What's wrong with everybody choosing what is best for their situation.

[Atreus21]

So you dont understand RvW either. You are woefully unprepared for discussing this issue. Do you think that overturning RvW bans elective abortion in the US?

No. But overturning it removes the primary impediment to passing laws enshrining rights for the unborn.

So if those laws were passed, would your support for abortion cease as those legal rights would now exist?

 

[NolanVoyd]

Supported. Sex ed and cheap contraception for everyone. Which is pretty much what we have right now.



I don't just want it reduced. I want it outlawed for the same reason I want murder outlawed.

The current state of sex ed is wholly inadequate, especially in red states, which have much higher teen pregnancy rates than blue states.

And even with quality sex ed and birth control there will still be times when abortion should be a choice.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

passing laws enshrining rights for the unborn.

You are utterly ignorant of the US constitution, aren't you?

 

[Atreus21]

The current state of sex ed is wholly inadequate, especially in red states, which have much higher teen pregnancy rates than blue states.

And even with quality sex ed and birth control there will still be times when abortion should be a choice.

Right. Which gives up the whole game. Even if we had perfect sex ed and contraception, most pro-choicers would still argue that abortion needs to remain legal.

 

[Lursa]

No. But overturning it removes the primary impediment to passing laws enshrining rights for the unborn.

Nope, it has ZERO to do with recognizing rights for the unborn. Not a single thing.

It just allows states to regulate the abortion procedure. RvW recognizes a right to abortion....that's all. It requires something entirely different for states to recognize rights for the unborn...and I already posted the Constitutional reason why, as well as SCOTUS precedent.

So if those laws were passed, would your support for abortion cease as those legal rights would now exist?

Of course not and again, overturning RvW doesnt mean that states can recognize rights for the unborn. LOLOLOLOL

It's sad that you are so poorly informed that you dont understand the legal basics of this issue.

 

[Atreus21]

You are utterly ignorant of the US constitution, aren't you?

Could be. I don't need to be a legal scholar to say that deliberately killing the unborn should be illegal.

 

[Lursa]

Could be. I don't need to be a legal scholar to say that deliberately killing the unborn should be illegal.

Why should it be illegal? Just because of your feelings? Your beliefs?

 

[Atreus21]

Of course not and again, overturning RvW doesnt mean that states can recognize rights for the unborn. LOLOLOLOL

It's sad that you are so poorly informed that you dont understand the legal basics of this issue.

You said: "What authority has said that the unborn have rights? Please source. I'll wait."

You also said: "If you want to ban elective abortions, the legal aspects are the ONLY ones that matter."

And yet if laws were passed which established those legal rights for the unborn which you previously said are all that matter, you'd still support abortion?

Can you explain that inconsistency?

 

[Atreus21]

Why should it be illegal? Just because of your feelings? Your beliefs?

For the same reason murder should be illegal. Do you think murder should be illegal?

 

[Lursa]

You said: "What authority has said that the unborn have rights? Please source. I'll wait."

You also said: "If you want to ban elective abortions, the legal aspects are the ONLY ones that matter."

And yet if laws were passed which established those legal rights for the unborn which you previously said are all that matter, you'd still support abortion?

Can you explain that inconsistency?

Laws dont supersede the Constitution. I'm sorry you dont understand that.

That's why laws are challenged in the courts.

And of course I'll always support a woman's right to abortion. Tell me...what laws recognize rights for...anything?

That's right, they dont. You have it backwards. Rights are recognized in the Const and interpreted by SCOTUS in decisions based on the Const. Laws may not be unconstitutional. Again, please take some civics courses...you are wasting my time.

 

[Lursa]

For the same reason murder should be illegal. Do you think murder should be illegal?

Of course murder should be illegal.

Who's rights are violated when there's a murder? The person's rights.

The unborn have no rights. They are not persons. However in order to prevent abortion OR to force women to have abortions...either way...a person's rights are violated: the woman's.

I posted the exact text for you from SCOTUS. Post 214. And you either didnt read it or were unable to understand it. Which is it?

 

[Lursa]

You said: "What authority has said that the unborn have rights? Please source. I'll wait."

Yes I did. Now please answer it before asking any more questions of you own.

 

[Atreus21]

Laws dont supersede the Constitution. I'm sorry you dont understand that.

That's why laws are challenged in the courts.

And of course I'll always support a woman's right to abortion. Tell me...what laws recognize rights for...anything?

That's right, they dont. You have it backwards. Rights are recognized in the Const and interpreted by SCOTUS in decisions based on the Const. Laws may not be unconstitutional. Again, please take some civics courses...you are wasting my time.

Okay, so:

You said: "What authority has said that the unborn have rights? Please source. I'll wait."

You also said: "If you want to ban elective abortions, the legal aspects are the ONLY ones that matter."

And yet if the constitution were amended to establish those legal rights for the unborn which you previously said are all that matter, you'd still support abortion?

Can you explain that inconsistency?

 

[Lursa]

Okay, so:

You said: "What authority has said that the unborn have rights? Please source. I'll wait."

You also said: "If you want to ban elective abortions, the legal aspects are the ONLY ones that matter."

And yet if the constitution were amended to establish those legal rights for the unborn which you previously said are all that matter, you'd still support abortion?

Can you explain that inconsistency?

Of course. What makes you think the Const would be amended to do so? It's not possible to treat born and unborn equally under the law. If it can be, please explain how, with a foundation in the law.

Then, when you realize that one or the other's (unborns or women's) rights would be superseded by such an idea...explain why, under the Balancing Rights principle, Congress would choose to recognize rights for the unborn while relegating women back to 2nd class citizens again? How that would be justified, legally?

Let's see if you've thought this thru at all, or it's just some emotional fantasy of yours?

 

[Atreus21]

Of course murder should be illegal.

Who's rights are violated when there's a murder? The person's rights.

The unborn have no rights. They are not persons.

Right. They should be. That's the whole argument. They're human beings, and they should have the same right to life as other human beings.

I posted the exact text for you from SCOTUS. Post 214. And you either didnt read it or were unable to understand it. Which is it?

I didn't read it, because what's legal is not relevant. The legality of abortion is precisely what we're trying to change.

 

[Lursa]

Right. They should be. That's the whole argument. They're human beings, and they should have the same right to life as other human beings.

I didn't read it, because what's legal is not relevant. The legality of abortion is precisely what we're trying to change.

As previously proven, by sourced legal code, the unborn are not persons. They are not murdered. Do you have a reading impediment?

Of course legality is relevant...you cannot ban elective abortion without laws. Only a 4 year old would imagine that in the US, we'd invent entirely new rights and laws out of thin air, and ignore the Const. Esp. new rights that would violate those of the current citizens, persons, living in the US. Legal justification is required...where would you find that...out of thin air?

Now...what authority says that the unborn have rights? I'm still waiting.

 

[Atreus21]

Of course. What makes you think the Const would be amended to do so? It's not possible to treat born and unborn equally under the law. If it can be, please explain how, with a foundation in the law.

If it comes to that, it's not possible to treat two born people exactly equally under the law. I'm not after exact equality. I'm after the unborn being given the most fundamental of human rights - not to be killed.

Then, when you realize that one or the other's (unborns or women's) rights would be superseded by such an idea...explain why, under the Balancing Rights principle, Congress would choose to recognize rights for the unborn while relegating women back to 2nd class citizens again? How that would be justified, legally?

It would be justified on the claim that the right to life is paramount over all others, and may not be taken from someone without a very good reason, like self-defense. For example, I'm not justified in killing a thief by invoking my right to private property. If he tried to kill me, that would be a different matter.

 

[Atreus21]

As previously proven, by sourced legal code, the unborn are not persons. They are not murdered. Do you have a reading impediment?

Are you absolutely determined to misunderstand my constant response to this? I know they're not legal "persons." That's the whole problem that pro-lifers want changed.

Of course legality is relevant...you cannot ban elective abortion without laws.

The present legality of abortion is not relevant, because we want it changed.

"We want to make slavery illegal."

"You can't. Slavery is legal."

Only a 4 year old would imagine that in the US, we'd invent entirely new rights and laws out of thin air, and ignore the Const. Esp. new rights that would violate those of the current citizens, persons, living in the US. Legal justification is required...where would you find that...out of thin air?

If we can make rights to gay marriage, we can make rights for the unborn.

Now...what authority says that the unborn have rights? I'm still waiting.

You're still waiting? I answered you like 8 posts ago. If we are successful, state laws will. The federal government will. The constitution will.

 

[Lursa]

If it comes to that, it's not possible to treat two born people exactly equally under the law. I'm not after exact equality. I'm after the unborn being given the most fundamental of human rights - not to be killed.

Cool beans....good luck with your immoral choice...since the unborn suffer nothing, while women would.

It will be interesting to see how that play out...with the unborn persons paying no taxes and the women no longer of equal status to men and the unborn. Seems like sci-fi to me

It would be justified on the claim that the right to life is paramount over all others, and may not be taken from someone without a very good reason, like self-defense. For example, I'm not justified in killing a thief by invoking my right to private property. If he tried to kill me, that would be a different matter.

And yet, no one recognizes any rights for the unborn...what makes you think they will? If that was done, it would mean women would be 2nd class citizens and no longer contributing to society and the economy as much. Why would SCOTUS or Congress to in that direction?

 

[Lursa]

Are you absolutely determined to misunderstand my constant response to this? I know they're not legal "persons." That's the whole problem that pro-lifers want changed.

You have provided zero legal justification to do so. Free blacks were already recognized as persons. "Slaves" was a legal status. That legal status was done away with and no one else's rights were violated in doing so.

That's much different than recognizing rights for something inside a person who already has rights

The present legality of abortion is not relevant, because we want it changed.

"We want to make slavery illegal."

"You can't. Slavery is legal."

Refuted above.

If we can make rights to gay marriage, we can make rights for the unborn.

Whose rights do gay marriage violate?

You're still waiting? I answered you like 8 posts ago. If we are successful, state laws will. The federal government will. The constitution will.

No, that's your fantasy that isnt founded in any legal reality.

I can write, "I want unicorns to have rights"...should anyone find that valid? Of course not. That's how ridiculous your 'arguments' come across...they ignore the Const and the legal foundations of our laws.

 

[Gordy327]

Uh, yeah. There is.

This is a child. Anyone who says it isn't is either blind or lying.

View attachment 67381371



Emotional manipulation? What's emotional about it?

It's a fetus, not a child. Simple scientific fact.

 

[American]

Letting each person, each family, each man and women work out their reproductive lives privately seems like a reasonable philosophy. Those that need to end a a pregnancy that will be devastating to a family are free to do so. Those that consider abortion a sin are free to eshew abortions and bring a child into this world. Everybody gets to pick the action that is best for them and their families.

So why do conservative religious groups want to make everybody follow their single set of rules, rules that don't allow for individual situations, privacy, personal needs or personal freedom. If you think one group can control the private lives of others defend your thoughts with reliable sources keeping in mind that your God (if you believe in God) is not the same as the God pro-choice people believe in. .

Why do liberals love abortions?

 

[Gordy327]

Right. Which gives up the whole game. Even if we had perfect sex ed and contraception, most pro-choicers would still argue that abortion needs to remain legal.

Of course abortion needs to remain legal, no matter how much unwanted pregnancies decrease or not. No method of contraception is perfect.

 

[aociswundumho]

Why do liberals love abortions?

For the same reason Margaret Sanger started "The Negro Project". White liberals know that black women have the highest rate of abortions.

 

[Gordy327]

For the same reason Margaret Sanger started "The Negro Project". White liberals know that black women have the highest rate of abortions.

So? Are they being forced to have abortions or are they choosing to have them?