• 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!

Abortion Is Against Science And Common Sense, Its Murder

Re: You need to look @ each state

States have laws that can protect animals.

Animals have no rights but laws can protect them.

Same for the fetus. It has no rights.

Roe determined a fetus does not have rights but they also had to consider some states wanted to protect a future citizen.

Therefore in Roe the Justices had to protect the doctors and woman’s right to privacy and the states right to protect a future citizen.

They decided the state could take a compelling interest in protecting the future citizen at viability.

In feticide cases ( and the UVVA ) the woman and state ( Federal government ) share the same interest in protecting the future citizen.

You're all over the place with this.
Try and read what I wrote instead of moving the goal posts.
I'm not talking about abortion/Roe vs. Wade but you already this.

I have to wonder why you are digging your heels in over a great federal law/29 state laws that protects a child inutero from acts of violence; murder...The laws say a fetus has LEGAL RIGHTS.

At any rate, I am done here.

Geeezus.:roll:
 
Re: You need to look @ each state

You're all over the place with this.
Try and read what I wrote instead of moving the goal posts.
I'm not talking about abortion/Roe vs. Wade.

Geeezus.:roll:
wow thats the biggest facepalm ever . . . its hilarious though none the less

you just made it even worse and exposed how monumentally and factually uneducated you are on this topic.
Minni was telling you what the laws and court decisions are BASED on . . their ORIGIN . . . . .nothing you posted supports your claim . . .
 
Re: You need to look @ each state

At any rate, I am done here.

youve been done many posts ago you just didnt know it, good move, run away and move on before the ass whoppin' your posts have taken gets any worse (though i dont think thats possible, it was brutal)
 
Data, data, data

:doh Read my posts. Laci and Connor were murdered in CA.

I am talking about my state; CA. CA. is among 29 states protecting the rights of unborn fetuses.

Laci and Connor's law is also a federal law; The Unborn Victims of Violence Act; https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.pdf

Bush Signs '''Laci and Conner'''s Law''' | Fox News

Yah. This source says there are 38 states with fetal homicide laws, as of May 2018: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

& the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is federal law, yes, which means it only applies to federal cases. TMK, & I can't find that that law was applied in the Peterson case, he was only charged under CA law. It was an ugly crime.

Do these state laws protect ... the rights of unborn fetuses? That's not clear - they allow the state (under varying circumstances, as I've noted) to prosecute qualifying cases of fetal homicide. But to me that doesn't sound like the states in question assign rights to the fetus. If the fetus in question meets the requirements of the statute, then the state can prosecute the charge that applies in the death of the fetus.
 
Re: Data, data, data

Yah. This source says there are 38 states with fetal homicide laws, as of May 2018: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

& the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is federal law, yes, which means it only applies to federal cases. TMK, & I can't find that that law was applied in the Peterson case, he was only charged under CA law. It was an ugly crime.

Do these state laws protect ... the rights of unborn fetuses? That's not clear - they allow the state (under varying circumstances, as I've noted) to prosecute qualifying cases of fetal homicide. But to me that doesn't sound like the states in question assign rights to the fetus. If the fetus in question meets the requirements of the statute, then the state can prosecute the charge that applies in the death of the fetus.

Cal. Penal Code § 187 (a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought.

Codes Display Text

Fetal homicide laws by state:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
 
Re: You need to look @ each state

You're all over the place with this.
Try and read what I wrote instead of moving the goal posts.
I'm not talking about abortion/Roe vs. Wade but you already this.

I have to wonder why you are digging your heels in over a great federal law/29 state laws that protects a child inutero from acts of violence; murder...The laws say a fetus has LEGAL RIGHTS.

At any rate, I am done here.

Geeezus.:roll:

No, I was explaining why states have rights but a fetus has no rights.
 
Re: You need to look @ each state

:doh Read my posts. Laci and Connor were murdered in CA.
I am talking about my state; CA. CA. is among 29 states protecting the rights of unborn fetuses.
Repeating the same ignorant and moronic crap does not magically make it true or relevant. The word "right(s)" does not appear anywhere in the law. Read the ****ing law and have the words explained to you if you still have difficulty understanding them.
 
You have no argument. You lost the argument when you claimed a fetus has no rights when I clearly showed you that the state of CA. proved your nonsense wrong; Conner Peterson.
What do you think PRO-choice means? A pg. woman, a woman named Laci Peterson, who had already declared that her choice to direct her own reproductive autonomy (the very reason for Roe vs Wade exists btw) has had her decision stomped out by a murderer, and you are seriously going to tell me that her unborn child has NO rights? In your dreams.

He's right. Zefs have no rights. Just because a fetus is killed against the woman's wishes does not mean it has rights. It's illegal for you to kill my dog against my wishes, but animals do not have rights.
 
Re: You need to look @ each state

No, I was explaining why states have rights but a fetus has no rights.

Mansplain it... MANSPLAIN IT!!
 
Re: You need to look @ each state

Mansplain it... MANSPLAIN IT!!

Since I am a she, I will give the floor to AGENT J and southwest88 to MANSLAIN IT.
 
Re: He ain't heavy

So, 1. How much has Saybie's care cost so far, from her mother's hospitalization to date? (& if Saybie has ongoing issues [likely], those costs are going to continue to pile up. Possibly, they'll get worse as they go - it's unexplored country, because Saybie weighed so little @ birth.)

2. What is the total budget for ObGyn services (NICU, ventilators, 24-hour nurses, doctors on call, meds, monitors, etc.) across the US?

3. If you divide the figure from #1 into the figure for #2, you'll know approximately how many children like Saybie (with a similar expenditure per child, @ least) the country can afford.

On pre-term birth, see Preterm Birth | Maternal and Infant Health | Reproductive Health | CDC

On preterm birth costs, see The impact of premature birth on society | March of Dimes

"How much does premature birth cost society?

"In 2007, the Institute of Medicine reported that the cost associated with premature birth in the United States was $26.2 billion each year. Here’s how the numbers add up:

- $16.9 billion in medical and health care costs for the baby
- $1.9 billion in labor and delivery costs for mom
- $611 million for early intervention services. These are programs for children from birth to age 3 with disabilities and developmental delays. They help children learn physical, thinking, communicating, social and self-help skills that normally develop before age 3.
- $1.1 billion for special education services. These services are specially designed for children with disabilities ages 3 through 21. They help children with development and learning. Children can get these services at school, at home, in hospitals and in other places, as needed.
- $5.7 billion in lost work and pay for people born prematurely"

(My emphasis - more information @ the URL)

Plus noted impacts to the child's performance @ school, the child's prospects for work, & possible impacts to SSI. In 2007, the March of Dimes noted 1 in 10 births in the US were premature.

You're absolutely right; we need to put a price tag on life. My aunt died yesterday at 101 yrs old. For the past 30 years she's just been sucking up those health care dollars.
 
Well, when you ask a question that implies that I believe a fetus has no value as life, expect me to take it personally.

I might as well ask you "have you stopped beating your wife".

Perhaps next time ask a question that does not assume facts not in evidence. Especially if it is pointed at an individual.

Now might I value my fetus differently than another woman? Sure. I would not expect a woman who faced my complications to wait until she was in the throws of death to make a decision to abort. Women who have unwanted pregnancy usually do not have the exceptional resources that I did. I took a calculated risk to remain pregnant. Women with poor fiscal, social. and medical resources may decide that remaining pregnant could make them housing and health insecure and choose to value their own life over that of their fetus. It is not my judgement to make. I cannot choose how she values her life and how it relates to that of her fetus. I do not pretend to know what her personal, financial, social, and medical resources she has to remain pregnant.

There is nothing wrong with a woman valuing her life over that of her fetus. A woman acknowledging she lacks the multiple resources need to maintain a secure and healthy pregnancy and to still keep a roof over her head and care for her born children is just a slice of reality.

Then within the frame of your own choosing. I would suggest not in becoming pregnant, if you know that you can't support having a child in the first place.
 
So you wish to put woman/couple in jail for 20 years or more because she has an early abortion?

Do you realize over 60 percent of women who have abortions are already raising at least 1 child ( some have more than 1).

That means those children will become motherless/parentless.

Taxpayers will stuck paying for jail time plus for the cost of foster care for each child.

In 2006 the cost of foster care was $40,000 per year , per child.

Then those women would need to be responsible adults and not get pregnant, or use other forms of contraceptives to keep such an event from happening. This isn't exactly rocket science here.
 
While pregnant, a woman basically has ownership of the fetus until such a time that the fetus has a chance of surviving unaided outside the body.

I would agree to that, though such a presumption also brings with it that the fetus has no value as a life all it's own.
 
It is clear you do not understand the meaning of Bodily autonomy.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.

At a certain point I would be willing to agree. However the mother does have the problem of having someone else's body under their care, and that does mean that the body within "that" care is that of their child.

So you're saying that the mother has the power to deem whether the child's life has value as a living being, or just a possession?
 
I would agree to that, though such a presumption also brings with it that the fetus has no value as a life all it's own.

False. It merely does not have the rights of a person.
 
So you're saying that the mother has the power to deem whether the child's life has value as a living being, or just a possession?

The absolutism is your own and serves as a strawman. To not have the rights of a person, and to be aborted, is not to have "no value".
 
1.) never said it was . . please dont start with even more stupid lies and even dumber strawmen that AGAIN wont hide the reality that your statement was factually wrong and you can't support it. WHile greatly entertaining it only makes your posts fail even worse.

2.) not needed since it a meanignless strawman to the discussion and it failed like the rest of your posts.

this is failed and factually wrong claim that you have yet to support


Please explain and let us know when you can show how they can be factually separated, thanks!

And there we go. You were asked for proof of anything that you're claiming and you ran away at the first drop of a hat.

The usual crap from you as always J. Not that I'm surprised.
Let me know when you can actually support your own arguments and not try to argue with school yard tactics.
 
The absolutism is your own and serves as a strawman. To not have the rights of a person, and to be aborted, is not to have "no value".

Without differentiations, your argument seems rather moot.
 
It's idiotic to equate "not a person" and "no value". I tried to help you.

No, you're giving up and running away.

I'm asking a simple question. Phrasing it better might help, if that is what you'd like?

How can someone be a person, yet their life have no value, In a country where our legal system protects people and not just life?
This same protection extends to animals as well, yes. But a woman does not grow an animal in her womb.

Acknowledging that the fetus is a person with a life all their own, or at least will be when given enough time and care. Is not that hard of a leap to take.
 
Back
Top Bottom