[W:69] Pro-Life extremists are taking us back to the dark ages

[Praxas]

Re: Pro-Life extremists are taking us back to the dark ages

You are a typical pro abortionist. You fool yourself by trying to say pro choice but it’s really all about the abortion. At any stage.

To be pro-abortion, you would have to show where I recommend someone to have an abortion. Since you cannot your statement, as all your others, is false. Allowing someone to have an abortion is not the same as recommending someone get one. You are so threatened by choice, you resort to false terms.

 

[CLAX1911]

Prosecuting women for having an abortion and potentially punishing them for 10-20 years in prison is not the solution. That is a barbaric type of law that would have far-reaching consequences.

pro-life people view abortion as murder. to them they are trying to stop a barbaric practice.

Prove their views wrong then you'll have a point.

There is nothing wrong with tough abortion laws but the heartbeat law in Georgia is clearly unconstitutional.

How is it unconstitutional? What specific part of the Constitution does it violate?

It is a type of law you would see being enacted in the Middle East. We need to start having a rational discussion instead of becoming more like a police state.

will you want to call people barbaric and talk about how not being able to abort a baby after a certain. Takes us back to the middle ages.

Those aren't compelling arguments they are emotional responses you are being irrational.

Laws need to reflect our society today, not 100 years ago.

if more people in Georgia are pro-life than are pro-choice then such a law would reflect society today. Not society a hundred years ago.

 

[Obscurity]

Re: Pro-Life extremists are taking us back to the dark ages

Sure I do. I understood it too when your lot mandated me to buy health insurance and threatened to punish me if I didn’t. Remember that?

I will repeat my inquiry;

Example. A mother can choose to go to a church. A fetus if given the rights to freedom of religion, could dissent and not want to go to that church. The state would be infringing on the rights of the fetus in this manner if the mother is allowed to continue going to church.

Example. A mother is incarcerated while pregnant. The fetus did nothing wrong. We cannot illegally jail someone in this country. What do you do?

Instead of trying to change the conversation, please address these glaring issues with your ideologically inadequate perspective, please.

 

[minnie616]

...



How is it unconstitutional? What specific part of the Constitution does it violate?

.....

From Live Science:

Constitutional rights

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs

The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.


The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:



No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

Read more:

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

 

[CLAX1911]

From Live Science:

Constitutional rights

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.


The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

the pro-life argument states that abortion is murder you do not have the right to privacy when you're committing a murder. No constitutional Klaus protects your right to commit murder.

so in order to argue against the pro-life position you have to argue that it's not murder not that you have the right to privacy to commit all the murder you want.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

again the pro-life argument is that abortion is murder. you do not have the right to commit murder that is not a privilege protected under the Constitution.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.
Read more:

Again the pro-life argument is that abortion is murder, you do not have has zone of privacy to commit murder.

If your argument is that abortion is not murder then you can make that argument but if their argument is that it is murder they have every right to ignore all of the Constitutional points you made because they do not protect the right to commit murder.

We need to focus on the positions and perspectives that people have in order to have a productive discussion.

 

[year2late]

Re: Pro-Life extremists are taking us back to the dark ages

You are a typical pro abortionist. You fool yourself by trying to say pro choice but it’s really all about the abortion. At any stage.

Do you understand that most pro-choice individuals would never choose abortion given the opportunity?

I am pro-choice and was faced with a real life situation (initially unwanted pregnancy with dangerous compliations) and choose to stay pregnant. I am a person you are name calling as "pro-abortionist".

The difference is that I refused to make the choice for another person.

By the way, have you backed up in text the words that indicate Governor Northam advocated killing born alive infants?

 

[minnie616]

From Live Science:

the pro-life argument states that abortion is murder you do not have the right to privacy when you're committing a murder. No constitutional Klaus protects your right to commit murder. ...

Your pro life argument is not valid. Right to body autonomy is a Constitutional Right.

The unborn cannot live outside the woman’s body until viability

We not only have a right to privacy/ body autonomy in the United States. We have a right to Religious Liberty.

From the Religious Coaliattion for Reproductive Choice:

Good policy allows people of all religions to follow their own faiths and consciences in their own lives. In reproductive health, rights and justice, [B%)]we define religious liberty as the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family and her faith. The religious beliefs of others should not interfere.[/B]

The Moral Case – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

 

[year2late]

Re: Pro-Life extremists are taking us back to the dark ages

To be pro-abortion, you would have to show where I recommend someone to have an abortion. Since you cannot your statement, as all your others, is false. Allowing someone to have an abortion is not the same as recommending someone get one. You are so threatened by choice, you resort to false terms.

Exactly. She is calling me pro-abortionist, and I had an initially unwanted pregnancy fraught with complications and did not have an abortion. Her statement is dishonest at it's core. Most pro-choice individuals chose to maintain their pregnancies.

 

[year2late]

Re: Pro-Life extremists are taking us back to the dark ages

Sure I do. I understood it too when your lot mandated me to buy health insurance and threatened to punish me if I didn’t. Remember that?

Holy leaps of logic Batman!

Can you explain?

 

[Bucky]

pro-life people view abortion as murder. to them they are trying to stop a barbaric practice.

Prove their views wrong then you'll have a point.



How is it unconstitutional? What specific part of the Constitution does it violate?

will you want to call people barbaric and talk about how not being able to abort a baby after a certain. Takes us back to the middle ages.

Those aren't compelling arguments they are emotional responses you are being irrational.

if more people in Georgia are pro-life than are pro-choice then such a law would reflect society today. Not society a hundred years ago.

Question: Under any circumstances, do you support abortion?

 

[CLAX1911]

Your pro life argument is not valid. Right to body autonomy is a Constitutional Right.

I didn't present a pro-life argument. I stated what the pro-life argument was. And what you said the following your assertion that it is invalid does not follow. If it's murder than it isn't your body.

The unborn cannot live outside the woman’s body until viability

so I think the earliest a baby can be born to where it's viable is after 5 months. So an abortion after 5 months could be considered murder by your standard of viability.

We not only have a privacy/ body autonomy in the United States. We have a right to Religious Liberty.

again the argument is that it is not the body of the mother. You do not have autonomy over a body that is not yours.

From the Religious Coaliattion for Reproductive Choice:



The Moral Case – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Sorry Murder music legal term not a religious one so I don't know why you're mentioning religion. It has nothing to do with the point I made.

 

[CLAX1911]

Question: Under any circumstances, do you support abortion?

I don't really have an opinion one way or another. I don't know why you're asking me personal questions it's odd. I'm just explaining the argument the pro-life people use.

There are other perspectives besides your own. It's important to acknowledge them in reasonable debate.

 

[minnie616]

...

again the argument is that it is not the body of the mother. You do not have autonomy over a body that is not yours...

Again before viability an unborn is using the woman’s life functions and body resources to keep it alive .

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body.

 

[Bucky]

I don't really have an opinion one way or another. I don't know why you're asking me personal questions it's odd. I'm just explaining the argument the pro-life people use.

There are other perspectives besides your own. It's important to acknowledge them in reasonable debate.

Obviously, abortion isn't murder because a fetus inside the womb isn't a full human deserving of the same rights as a live-born adult.

 

[Bucky]

Again before viability an unborn is using the woman’s life functions and body resources to keep it alive .

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body.

And I doubt Clax supports the fetus rights over the mother's right if her life was in danger. Also, does he support fetus rights in case of rape and incest?

 

[Bucky]

I don't really have an opinion one way or another. I don't know why you're asking me personal questions it's odd. I'm just explaining the argument the pro-life people use.

There are other perspectives besides your own. It's important to acknowledge them in reasonable debate.

OBVIOUSLY, you do have an opinion, otherwise, you wouldn't be posting in one of the most contentious sections of the forum.

 

[Obscurity]

pro-life people view abortion as murder. to them they are trying to stop a barbaric practice.

Prove their views wrong then you'll have a point.



How is it unconstitutional? What specific part of the Constitution does it violate?

will you want to call people barbaric and talk about how not being able to abort a baby after a certain. Takes us back to the middle ages.

Those aren't compelling arguments they are emotional responses you are being irrational.

if more people in Georgia are pro-life than are pro-choice then such a law would reflect society today. Not society a hundred years ago.

I disagree. We don't rule by democratic standards. The constitution exists to protect the rights of the few against the desires of the many. This standard has played out across many spectrums of our legal system from the economy to social issues.

The majority of people want to tax the rich excessively and they have been insulated from it, for example.


Since you're clearly pro birth, perhaps you can answer where Crystal has failed:

Example. A mother can choose to go to a church. A fetus if given the rights to freedom of religion, could dissent and not want to go to that church. The state would be infringing on the rights of the fetus in this manner if the mother is allowed to continue going to church.

Example. A mother is incarcerated while pregnant. The fetus did nothing wrong. We cannot illegally jail someone in this country. What do you do?

The heartbeat law is unconstitutional because it unreasonably restricts access to abortion. It unreasonably places a burden on women to essentially abort when they don't know they're pregnant.

This is a direct assault on Roe V Wade and the final target is, of course, Griswold V. Connecticut. Now that the conservative SCOTUS has proven itself to be full of **** with regard to respecting stare decisis, I see no reason to believe these other laws will not be struck down or rendered toothless.

 

[Bucky]

Re: Pro-Life extremists are taking us back to the dark ages

Do you understand that most pro-choice individuals would never choose abortion given the opportunity?

I am pro-choice and was faced with a real life situation (initially unwanted pregnancy with dangerous compliations) and choose to stay pregnant. I am a person you are name calling as "pro-abortionist".

The difference is that I refused to make the choice for another person.

By the way, have you backed up in text the words that indicate Governor Northam advocated killing born alive infants?

In many situations however we need to take away that choice from the mother. Her judgment is often clouded and inaccurate. If a pregnant woman is essentially a ward of the state, how much rights does she really have?

 

[CLAX1911]

Obviously, abortion isn't murder because a fetus inside the womb isn't a full human deserving of the same rights as a live-born adult.

You'll have to do more to make your case than just assert things.

Cuz of pro-life person could easily say " Obviously abortion is murder because it's terminating a human life whether it's developed or not."

To give an analogy. if a child couldn't survive outside of a hyperbaric chamber and you took that child out of that chamber and the child died and you knew that the child would die and you took that child out of that chamber with the intent that they would die, have you committed murder?

 

[minnie616]

so I think the earliest a baby can be born to where it's viable is after 5 months. So an abortion after 5 months could be considered murder by your standard of viability.

...

You think wrong the earliest is almost 22 weeks.

It use to that 1.3 percent occurred past 21 weeks.

But by 2015 using 2014 CDC data the percent dropped to 1 percent.

And 80 percent of the abortions that took place past 21 weeks were because the fetus had catastrophic defects.

Abortions that occur at or after 22 are because the fetus is non viable.( it has medical issues and would never live more than a few minutes or hours ) or it would cause irreparable damage to one of woman’s major biological functions if the pregnancy continued.

 

[CLAX1911]

Again before viability an unborn is using the woman’s life functions and body resources to keep it alive .

some would argue viability begins at conception because that's where all living human beings began. even children is the oldest five or six depend on their parents. So you could see if 5 or 6 year old isn't viable because you're using your body working in providing food and shelter and clothing for that child.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body.

I think this is the strongest argument that you can make for the pro-choice position. I can't figure out how to argue against it.

 

[Bucky]

You'll have to do more to make your case than just assert things.

Cuz of pro-life person could easily say " Obviously abortion is murder because it's terminating a human life whether it's developed or not."

To give an analogy. if a child couldn't survive outside of a hyperbaric chamber and you took that child out of that chamber and the child died and you knew that the child would die and you took that child out of that chamber with the intent that they would die, have you committed murder?

I don't look at murder in terms of black and white. There are definitely grey areas.

For example, if a couple had a baby and that baby was diagnosed with Tay–Sachs disease, I would support the rights of the parents euthanizing that child. I think that is the right thing to do. You can call that murder, I would call it the right thing to do.

 

[CLAX1911]

You think wrong the earliest is almost 22 weeks.

I haven't mentioned any of my thoughts.

It use to that 1.3 percent occurred past 21 weeks.

But by 2015 using 2014 CDC data the percent dropped to 1 percent.

And 80 percent of the abortions that took place past 21 weeks were because the fetus had catastrophic defects.

interesting.

Abortions that occur at or after 22 are because the fetus is non viable.( it has medical issues and would never live more than a few minutes or hours ) or it would cause irreparable damage to one of woman’s major biological functions if the pregnancy continued.

Thank you for the interesting facts.

Personally I don't feel one way or the other about to abortion. I find the discussion fascinating because both sides have very good points. I believe I pointed out the argument you made that I cannot figure out how to argue against.

 

[Idiometer]

Re: Pro-Life extremists are taking us back to the dark ages

I think it should be similar to marijuana laws. Marijuana is federally illegal however legal in many states. Abortion should be legal in cases like the health of the mother or if the fetus wouldn't survive. In cases like a personal inconvenience, it should be hidden.

What do you mean by "hidden"? Hidden from whom?

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't look at murder in terms of black and white. There are definitely grey areas.

I'm sorry murder is a legal issue and it's black and white.

For example, if a couple had a baby and that baby was diagnosed with Tay–Sachs disease, I would support the rights of the parents euthanizing that child. I think that is the right thing to do. You can call that murder, I would call it the right thing to do.

I'm not really interested in discussions about what is right and what is wrong that is a moralistic arguments and morality is subjective.