman. It's not about DNA, it's about the legal status of equality and clearly there's no individual here that is equal to born people.​

​

Also their physiological systems are so intertwined that altho the mother can survive without the unborn, the unborn cannot survive, cannot function without her. Another clear indication that the unborn is not equal in status as an individual.​

Now, please tell me why the unborn should have equal rights with people? Something of substance, if opinion, then backed with facts.

 

[Lursa]

If persecuting women was the purpose, studies on abortion pills never would have been done. The FDA approved that two-drug method of inducing miscarriages.

Those pills serve purposes for abortions needed for medical reasons...are you that uninformed? Perhaps you're just confused by the 'nickname' some use for them and didnt bother to consider anything further?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

If persecuting women was the purpose, studies on abortion pills never would have been done. The FDA approved that two-drug method of inducing miscarriages.

You said you can cite something, so I told you how. Instead, you chose to pretend my words were your words, completely ignoring my explicit demand. That proves you lied to me about being able to cite something.

You are dismissed.

 

[Lursa]

No, that sort of loss is a civil matter. We're talking about criminal charges. Homicide.

The ones for pets and livestock also range into felonies, so you are wrong.

No matter how you try to parse it, this issue has the law talking out of both sides of its mouth.

In a way you are correct...for more 'palatable' political purposes, some of the laws refer to the unborn as persons (not all do however.) But in terms of law...as I've asked you and others to quote and none can...not a single one recognizes rights for the unborn and the charges are brought on behalf of the mother and/or state...regarding their loss and harm.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

The ones for pets and livestock also range into felonies, so you are wrong.

People who think pets are owned things have that can be discarded have no excuses for calling fetuses more valuable than their own mothers before birth. If fetuses are too valuable to kill before the 30th week, all anti-choicers must be animal lovers.

 

[maquiscat]

You are? Obamacare provided overage for the most effective women's contraceptives. Conservative Republicans refused to support it. They did support corporations (Hobby Lobby) and huge religious organizations (think Notre Dame) that refused to provide insurance that covered these contraceptives.

If women had access to these almost 100% effective contraceptives the number of abortions could be reduced immediately by 50% as was proved in the Colorado experiment.

I can't think of the specific one, but that is a fallacy there. Probably conflation. Simply because @BroHaHa is against abortion being legal, save in certain situations IIRC, that doesn't mean that he is in lock step with all Republican policies. Most conservatives are for SSM even if the GOP is against it.

 

[trouble13]

You said you can cite something, so I told you how. Instead, you chose to pretend my words were your words, completely ignoring my explicit demand. That proves you lied to me about being able to cite something.

You are dismissed.

I said I could cite your words to make my argument same as you did. You have not produced any evidence that supports either of your ascertains:

1. Abortions are constitutionally protected

2. Anti-Abortion laws are by design intended to harm women.

Nothing I have said has been a lie. Is this your schtick when you disagree with someone or don't like their opinion, you call them names. This is the 2nd time you have done it.

What happened to wanting a real conversation. So far the only thing you seem to want is to have your opinion (which you're unable to support) validated.

The right to abort is not a Constitutional right. It was a decision made by the SCOTUS. Your argument is an appeal to authority. The problem with that argument which many pro-choic people have fondly made is that if/when another court comes along and overturns that decision, you will get the same appeal to authority thrown back on you. You have no grounds to refute that argument since it was good enough for you to make when it suited your needs.

 

[maquiscat]

As I posted to the whataboutism poster above, I'm all for government funded birth control. Sure, let's do it.

But just like him, that doesn't change your opinion on abortion on demand, does it?

Until there is one that is 100%, in which case, we wouldn't need abortion except for medical conditions or rape. Also, just to check, you do know that abortions have been on a steady decline ever since the 80's right?

 

[Josie]

Until there is one that is 100%, in which case, we wouldn't need abortion except for medical conditions or rape.

You'd also have to have people who 100% remember to take their birth control, order more birth control when it's time or just keep their pants on when they know they have no protection.

Also, just to check, you do know that abortions have been on a steady decline ever since the 80's right?