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

[Gordy327]

You conceived six children and lost two of them to natural causes.

Utterly independent of political discussions, I'm sorry to hear that.

No, she conceived 6 zygotes, successfully gestated 4 of them, and miscarried 2 embryos/fetuses.

 

[Lursa]

No it isn't. You can legally kill your children before they're born.

There is no child before birth. And you know that. Your cheap attempt at emotional manipulation shows you dont have any real argument beyond 'your feelings.'

Thanks, but I'll respect the individual women's needs over your 'feelings.'

 

[Lursa]

Right. And Nazis said these weren't people.

View attachment 67381292

Slavers said these were not people.

View attachment 67381293

Now pro-choicers say these are not people:

View attachment 67381294

Do you guys really want to keep such company?

LMAO Nothing like proving my point 100%:

There is no child before birth. And you know that. Your cheap attempt at emotional manipulation shows you dont have any real argument beyond 'your feelings.'​

​

Thanks, but I'll respect the individual women's needs over your 'feelings.'​

 

[Bodi]

Leftists want virtually every part of our lives regulated by the state

That is ridiculous.

 

[Bodi]

Godwin's Law.

Nazi's use Godwin's Law when losing a debate.

 

[NolanVoyd]

You said support for abortion would drop if women had easy affordable access to contraceptives. So - if they did, would you oppose abortion?

My suspicion is, no, you would continue to support abortion even if those conditions were met. Is that not so?

If the goal is to reduce the number of abortions dramatically then the obvious solution is sex ed and easy access to contraception.

That will do far more to reduce numbers than making it illegal will.

 

[weaver2]

You said support for abortion would drop if women had easy affordable access to contraceptives. So - if they did, would you oppose abortion?

My suspicion is, no, you would continue to support abortion even if those conditions were met. Is that not so?

Tell me again what game we are playing: Twister Semantics or Hypothetical Futures or some combination of both. I lose track of anti-abortion games.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Nazi's use Godwin's Law when losing a debate.

Prove it.

 

[Bodi]

Prove it.

Prove that my joke that you did not get was funny?

 

[yankintx]

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. .

Because when it comes to freedom of choice and abortion the Right are fascist.

 

[Atreus21]

There is no child before birth.

Uh, yeah. There is.

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

And you know that. Your cheap attempt at emotional manipulation shows you dont have any real argument beyond 'your feelings.'

Emotional manipulation? What's emotional about it?

 

[Atreus21]

LMAO Nothing like proving my point 100%:

There is no child before birth. And you know that. Your cheap attempt at emotional manipulation shows you dont have any real argument beyond 'your feelings.'​

​

Thanks, but I'll respect the individual women's needs over your 'feelings.'​

You're comfortable using the dehumanizing arguments of the worst human rights abusers in history?

 

[Lursa]

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 you that are emotionally deluded.

It's not a child. It's a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus. I'm sorry that you didnt do well in biology classes but we classify the stages of human life in biology...and also legally.

If you dont want to accept reality...that's fine, that's up to you. Lord knows we're all glad that you dont have the power to impose that ignorance on women.

 

[Lursa]

You're comfortable using the dehumanizing arguments of the worst human rights abusers in history?

It's a human...where did I ever said it wasnt? It just doesnt have the same equal status as born people. And that's based on the Constitution and pretty much every SCOTUS decision ever.

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

While I'm waiting, I'll just pop these in here, from my OneNote:

14th Amendment:​

​

Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.​

--and--

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""​

​

--and--

​

The Supreme Court’s abortion rulings include four principal elements: 1. The unborn child is a non-person and therefore has no constitutional rights; 2. The right of his mother to kill that non-person is a “ liberty Charles E. Rice 3 interest” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3. The states may impose some marginal restrictions on abortion but are barred from effectively prohibiting abortion at any stage of pregnancy; 4. Efforts undertaken in the vicinity of an abortuary to dissuade women from abortion are subject to more stringent restrictions than are other forms of speech, assembly and association.​

​

http://www.uffl.org/vol%209/rice9.pdf

--and then of course, law based on those decisions:

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

​

(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.​

​

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

 

[Atreus21]

Tell me again what game we are playing: Twister Semantics or Hypothetical Futures or some combination of both. I lose track of anti-abortion games.

The game is called, "You said support for abortion would drop if women had easy affordable access to contraceptives. So - if they did, would you oppose abortion?"

 

[Atreus21]

It's you that are emotionally deluded.

It's not a child. It's a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus. I'm sorry that you didnt do well in biology classes but we classify the stages of human life in biology...and also legally.

It's not a child. It's an infant.

It's not a child. It's a kid.

It's not a child. It's a baby.

Are you done with semantics? Is this really your argument?

Child has multiple definitions. The unborn certainly qualify to be described as children.

 

[Lursa]

It's not a child. It's an infant.

It's not a child. It's a kid.

It's not a child. It's a baby.

Are you done with semantics? Is this really your argument?

Child has multiple definitions. The unborn certainly qualify to be described as children.

Well that was a waste of time. I posted the actual legal definitions that matter. You did not refute them in any way. You posted 'your feelings.' That's nice.

The only definitions that do matter are the legal ones, I'm sorry you dont get that. And of course, they dont qualify as 'children' except in your self-indulgent, rather disturbing need to fantasize that about the unborn in the wombs of women you dont even know.

 

[Atreus21]

It's a human...where did I ever said it wasnt? It just doesnt have the same equal status as born people. And that's based on the Constitution and pretty much every SCOTUS decision ever.

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

If the pro-life movement succeeds, many state governments and hopefully the federal government.

While I'm waiting, I'll just pop these in here, from my OneNote:

14th Amendment:​

​

Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.​

--and--

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""​

​

--and--

​

The Supreme Court’s abortion rulings include four principal elements: 1. The unborn child is a non-person and therefore has no constitutional rights; 2. The right of his mother to kill that non-person is a “ liberty Charles E. Rice 3 interest” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3. The states may impose some marginal restrictions on abortion but are barred from effectively prohibiting abortion at any stage of pregnancy; 4. Efforts undertaken in the vicinity of an abortuary to dissuade women from abortion are subject to more stringent restrictions than are other forms of speech, assembly and association.​

​

http://www.uffl.org/vol%209/rice9.pdf

--and then of course, law based on those decisions:

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

​

(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.​

​

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

I never understood this argument. It's like citing Dred Scott to an abolitionist.

We don't need proof that fetuses aren't legally recognized as human beings. We know it. That's what we're trying to change.

 

[Atreus21]

Well that was a waste of time. I posted the actual legal definitions that matter. You did not refute them in any way. You posted 'your feelings.' That's nice.

We're not talking in strictly legal terms. Child has no legal definition. What feelings are you talking about?

The only definitions that do matter are the legal ones, I'm sorry you dont get that. And of course, they dont qualify as 'children' except in your self-indulgent, rather disturbing need to fantasize that about the unborn in the wombs of women you dont even know.

Wrong. If I passed a law which legally made blacks non-human, black people wouldn't become non-human.

 

[NolanVoyd]

If the pro-life movement succeeds, many state governments and hopefully the federal government.



I never understood this argument. It's like citing Dred Scott to an abolitionist.

We don't need proof that fetuses aren't legally recognized as human beings. We know it. That's what we're trying to change.

If you really want to drastically reduce abortion numbers why not support sex ed and readily available contraception?

That will do much more to reduce abortion numbers than making it illegal will.

 

[Lursa]

If the pro-life movement succeeds, many state governments and hopefully the federal government.

Well since the Const clearly says otherwise (and you dont seem able to handle that, lol) and SCOTUS have all ruled otherwise, it seems like a silly pipe dream. There's no legal foundation.

I never understood this argument. It's like citing Dred Scott to an abolitionist.

I realize you dont understand it. But there are more than 10 precedents that support such decisions...it's not some standalone like Dred Scott.

Perhaps you need additional civics classes?

We don't need proof that fetuses aren't legally recognized as human beings. We know it. That's what we're trying to change.

It doesnt matter that they're human beings. Science is also not an authority. What rights does science recognize? List them for me?

What sciences are "you" going to change that recognizes rights for Homo sapiens but not other species? How will ya'll explain that? I cant wait to hear!

 

[Atreus21]

If you really want to drastically reduce abortion numbers why not support sex ed and readily available contraception?

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

That will do much more to reduce abortion numbers than making it illegal will.

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

 

[Atreus21]

Well since the Const clearly says otherwise (and you dont seem able to handle that, lol) and SCOTUS have all ruled otherwise, it seems like a silly pipe dream. There's no legal foundation.




I realize you dont understand it. But there are more than 10 precedents that support such decisions...it's not some standalone like Dred Scott.

Perhaps you need additional civics classes?




It doesnt matter that they're human beings. Science is also not an authority. What rights does science recognize? List them for me?

What sciences are "you" going to change that recognizes rights for Homo sapiens but not other species? How will ya'll explain that? I cant wait to hear!

If Roe is overturned and those legal rights established for the unborn, I presume your support for abortion will cease, correct? That seems consistent with your absolute reliance on legality.

 

[Lursa]

We're not talking in strictly legal terms. Child has no legal definition. What feelings are you talking about?

If you want to ban elective abortions, the legal aspects are the ONLY ones that matter.

And I posted the federal definition of 'child' in the US Code. Jeebus, Mary, and Joe Cocker.

Wrong. If I passed a law which legally made blacks non-human, black people wouldn't become non-human.

Correct. It would also have nothing to do with their rights. Biological classification is not the same as legal status. See post 221.

 

[Lursa]

If Roe is overturned and those legal rights established for the unborn, I presume your support for abortion will cease, correct? That seems consistent with your absolute reliance on legality.

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?