- Joined
- Jul 5, 2022
- Messages
- 584
- Reaction score
- 129
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
You have a lot to learn.Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated. Your moral issues are your own.
You have a lot to learn.Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated. Your moral issues are your own.
Actually, I provided you with a scientific perspective that arrived at the same definition I did, and I'm fluent in the English language and the fact that there are applicable synonyms in this case. Yes, I've checked out the issue from a variety of perspectives as well, although I wasn't quite 10 y/o when R v W was decided, there's been a little water under the bridge since then. I've already articulated it sufficiently, if you truly were open minded, you would accept that.
This isn't ONLY about the woman's health et al, but also the person growing inside her when she's pregnant, I'm not saying abortion should be outlawed completely, but rather it should not be entirely unfettered. So only women can get pregnant and that's not fair, well I have news for you, life in general isn't always fair, never has been and likely never will be, that's called reality.
Lawyers and politicians do not get to define such things, they consult relevant personnel. Just because it has yet to be properly litigated does not negate its validity.
You have nothing to teach and can't address the points made, much less refute them.You have a lot to learn.
You just keep ignoring the point I already made, my premise is about what should be/a case to be made, and it is entirely rational and logical, yet you continue to focus purely on the courts. FYI, in many court cases, for clarification and specificity, SME's are called upon to testify in their field of expertise.If you want to use the scientific definition you provided...remember this: science doesnt recognize rights for ANY species...including humans. So even your source denies them rights.
If ever there were an assumption based in abject ignorance, this is it.You have nothing to teach and can't address the points made, much less refute them.
No assumption, but fact. Your inability to address the points or questions Lursa and I posed only demonstrates that, further reinforced by your snark responses.If ever there were an assumption based in abject ignorance, this is it.
She has not ignored your points. She addressed them. Your points are just weak.You just keep ignoring the point I already made,
What should be is merely your opinion. We've presented legal facts.my premise is about what should be/a case to be made, and it is entirely rational and logical, yet you continue to focus purely on the courts.
You just keep ignoring the point I already made, my premise is about what should be/a case to be made, and it is entirely rational and logical, yet you continue to focus purely on the courts. FYI, in many court cases, for clarification and specificity, SME's are called upon to testify in their field of expertise.
I think that is what some are hoping for. Dominance over a woman's choices and the unborn is a convenient excuse.If the (imagined) unborn's rights superseded women's, we would no longer be equal with men and we'd be back to being 2nd class citizens again.
I have found that anti-abortionists mainly argue using feelings and appeal to emotions. How often have we heard "Abortion is murder" or "it's baby killing," ect..?Did you, 'logically or rationally' think any of this thru, past your 'feelings'? If you disagree, please explain, how women and the unborn can be treated equally under the law. Not with your feelings or opinion but with legal foundation, such has been provided to you with cited law, prcedent, court decisions, etc.
If that's what you want to believe.No assumption, but fact. Your inability to address the points or questions Lursa and I posed only demonstrates that, further reinforced by your snark responses.
She has not ignored your points. She addressed them. Your points are just weak.
What should be is merely your opinion. We've presented legal facts.
Wow, nice job of confusing my point due to your already firmly held beliefs, obviously you're not capable of thinking beyond such things.it's not remotely logical or rational. And the US Code made it clear they had considered biologist and medical SME opinion. As did th RvW decision.
Yes, if you want to ban or restrict abortion, you need LAW
Born and unborn cannot have equal rights...one's rights would supersede the other's rights. If the (imagined) unborn's rights superseded women's, we would no longer be equal with men and we'd be back to being 2nd class citizens again.
Did you, 'logically or rationally' think any of this thru, past your 'feelings'? If you disagree, please explain, how women and the unborn can be treated equally under the law. Not with your feelings or opinion but with legal foundation, such has been provided to you with cited law, prcedent, court decisions, etc.
No belief. Just fact.If that's what you want to believe.
Clearly you think your beliefs/opinions trump actual law and facts!Wow, nice job of confusing my point due to your already firmly held beliefs, obviously you're not capable of thinking beyond such things.
I don't think you understand what a "fact" actually is. As for the premise I presented, it has nothing to do with feelings, but rather scientific analysis and Constitutional quotes, apparently you're incapable of discerning the difference.No belief. Just fact.
Clearly you think your beliefs/opinions trump actual law and facts!
Wow, nice job of confusing my point due to your already firmly held beliefs, obviously you're not capable of thinking beyond such things.
The idea that an infered right can never be deprived ignores the Constitutional ammendment process and decades of precedence, such as the never ending attempt to limit the 1st and 2nd ammendments.There are most certainly Constitutional rights that are not in the Constitution the framers made that perfectly clear. Virtually all our rights are NOT included in the bill of rights and saying otherwise is 17th century thinking that the framers denied with the 9th amendment which is EQUALLY as clear as the 10th. Additional rights can be inferred from other rights which is how the right to privacy was determined. Once granted they can never be deprived since by definition a Constitutional right is bestowed on the people not Federal or State Govts.
It's what you seem to lack.I don't think you understand what a "fact" actually is.
In other words, your own opinions.As for the premise I presented, it has nothing to do with feelings, but rather scientific analysis and Constitutional quotes, apparently you're incapable of discerning the difference.
It is impossible to grant rights to both the unborn and the woman equally.No one person's rights supersede anyone else's.
Where is it stated the unborn has a "right to life?" Cite the law!There is no logical reason why the unborn should be denied the right to life due to a whim or inconvenience.
Because if a pregnant woman is denied her bodily autonomy and choice to end a pregnancy, her individual rights is being devalued in favor of the unborn. Like I said, it's impossible to have equal rights for both the woman and unborn.How does the biological ability to bring life into the world, or ending said life make anyone a 2nd class citizen exactly?
Interpretations of the amendments can change but taking away a Constitutional right simply because it is not in the Constitution like Alito did is in violation of the 9th amendment like I said. Talk about slippery slopes...The idea that an infered right can never be deprived ignores the Constitutional ammendment process and decades of precedence, such as the never ending attempt to limit the 1st and 2nd ammendments.
Like taking away the right to drink alcohol?Interpretations of the amendments can change but taking away a Constitutional right simply because it is not in the Constitution like Alito did is in violation of the 9th amendment like I said. Talk about slippery slopes...
No one person's rights supersede anyone else's.
There is no logical reason why the unborn should be denied the right to life due to a whim or inconvenience.
I have no idea why you keep commenting on my "feelings", I have addressed scientific analysis and the Constitution, interpretation may be what you'd like to address instead.
How does the biological ability to bring life into the world, or ending said life make anyone a 2nd class citizen exactly?
If you can't accept the logical premise I presented, that's your problem, but stop deflecting.
LOLIt's what you seem to lack.
In other words, your own opinions.
It is impossible to grant rights to both the unborn and the woman equally.
Where is it stated the unborn has a "right to life?" Cite the law!
Because if a pregnant woman is denied her bodily autonomy and choice to end a pregnancy, her individual rights is being devalued in favor of the unborn. Like I said, it's impossible to have equal rights for both the woman and unborn.
It was done prior to RvW.I asked how that could be done...legally, practically. You just basically wrote 'na huh' with no argument.
An awful lot of women have put their children's health and lives before their own, my own grandmother chose to die giving birth to my mother in 1942.A woman's entire life, health, ability to provide for her family, keep her job, uphold her commitments and obligations to others are not 'whims or inconveniences'. Or do you consider those same things in your life as 'whims and inconveniences?' Yes or no?
Once again, I refer you to the 5th amendment.Now tell me why we 'should' recognize rights for the unborn? Because again...altho you dont seem to understand this either, you cannot treat born and unborn equally under the law. Answer that above (red) and maybe you'll figure it out.
All this does is deny the rights of the child growing in the woman. Don't want this problem, there are plenty of ways to not get pregnant in the first place.If you violate her rights to due process, bodily autonomy (4th Amendment right to security of the person) and force her to remain pregnant without her consent (that violates the 13th Amendment) in order to recognize those same rights for the unborn, then she is no longer equal to men or the unborn. She is once again a 2nd class citizen.
If their rights to life are equal...which do you save if only one or the other can be saved? And please explain your answer without adding or changing it. It happens in real life.
Yes I have, and I've stated that dual pronged premise multiple times, you simply don't like it.You havent done so yet. You cant manage to separate the scientific classification of organisms and designation of legal status and rights.
That proves you have no valid rebuttal to offer.
How did that work out?It was done prior to RvW.
That's their choice, is it not? Why should they be forced to?An awful lot of women have put their children's health and lives before their own, my own grandmother chose to die giving birth to my mother in 1942.
Once again, refer to the 14th Amendment and 1 US Code ss 8.Once again, I refer you to the 5th amendment.
What rights do the unborn have? Specify these rights and where they are enumerated and textualized in law!All this does is deny the rights of the child growing in the woman.
There are also ways to end a pregnancy too.Don't want this problem, there are plenty of ways to not get pregnant in the first place.
No, that's just all you deserve.That proves you have no valid rebuttal to offer.
In other words, you have nothing!No, that's just all you deserve.