• 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!

Arkansas to ban abortion at 12 weeks, earliest in nation [W:1036:1154]

I don't say "don't tell me what I can do with my body" because I know the right to privacy is not about what a person can do with their body. The right to privacy is about reproductive rights so your analogy that it is the equivalent of someone saying " don't tell me I can't shoot some random dude with my gun" is just wrong.

Oh so shooting someone in the privacy of their own home is fine with you using your flawed logic.

A fetus is an individual NOT a body part. There is nothing private about that. Abortion has absolutely NOTHING to do with an individuals right to privacy.

What about that fetuses right to live?
 
What the hell are you talking about?

Do you not understand what "reasonable doubt" means? it means doubt that an individual violated the law - the law that is truth.

No, the law is not Truth

It's almost like you're trying to argue law is theory or really doesn't exist.

Here is absolute truth. 720 ILCS 5 - that is the criminal code for Second Degree Murder in Illinois. That code exists, hence it is the truth.

[/quote]

No, 720 ILCS 5 is not "Absolute Truth"

Existence does not make something "Absolute Truth". Lies exist. Lies are the opposite of "Absolute Truth"
 
Oh so shooting someone in the privacy of their own home is fine with you using your flawed logic.

A fetus is an individual NOT a body part. There is nothing private about that. Abortion has absolutely NOTHING to do with an individuals right to privacy.

What about that fetuses right to live?

A fetis has no right to live. Only a person has such a right and a fetus is not a person, as the word is used in the constitution
 
Since I've never said anything about what I believe concerning right and wrong, it would be your dishonest argument that is the problem, coupled with your continued reliance on ad hom arguments, which are inherently fallacious.

Do you seriously believe what you type?

Are really trying to imply murder is a fallacy?

My argument is against your justification of abortion - not you.

Furthermore, every time progressives like you get the business spit at you - you start deflecting the facts with your ad hominem mirror.

Do you have any idea how many times I have been through this stage of debate with a progressive?

Everything from here on out will - in your mind - be a personal attack or a fallacy...
 
Do you seriously believe what you type?

Are really trying to imply murder is a fallacy?

My argument is against your justification of abortion - not you.

Furthermore, ever time progressives like you get the business spit at you - you start deflecting the facts with your ad hominem mirror.

Do you have any idea how many times I have been through this stage of debate with a progressive?

Everything from here on out will in your mind be a personal attack or a fallacy...

The fact is that for several posts in a row you have presented no factual argument relating to abortion, and have made several ad hom arguments.
 
A fetis has no right to live. Only a person has such a right and a fetus is not a person, as the word is used in the constitution

A fetus is a person and an individual. You have no damn proof to prove otherwise.

I was due on October 12th, I was born on September 17th - does that not make me valid as a human because I wasn't birthed on time? or was I only valid on October 12th or later?
 
WHen it comes to what the law is, it most certainly does matter.

You free to hold opinions on matters of truth. There's nothing wrong with that (quite the opposite in fact). However, we live in a nation whose laws are determined by a legal document known as the constitution, and not by some random individuals philosophical beliefs.

BTW, as a factual matter, one need not show when something was created in order to prove that it exists. One need to show proof that it exists. Let me know when you can prove that a "moment of conception" actually exists. The scientific evidence proves that conception is a process, with no clear moment that can be used to mark its' beginning.

What is the constitution but a group of individuals philosophical beliefs? Have you gone absolute on me now?
Random or not, the constitution is simply a group of people's best stab at discerning Truth, at best. And we have seen that often is wasn't a very good stab, or at least it's interpretation and implementation were not.

So now you are trying to take us from the discussion about when an unborn child actually becomes human, to the idea that conception itself is some nebulous process for which we can't fix a precise point. Why the shift?
You haven't yet provided an argument to my point that because we can't define when an unborn child becomes human, we should err on the side of caution and call it at conception. Now you want to equivocate on the point of conception?
As the tail may wag their dog, so the dishonest persons conclusions must wag their facts.


“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George
 
... Abortion has absolutely NOTHING to do with an individuals right to privacy.

Abortion does have something to do with an individuals right to privacy.

I think perhaps you do not understand what right to privacy is really about:

From this article:
Right of privacy: personal autonomy

The right of privacy has evolved to protect the freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to perform certain acts or subject themselves to certain experiences. This personal autonomy has grown into a 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
However, this liberty is narrowly defined and generally only protects privacy of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.
There have been attempts to further extend the right of privacy under the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; however, a general right to personal autonomy has yet to take hold beyond limited circumstances.

The personal autonomy dimension of the right of privacy has been overwhelmingly developed in cases dealing with reproductive rights.
The Supreme Court first recognized an independent right of privacy within the 'penumbra' (fringe area) of the Bill of Rights in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). In this case, a right of marital privacy was invoked to void a law prohibiting contraception. Later cases expanded upon this fundamental right, and in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the right of privacy was firmly established under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court classified this right as fundamental, thus requiring any governmental infringement to be justified by a compelling state interest.
Roe held that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability.

Before viability, it was held, the mother's liberty of personal privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.


Personal Autonomy | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
A fetis has no right to live. Only a person has such a right and a fetus is not a person, as the word is used in the constitution

You have said (If I remember correctly from your post) that a child is not a person until it is born. Is that your personal belief, or is that simply the law as it exists today, or both?
 
The fact is that for several posts in a row you have presented no factual argument relating to abortion, and have made several ad hom arguments.

Here is fact - abortion meets the criteria of first degree murder.

Funny how someone can be charged with murder for shooting or punching a pregnant woman in the stomach, however that same woman on that same day could go get an abortion and it's perfectly fine... If a "fetus" isn't human, than how can the criminal system charge someone with murder? oh yeah, because the only thing that matters in that instance is NOT weather the fetus was valid but its about weather or not the mother wanted the baby.

See how that works?

You have anything to say about that?
 
Abortion does have something to do with an individuals right to privacy.

I think perhaps you do not understand what right to privacy is really about:

From this article:


Personal Autonomy | LII / Legal Information Institute

Abortion has nothing to do with privacy - there is absolutely nothing private about it considering we're talking about TWO individuals (one wanting to murder the other).

If someone wanted to mutilate themselves I could care less - THAT would be a privacy issue, however murdering someone is NOT a privacy issue. Attempting to portray abortion as a "privacy issue" is nothing more than a lame attempt to justify murder. That's what people want to do - justify abortion my any and all means necessary.

Calling abortion a privacy issue is like putting a mask over the criminals face. It doesn't change the fact it's wrong it just cloaks it in mystery.
 
...

Funny how someone can be charged with murder for shooting or punching a pregnant woman in the stomach, however that same woman on that same day could go get an abortion and it's perfectly fine... If a "fetus" isn't human, than how can the criminal system charge someone with murder? oh yeah, because the only thing that matters in that instance is NOT weather the fetus was valid but its about weather or not the mother wanted the baby.

See how that works?

You have anything to say about that?

Some states have feticide laws but that does not mean a fetus is a person.
All those feticide laws do allow for legal abortions.
Roe vs Wade is a federal law and is the law of the land so the state feticide laws had to exempt legal abortion or those laws would have been struck down very quickly.
 
A fetis has no right to live. Only a person has such a right and a fetus is not a person, as the word is used in the constitution

There have been many homicide charges brought upon those that have cause the intentional death of an unborn child, some even for the unintentional death of an unborn child.

13-1105 - First degree murder; classification

Wisconsin Legislature: 940.02

FETAL HOMICIDE: Pennsylvania's Crimes Against the Unborn Child Law

720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 2012.

Bill Text 24th Legislature

List of punishments for murder in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You have said (If I remember correctly from your post) that a child is not a person until it is born. Is that your personal belief, or is that simply the law as it exists today, or both?

That's why I used my birth date as an example. I was born 4 weeks early, does that not make me a person? I mean I didn't come out when I was supposed to... Obviously I survived but using his logic it would have been ok to abort me because I wasn't a "person" when I was born on September 17th and not October 12th.
 
You have said (If I remember correctly from your post) that a child is not a person until it is born. Is that your personal belief, or is that simply the law as it exists today, or both?
Actually a fetus is not person / baby/ child until it born. Once it becomes viaible it becomes a " potential person" as defined by
Roe vs Wade.
 
Some states have feticide laws but that does not mean a fetus is a person.
All those feticide laws do allow for legal abortions.
Roe vs Wade is a federal law and is the law of the land so the state feticide laws had to exempt legal abortion or those laws would have been struck down very quickly.

Well apparently a fetus is an individual if someone is charged with murder for murdering a fetus. How can a person be charged with killing another person if that said person is not a person?

So in other words a person is only a person in the womb only if the mother wants the child. If she doesn't want the child that child is not a person.... Yeah got it!
 
Actually a fetus is not person / baby/ child until it born. Once it becomes viaible it becomes a " potential person" as defined by
Roe vs Wade.

I don't care how many scholars thought that and think that - it's a total load of crap.

Woman can feel the baby moving and kicking - that "fetus" is a person and I could care less about people who say otherwise because they're only lying to themselves and they know it which makes them fools.
 
Abortion has nothing to do with privacy - there is absolutely nothing private about it considering we're talking about TWO individuals...

I disagree. I believe it is a privacy issue as it does have to with motherhood and procreation.
No woman should ever be forced to risk their health and possibly their life to gestate and give birth.
I will not support a law or a country that would force a woman to give birth.
On the other side of the coin...
I will not support a law or a country that would force a woman to have an abortion.
 
I disagree. I believe it is a privacy issue as it does have to with motherhood and procreation.
No woman should ever be forced to risk their health and possibly their life to gestate and give birth.
I will not support a law or a country that would force a woman to give birth.
On the other side of the coin...
I will not support a law or a country that would force a woman to have an abortion.

Do you agree that a mother and child are two different individuals?

So what gives the mother the right to kill a completely separate individual?

This has absolutely nothing to do with privacy.

I have no problem with abortions in life or death situations like ectopic pregnancies and such.
 
Actually a fetus is not person / baby/ child until it born. Once it becomes viaible it becomes a " potential person" as defined by
Roe vs Wade.

That does not make it Truth, that makes it law. There is a difference. Understand that and you'll get somewhere.
 
That's why I used my birth date as an example. I was born 4 weeks early, does that not make me a person? I mean I didn't come out when I was supposed to... Obviously I survived but using his logic it would have been ok to abort me because I wasn't a "person" when I was born on September 17th and not October 12th.

The day you were born you became a person.
Even premies who are born two months or more early are persons. Your argument is invalid.

Abortions after the limit of viability are very rare.
Only .08 percent of all abortions in this country take place after 24 weeks gestation ( which is the limit of viability).

They are the extreme cases. The cases where the woman's life is at risk or where irreparable damage to a major bodily function would take place if the pregnancy were allowed to continue, where the fetus died a natural death in the womb and it was not expelled ( yes, the removal of dead fetus and the fetal material is called an abortion and would counted in .08 percent if it was removed after the 24 week gestation mark) the cases where the fetus would be stillborn or is so malformed it will only live a few minutes or hours.

There were 323 legal abortions in Kansas in 2008 that took place after 22 weeks gestation.
191 of those of fetuses were not viaible. They had died in the womb, would be stillborn or were so deformed they would only live a few hours or minutes.
131 of those abortions were because irreparable damage to a major bodily function would take place if the pregnancy were allowed to continue. Those cases were extreme cases.
 
Well apparently a fetus is an individual if someone is charged with murder for murdering a fetus. How can a person be charged with killing another person if that said person is not a person?

So in other words a person is only a person in the womb only if the mother wants the child. If she doesn't want the child that child is not a person.... Yeah got it!

They did not kill a person.

They are charged with killing a fetus...it is feticide.
 
Do you agree that a mother and child are two different individuals?

So what gives the mother the right to kill a completely separate individual?

This has absolutely nothing to do with privacy.

I have no problem with abortions in life or death situations like ectopic pregnancies and such.

A mother and a child are two individuals but a woman and the fetus are not two separate entities until birth.

I had 6 pregnancies and I have 4 children. I know the difference between a fetus and a child.
 
Last edited:
As I said before...the woman has a right to privacy. Women have to right to control reproductivity. It really is not about PROPERTY.
It is not about her owning her body.
I think that is where your confusion lies.

there is no confusion,.........you own you.

the government does not own you, you are not property of the state.

to have reproductive rights as you say, means you have control of your body, and no other person or entity does,........ before you are your own property.
 
For one thing, you haven't been shy about asking people questions about matters they didn't raise in the first place, so you really aren't in a good place to object when someone does the same to you.

For another, unlike your questions, which seem to be more related to your interest in constitutional theory, my question is directly related to the matter at hand (ie abortion)

With that said, I do appreciate your taking the time to try and answer my question



I have seen you argue (and correct me if I've misunderstood you) that the fed govt only has those powers which the constitution has explicitely delegated to it. However, no matter how hard I look, I can't find anything in the constitution which says that the govt has been given the power to regulate abortion. Considering the possibility that I have overlooked it, I am asking you to please locate and identify the passage which grants our govt this power.

While I do (again) appreciate your taking the time to respond, I did not ask you to outline your reasoning for why you think the govt has (or does not have) the power to regulate abortion. What I did ask was for you to quote from the Constitution where it authorizes the govt to regulate abortion.

for some REASON you keep ASSOCIATING ME WITH HAVING SAID GOVERNMENT CAN BAN OR REGULATE ABORTION, AND I NEVER<--------- MADE SUCH A STATEMENT...........AT ALL.........I STATED VOTING WAS REGULATED BY THE FOUNDERS.

so you need to get you statements tied to the correct person that made them..........because i never did.
 
Back
Top Bottom