• 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!

[W:962]The right to intervene in someone's private life.

Right. When the state says killing fetus is murder it's murder. But when the state says killing a fetus is not murder it's not murder. Doublethink.

It is not doublespeak.
The state has no say about an abortion before viability unless it is protect the woman’s Heath and in a case of protecting the woman’s Heath it can not give the woman an undue burden.


It is / was ….the Supreme Court said that abortion within the parameter of Roe Wade is legal .

Why is that so hard to understand?

We have a right to privacy.

……….

Roe was decided on the Right to privacy precedents I posted.

If Roe was overturned the right to privacy precedents I posted would most likely also be dismantled.

The Supreme Court would have to decide each case without regarding the right of privacy used in child rearing to education in private or religious school instead of public school or due process of law or right to privacy regarding ones religious beliefs etc.

The following Surpreme Court decisions would most likely would become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned and that is not going to happen.


Weems v. United States (1910)

In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)

The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)

An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)

The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.
 
I am not pro-abortion, or anti-abortion. I am pro-choice. I have no preference as long as it is a free choice made preferably very early in the gestation of the ZEF.

I agree.

I am also pro choice. The earlier an ejective abortion is made the better.

And in the USA 92.2 percent are made in the first trimester.
Over 37 percent are chemical abortions made before 9 weeks.


I had a miscarriage at about 20 weeks. The fetus had died within me and I want into hard contractions.

To make a long story short luckily my body expelled the malformed fetus on its own.

Sometimes the fetus does not expell on its own. ( that’s called a missed abortion in medical terms )

In that the doctor needs to perform an abortion to extract the dead fetus.

Doctors perform ultrasounds about 18 to 20 weeks.

That’s when most catastrophic deformations are revealed.

In the United States a woman cannot choose an abortion after viability if the fetus is deformed.

Past viability the only clinic abortions she can have are if the fetus non viable ( will not survive birth ) or if her life or irreparable damage damage will occur to a major bodily function ( such as stroke , heart attack, paralysis from the neck down, major kidney damage or liver damage.)

In the United States over 80 percent of abortions past 20 weeks up to 22 weeks are because of catastrophic damage to the fetus.
Less than 3 percent of abortions occur past 21 weeks.

I have not head of any abortions past 22 weeks of a viable fetus that was NOT a danger to the woman’s life or would cause irreparable damage to her body if the pregnacy were to continue.
 
Last edited:
Right. When the state says killing fetus is murder it's murder. But when the state says killing a fetus is not murder it's not murder. Doublethink.

It’s not. Your take is uneducated and unsophisticated.
 
It’s not. Your take is uneducated and unsophisticated.
IMO it's based on his "feelings" and his lack of true consideration for the impacts on women in society...and the last part is intentional out of convenience to bias. To understand the real life impacts on women AND society with the imposition of illegal elective abortion and still to support that is immoral, IMO.
 
The Judicial branch of government (SC) heard the case of Roe v Wade.

They reviewed several past Supreme Court precedents to determine that Doctors
and their pregnant patients have a right to privacy regarding a legal abortion within the first two trimesters of pregnancy.


States were given the compelling interest at viability and could ban abortions except in cases when the woman’s life / or irreparable damage might occur.
And all irrelevant to the point made.
 
The SC does not protect. They make a judgement. Abortion could be made legal. After that it is up to Congress or some other legislative body body to actively protect.
Doh!

Their action is one of protection of the individual right to privacy.
 
Doh!

Their action is one of protection of the individual right to privacy.

I think that weaver2 was pointing out that states are passings laws that put more and more restrictions on women seeking an abortion In hopes of getting an abortion case to the SC.

Anti abortion/ pro choice advocates are hoping a new Supreme Court would would review a case that overturn Roe vs Wade.
 
Last edited:
Aren't most of the abortion threads posed by conservatives:
Is the normally developing ZEF alive?
Is the "It's my body , it's my choice" a good argument?
Lies of abortion supporters
Elective abortion limits
etc. simply opportunities for anti-abortion advocates to explain why they have the right to intervene and interfere in other people's most intimate and private lives?
I just find it amusing that they are willing to have government interfere with a woman’s body…but when it comes to taking a vaccine, suddenly the government are a bunch of fascists….
 
And all irrelevant to the point made.

When I read your post I thought you implied that when Roe vs Wade protected legal abortions before viability the government’s actual interest was either to increase or decrease the population.

I was pointing out that The Roe vs Wade decision was that legal abortions protected a right to privacy between the woman and her doctor , regarding a woman’s pregnancy.

Here was your quote.

Either position one takes is fine depending on which type of society they want to live in.

To one side here, it is an innocent life/person deserving of governmental protection.
To the other side it is not, and the person it resides in is more deserving of governmental protection to rid themselves of it if they so choose.

Personally I do not believe the a government has any actual interest in the issue unless it can establish a need to increase/decrease it population.
 
I just find it amusing that they are willing to have government interfere with a woman’s body…but when it comes to taking a vaccine, suddenly the government are a bunch of fascists….
Logic and relevancy are not the strong suite of people that believe in virgin birth, stolen elections, ending taxation, the glory of war and the Rapture.
 
Just like when the state says it's a crime for you to kill my dog against my will, but it's not a crime for her to be killed (humanely) with my authorization.

Your comparison isn’t valid. You can’t “murder” a dog, at least not in a legal sense.

Also, the state is equivocating. How can a person “murder” a “human being” that has no rights? For that matter, when have we seen an instance of a human being that has no rights? Do we now have two classes of human beings, those with rights and those without?
 
Your comparison isn’t valid. You can’t “murder” a dog, at least not in a legal sense.

Also, the state is equivocating. How can a person “murder” a “human being” that has no rights? For that matter, when have we seen an instance of a human being that has no rights? Do we now have two classes of human beings, those with rights and those without?
Yep. 2 classes
 
Yep. 2 classes

So the “murdered” human being with rights. and the “murdered” human being with no rights. Thanks to you as well for helping me make my case:

Doublethink: the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.
 
Your comparison isn’t valid. You can’t “murder” a dog, at least not in a legal sense.

Also, the state is equivocating. How can a person “murder” a “human being” that has no rights? For that matter, when have we seen an instance of a human being that has no rights? Do we now have two classes of human beings, those with rights and those without?
How can someone 'murder' a fetus and then the mother terminate it legally? This is specified in all such legislation.

It's feel-good legislation that hasnt been challenged in the higher courts because no one wants to challenge it. IMO most of us are happy to see someone penalized as much as possible for robbing a mother/couple of a greatly anticipated family member. If a law isnt challenged as unconstitutional, it stands. 🤷

In reality, these courts are indeed treating the unborn similar to property. As I wrote, they're basing the charges on the harm to the mother/couple and sometimes the state. Pets and livestock have no rights, they cannot be murdered, but if someone ELSE kills them, the state acts on behalf of the owners who have been harmed. Nowhere in any of that legislation are rights recognized for the unborn. If you disagree, you'll need to find that and link to it.
 
I think that weaver2 was pointing out that states are passings laws that put more and more restrictions on women seeking an abortion In hopes of getting an abortion case to the SC.

Anti abortion/ pro choice advocates are hoping a new Supreme Court would would review a case that overturn Roe vs Wade.
*sigh*
Obviously you both are not getting the gist of what I originally stated.
I am not positive, but I think part of the problem here is that y'all are used to arguing this issue and are expecting an argument and not just a factual observation.

Here was your quote.

Either position one takes is fine depending on which type of society they want to live in.

To one side here, it is an innocent life/person deserving of governmental protection.
To the other side it is not, and the person it resides in is more deserving of governmental protection to rid themselves of it if they so choose.


Personally I do not believe the a government has any actual interest in the issue unless it can establish a need to increase/decrease it population.
Yes, thank you. I am not the one have a hard time understanding what I said.
You see the last sentence which I intentionally decreased in size? Ignore it for the moment.

To the emboldened portion of what I said.
I spoke of two sides. Both sides are using the government (regardless of the branch) to try and obtain it's objectives.
It doesn't matter if it is one side attempting to or actually obtaining a judicial decision, or another attempting to or actually getting legislation passed. Both sides are doing so to protect their position.

I then closed with the last sentence stating my personal belief regarding when a gov should be involved. Which is clearly disconnected from the two sides previously mentioned and should have been regarded as just someone stating a personal belief.


The abortion issue is going to be around as long as society exists.
One side will always be for, and another against regardless of any judicial decision or legislation.
 
So the “murdered” human being with rights. and the “murdered” human being with no rights. Thanks to you as well for helping me make my case:
Case for what? It's perfectly legal
 
Your comparison isn’t valid. You can’t “murder” a dog, at least not in a legal sense.

Also, the state is equivocating. How can a person “murder” a “human being” that has no rights? For that matter, when have we seen an instance of a human being that has no rights? Do we now have two classes of human beings, those with rights and those without?
Murder is a crime, so it's a valid analogy.

Zefs are not human beings. FACT. They cannot be murdered in my country. Your country is the same one that elected trump. 'Nuff said.
 
Your comparison isn’t valid. You can’t “murder” a dog, at least not in a legal sense.

Also, the state is equivocating. How can a person “murder” a “human being” that has no rights? For that matter, when have we seen an instance of a human being that has no rights? Do we now have two classes of human beings, those with rights and those without?

An unborn is not a human being , an unborn is not a person, an unborn is not a child, an unborn is not an individual .
An unborn has no rights and a animal has no rights.

U.S. Code § 8.“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

U.S. Code
(a)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.


The state is not being evasive because they made it clear that a fetus was not a human being if someone killed a fetus with malace or forethought that person could be charged with (second degree ) murder.

State feticide laws were designed to protect the interests of the pregnant woman and her family.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Pro-choice is technically the conservative position, since it opposes government intervention in private matters, but cons have swallowed the Kool Aid and conflate a 12-week old ZEF with a toddler pedaling a trike.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
 
Yes. Pro-choice is technically the conservative position, since it opposes government intervention in private matters,

So you're conservative in terms of abortion?
 
Your comparison isn’t valid. You can’t “murder” a dog, at least not in a legal sense.

Also, the state is equivocating. How can a person “murder” a “human being” that has no rights? For that matter, when have we seen an instance of a human being that has no rights? Do we now have two classes of human beings, those with rights and those without?

Individuals have rights. Fetuses have no rights.

Bolded: you can’t be charged with murdering a fetus either. So I”m sure you don’t like this argument anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom