You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

year2late said:

Sincerely meant to stroke your own ego and not actually do anything more practical. You must know in your heart that your vitriolic rhetoric serves to dissuade those that might actually want to understand.

Click to expand...

My rhetoric is logical and that logic is consistent. If you have a better argument present it.

There is no way to persuade some people. In this case, there is a self-serving reason.

I said what I said and I meant it; killing your own kid for personal gain puts you beyond any moral event horizon. That was said in general about anyone who might do such a thing.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Lursa said:

I dont know, I think it simply comes down to a ****load of ignorance (many pro-lifers believe things like PP promotes abortion, that abortion causes the unborn pain, that late term abortions are common and elective, that partial birth abortion is still a legitimate procedure, etc) They all *choose* (IMO) to believe the most egregious things in order to keep their self-righteousness stoked to high pitch.

I believe it simply comes down to most of them valuing the unborn more than individual women...and those that claim differently are lying (except as applied to their own personal behavior re: abortion)...because factually, legally and practically...they cannot be treated equally.

And just IMO, I dont see them as equal myself. I am honest when I say I value women more.


And then there is also this, which I think is truly proof:

Lursa said:

Because the unborn are not yet complete, have yet to develop the attributes beyond DNA that will make them *more* than human and may not even survive to be born to do so (15-20% are miscarried). They have not achieved the physical and mental attributes that do contribute to the status of born people as 'persons' under the law. It's not necessarily negative or positive....just fact. Until birth or at least viability, the unborn are less. To compare born persons to the unborn is to imply the born are 'less' as well.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

ellesdee said:

I've also found this to be the case. If you're pro-choice, you're painted in the worst possible light, as you describe above. We're murderous liars, selfish and cold-hearted. Nevermind that you may only support abortion as a choice for others and not yourself. Nevermind you may never have had an abortion yourself. Nevermind that for those of us who have had abortions, it was not an easy decision and often does haunt them for a long time... You're pro-choice? You're a murderer. You're selfish.

Blah, blah, blah. And that's what their argument is reduced to... oh, and fetuses... lots of pictures of dead fetuses.

That's why I don't even take them seriously anymore. I just mock them mostly because they've had 50 years to come up with a better argument. They were blathering about murder 50 years ago and nobody bought it. Now they're still tossing around the same old crap, still wondering why no one's paying attention.

Click to expand...

You'll note no pro-life people responded to refute that post either.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

year2late said:

And wait until social services insists that the dad help support.....that will drive the rest of them nuts.

Click to expand...

There are some pro-life posters, who display incredible hypocrisy on this issue....they would have forced that couple to have the kid if they had that power (which I'm sure they dream of) and then if they also had the power, deny them those publicly-funded social services, like welfare and food stamps. Mr. Ellesdee, my heart goes out to you and your wife on your difficult decision that, as we do point out here often, was the right decision for you. The poster disrespecting you so completely is also completely against providing public assistance....such people would see ALL suffer, child, parents, etc. That makes no sense to the rational.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Lursa said:

There are some pro-life posters, who display incredible hypocrisy on this issue

Click to expand...

Another stupid and demonstrable lie.

Opposition to socialist schemes and opposition to abortion are in no way positions at odds with one another.

Furthermore, neither a pro- nor an anti- position on one topic necessitates any particular pro- or anti- position stance on the other.

They are distinct issues.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Removable Mind said:

We'll have to disagree on the "right to life". Sorry, it's not legislatively or Constitutionally possible. And if it existed somehow as a stand alone Amendment, life as we know it would be very, very different.

Click to expand...

I would say that women having the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness must come with the presumption that humans have physical autonomy and would mean that nobody else has a right to threaten or take their life. Thus, a fetus does not have the right to threaten or take the life of a woman. I defend the right of women to defend themselves from spontaneous accidents of biology that threaten them and I do NOT recognize that fetuses have any rights under our constitution because there must be a rational beginning to personhood and the constitutional protections that come with it. Birth is the only rational beginning that I can imagine, as to accept that life, liberty and happiness are foundational rights and desires of humans, we cannot define as "human" anything that is incapable of these things and who, as an immutable fact of their existence, threatens those things for another who IS capable of those things.

We both end up in the same place, defending abortion rights, but I think when we say there is no right to live, the constitution fails to serve humans on the most basic level and contradicts the idea that inspired its creation.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

D_NATURED said:

Thus, a fetus does not have the right to threaten or take the life of a woman.

Click to expand...

The percentage of abortion victims that are in any way, albeit indirectly and unintentionally, doing so, is so abysmally low that this is the rankest of misleading hyperbole on your part.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

JayDubya said:

The percentage of abortion victims that are in any way, albeit indirectly and unintentionally, doing so, is so abysmally low that this is the rankest of misleading hyperbole on your part.

Click to expand...

If you believe that 87,000 women in the US every yr that die or suffer severe health consequences (stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, etc) from pregnancy and abortion are so insignificant, I can only thank you for once again demonstrating how you do not value women and certainly value the unborn more.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Lursa said:

If you believe that 87,000 women in the US every yr that die or suffer severe health consequences (stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, etc) from pregnancy and abortion are so insignificant, I can only thank you for once again demonstrating how you do not value women and certainly value the unborn more.

Click to expand...

Thank you for demonstrating your failure to understand statistics.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

JayDubya said:

Thank you for demonstrating your failure to understand statistics.

Click to expand...

Oh I'm well aware that you place the value of the unborn, dehumanized to numbers in your claim, as more than that of the women that actually suffer and die from real conditions and harm. I see people suffering, I see reality. You fantasize about unborn that suffer nothing.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

JayDubya said:

Thank you for demonstrating your failure to understand statistics.

Click to expand...

btw, for that to be a valid statistical claim, it would need to be between 'equal' things. The born and unborn are not equal. Not physiologically, mentally, or legally.

Again, your claim demonstrated that you do not value the lives of those 87,000 equally with the unborn, but as less.

At least I am honest enough to state that I do value all born people more.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Lursa said:

Oh I'm well aware that you place the value of the unborn, dehumanized to numbers in your claim, as more than that of the women that actually suffer and die from real conditions and harm. I see people suffering, I see reality. You fantasize about unborn that suffer nothing.

Click to expand...

Then you are aware of nothing in this regard other than your own misconceptions and hallucinations.

Your callous disregard for human beings who are victims of violence is noted, as always.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Lursa said:

At least I am honest enough to state that I do value all born people more.

Click to expand...

I am honest in my condemnation of such bigotry. All human beings are created equal. I do not support discrimination like you do.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

JayDubya said:

I am honest in my condemnation of such bigotry. All human beings are created equal. I do not support discrimination like you do.

Click to expand...

Who says?

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

D_NATURED said:

I would say that women having the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness must come with the presumption that humans have physical autonomy and would mean that nobody else has a right to threaten or take their life. Thus, a fetus does not have the right to threaten or take the life of a woman. I defend the right of women to defend themselves from spontaneous accidents of biology that threaten them and I do NOT recognize that fetuses have any rights under our constitution because there must be a rational beginning to personhood and the constitutional protections that come with it. Birth is the only rational beginning that I can imagine, as to accept that life, liberty and happiness are foundational rights and desires of humans, we cannot define as "human" anything that is incapable of these things and who, as an immutable fact of their existence, threatens those things for another who IS capable of those things.

We both end up in the same place, defending abortion rights, but I think when we say there is no right to live, the constitution fails to serve humans on the most basic level and contradicts the idea that inspired its creation.

Click to expand...

I understand your presumption. But if there was a stand-alone "Right to Life Amendment", you can take it to the bank that Pro-Life Advocates would run, not walk, to the S.C. screaming that life begins at conception. And they wouldn't be wrong.

And how would such a Right be worded in a Constitutional Amendment? That it only applies to born persons?

1) Then what's government going to do with sending Americans into harm's way, to potentially be killed? Is this an exclusion from the Amendment?

2) How will law enforcement do its job without ever having to ability use lethal force should an imminent threat be imposed on other citizens or even law enforcement? Will they be exempt in the Amendment?

3) Could people use lethal weapons to protect their family and property from unauthorized intrusion from criminals? Would this be excluded?

4) Would people who carry money or gold or diamonds...like Armored Car companies and business owners not be able to carry and use lethal weapons to protect themselves and the treasure that they're protecting? So should this be exclude from the the "Right to Life Amendment".

5) State executions would be illegal...period. States couldn't make legislative decisions to allow or disallow for the death penalty.

And I could go on with other examples.

Laws define inappropriate behaviors along with a parameter of consequences.

HOWEVER: Despite all of the legislated laws and all of the religious tenets about unjustly killing other people - they don't prevent people who, for whatever reason, kill other people. Not even the threat of the death penalty stops people who are compelled to kill others.

In a perfect world, I might agree with you, but we're not even close to being that world. But hopefully you understand my points. My position is: No person should be unjustly killed. No person should be able to kill a fetus during the commission of a crime and not be punished.

Thanks...

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

JayDubya said:

The percentage of abortion victims that are in any way, albeit indirectly and unintentionally, doing so, is so abysmally low that this is the rankest of misleading hyperbole on your part.

Click to expand...

What percentage of home intruders have to kill the owners for the owners to be able to use deadly force to defend their lives, family and property? That's the funny thing, I've never known anyone who was killed by an intruder but I've known two women who died in birth.

This is a glaring point of inconsistency for the right to deny so vehemently. Why can't you just accept that your opinion is full of dogma and apathy toward women? It's clear to everyone else.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Removable Mind said:

I understand your presumption. But if there was a stand-alone "Right to Life Amendment", you can take it to the bank that Pro-Life Advocates would run, not walk, to the S.C. screaming that life begins at conception. And they wouldn't be wrong.

And how would such a Right be worded in a Constitutional Amendment? That it only applies to born persons?

1) Then what's government going to do with sending Americans into harm's way, to potentially be killed? Is this an exclusion from the Amendment?

2) How will law enforcement do its job without ever having to ability use lethal force should an imminent threat be imposed on other citizens or even law enforcement? Will they be exempt in the Amendment?

3) Could people use lethal weapons to protect their family and property from unauthorized intrusion from criminals? Would this be excluded?

4) Would people who carry money or gold or diamonds...like Armored Car companies and business owners not be able to carry and use lethal weapons to protect themselves and the treasure that they're protecting? So should this be exclude from the the "Right to Life Amendment".

5) State executions would be illegal...period. States couldn't make legislative decisions to allow or disallow for the death penalty.

And I could go on with other examples.

Laws define inappropriate behaviors along with a parameter of consequences.

HOWEVER: Despite all of the legislated laws and all of the religious tenets about unjustly killing other people - they don't prevent people who, for whatever reason, kill other people. Not even the threat of the death penalty stops people who are compelled to kill others.

In a perfect world, I might agree with you, but we're not even close to being that world. But hopefully you understand my points. My position is: No person should be unjustly killed. No person should be able to kill a fetus during the commission of a crime and not be punished.

Thanks...

Click to expand...

I know what you're saying but, if you read what I wrote, I would prefer that there be a rational definition for when a fetus becomes "a" human, deserving rights, and not just part of another previously rights-endowed woman. Like I said, being unable to enjoy liberty, because fetuses are NOT free when they are trapped inside another, and in recognition of the inherent threat they pose to the lives of women, the right of self preservation for women seems an obvious way of beginning to establish the rules of abortion rights. If women aren't allowed to defend themselves from ALL physical threats, then women are NOT free, after all. That is the harsh truth that the right must contend with in their zeal to protect fetuses. To do so, they must enslave women.

Obviously, some don't give a **** if women die by the hangar. They see it as the just deserts for those not equally enchanted by fetus-worship. Those kinds of people (I won't mention the name) are dangerously deluded and, in a perfect world, would go extinct through non-contact with females who would rightfully exclude these throwbacks from the gene pool.

When you say "no person should be able to kill a fetus...", I hope you mean that the fetus is the physical property of the woman who bears it and nobody should be able to legally deprive her of that property without punishment. I am very much against the idea that someone who causes the death of a fetus is a murderer. That term should be reserved for the unlawful death of an actual person with actual rights.

It's a horrible thing for a woman to lose a wanted fetus. It's a worse thing for society to allow women to die so that they can ironically defend fetuses in principle. The farthest I will go is to grant life to a fetus when it's mother has already died. No longer posing a threat to the woman, the attempt should be made to save it. As long as she is alive, the fetus is hers to grant or deny life.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

D_NATURED said:

I know what you're saying but, if you read what I wrote, I would prefer that there be a rational definition for when a fetus becomes "a" human, deserving rights, and not just part of another previously rights-endowed woman. Like I said, being unable to enjoy liberty, because fetuses are NOT free when they are trapped inside another, and in recognition of the inherent threat they pose to the lives of women, the right of self preservation for women seems an obvious way of beginning to establish the rules of abortion rights. If women aren't allowed to defend themselves from ALL physical threats, then women are NOT free, after all. That is the harsh truth that the right must contend with in their zeal to protect fetuses. To do so, they must enslave women.

Obviously, some don't give a **** if women die by the hangar. They see it as the just deserts for those not equally enchanted by fetus-worship. Those kinds of people (I won't mention the name) are dangerously deluded and, in a perfect world, would go extinct through non-contact with females who would rightfully exclude these throwbacks from the gene pool.

When you say "no person should be able to kill a fetus...", I hope you mean that the fetus is the physical property of the woman who bears it and nobody should be able to legally deprive her of that property without punishment. I am very much against the idea that someone who causes the death of a fetus is a murderer. That term should be reserved for the unlawful death of an actual person with actual rights.

It's a horrible thing for a woman to lose a wanted fetus. It's a worse thing for society to allow women to die so that they can ironically defend fetuses in principle. The farthest I will go is to grant life to a fetus when it's mother has already died. No longer posing a threat to the woman, the attempt should be made to save it. As long as she is alive, the fetus is hers to grant or deny life.

Click to expand...

D...I can't think of any post you've ever made that I held any difference with. Well, except with the "right to life" issue. I'm with you...on everything you've posted. It's now law that says if for instance a woman is murdered, which causes the death of a fetus simultaneously, then the person can be charged with two murders. If a person purposely kills a fetus in the womb to avoid responsibility or to punish or emotionally damage the woman who hosts its presents - that is a crime that is labeled as murder.

So, the following is the definition that pro-life advocates despise perhaps more than all others, which is currently not only federal statute, but states are compelled to use the same language when creating legislation that involves the yet to be born:

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

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(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.

(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

Click to expand...

It is this definition that stands between Roe v Wade and those who want to dismantle it. To make the yet to be born a legal person would create havoc in our society. The publications that now sit in the Library of Congress alone, which contains the definitions above, would cost untold billions to alter. Our courtrooms would be backed up for years. Abortion would be illegal for women even if their lives were at stake. The unintended consequences are many and a number of them would impact men.

So, I'm with you, brother...

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Removable Mind said:

No, the state can't ban abortion. Roe v Wade makes that clear.

Click to expand...

you didn't read what I wrote.

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Thrilla said:

you didn't read what I wrote.

Click to expand...

Lo Siento, Amigo...what'd ya say? Or mean?

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Removable Mind said:

So, the following is the definition that pro-life advocates despise perhaps more than all others, which is currently not only federal statute, but states are compelled to use the same language when creating legislation that involves the yet to be born:


It is this definition that stands between Roe v Wade and those who want to dismantle it. To make the yet to be born a legal person would create havoc in our society. The publications that now sit in the Library of Congress alone, which contains the definitions above, would cost untold billions to alter. Our courtrooms would be backed up for years. Abortion would be illegal for women even if their lives were at stake. The unintended consequences are many and a number of them would impact men.

So, I'm with you, brother...

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment. I guess what I was trying to articulate was the idea that women should have a right to live first and, as such, should have the right to abort their fetus, as it poses a very real existential threat. If we can't guarantee the lives of women, to attempt to do so for fetuses is a cruel joke. But, the traditionalists and dogmatists who have invented fetal personhood do not drink deeply from the logic well, so to speak, and are largely a group of people with no intellectual standard for their beliefs. They rely more on their emotions around babies to inspire their actions. This gives them license to use terms like "baby killer" to describe their opponents without having to adopt the label "woman killer" in return. They get to call fetuses "innocent" without ever coming out and admitting how they unfairly judge women and sentence them to death for being raped or just for having recreational sex.

The focus of the right and their defense of life is extremely myopic and whether any of us have a right to live, the right to be dumb will never be taken from the pro-hangar crowd who use the first amendment like scripture itself, giving them the authority to believe the ridiculous in a consequence free environment.