• 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!

I Don't Get This About the Abortion Rights Debate

soylentgreen said:
Of course it is about controlling women. Blarkins every post that gives a fetus more rights than a woman proves that.
Click to expand...

I am a woman and I control my body. You are completely twisting my words and that is ignorant. My only argument is that laws are contradictory and should not be. Period. You have no clue which personal side I stand on because it makes no difference in my issue with the entire argument.
 
Blarkin said:
You are mixing up posts. I never posted that quote.
Click to expand...

Correct, my apology.

But the argument still stands. You are focusing on the woman by refusing her the right to control her own body. A right that you have. Yours is not an argument for the child, it is an argument to oppress women.
 
Blarkin said:
I am a woman and I control my body. You are completely twisting my words and that is ignorant. My only argument is that laws are contradictory and should not be. Period. You have no clue which personal side I stand on because it makes no difference in my issue with the entire argument.
Click to expand...

Yet you argue that a fetus has more rights than you. that you have not the right to decide what happens to your body. So, no you do not have control over your body if you argue a pro life stance which you are.

The laws are not contradictory. It is your insistence that a fetus has more rights than a woman that is contradictory.
 
soylentgreen said:
Yet you argue that a fetus has more rights than you. that you have not the right to decide what happens to your body. So, no you do not have control over your body if you argue a pro life stance which you are.

The laws are not contradictory. It is your insistence that a fetus has more rights than a woman that is contradictory.
Click to expand...

Let me try one last time..... I am not arguing for or against anything. I have not in any of my posts taken a side. If you read my posts, you would understand that.

My argument is absolutely concerning contradiction in laws. Which is not me being contradictory. That is what the laws are doing. Apparently, they even confuse people in threads.

I am a woman. I can have an abortion if I want to without anyone telling me what to do. If I am pregnant. My opinion concerning the worth of the life that I helped create is all that matters. It isn't worth anything as a person and it is not a good time in my life to have a child. The unborn child is eliminated by abortion. I live in a state with fetal homicide laws.

I am a woman. I do not want to have an abortion because I want this child. It is a growing life inside me and I want to protect its' life and consider it an individual that the law should protect. I am attacked and in the process my unborn child is killed. I live in a state where there are fetal homicide laws. My attacker is charged with murder for killing my child and aggravated assault on myself.

These two situations happen in the same state. One unborn child is considered an individual who was murdered. The other unborn child is not considered an individual who was murdered.

And that is what I have a problem with because it is contradictory. If one is considered an individual, then the other should be or vice versa.
 
Blarkin said:
These two situations happen in the same state. One unborn child is considered an individual who was murdered. The other unborn child is not considered an individual who was murdered.

And that is what I have a problem with because it is contradictory. If one is considered an individual, then the other should be or vice versa.
Click to expand...
This has been explained to you. The unborn are not legally individuals or persons and have no rights that are upheld. There is no right to life of theirs that is ever upheld or protected...elective abortion is legal in all 50 states.

Any action taken in fetal homicide cases is on behalf of the mother and/or state, to protect their interests to charge for their losses, not on behalf of the unborn. The loss of the unborn is treated similarly to loss of property.

Example (again): there are laws that punish livestock rustlers and pet killers that do not recognize any rights for those animals...the charges are brought on behalf of their owners, for their losses.
 
Lursa said:
This has been explained to you. The unborn are not legally individuals or persons and have no rights that are upheld. There is no right to life of theirs that is ever upheld or protected...elective abortion is legal in all 50 states.

Any action taken in fetal homicide cases is on behalf of the mother and/or state, to protect their interests to charge for their losses, not on behalf of the unborn. The loss of the unborn is treated similarly to loss of property.

Example (again): there are laws that punish livestock rustlers and pet killers that do not recognize any rights for those animals...the charges are brought on behalf of their owners, for their losses.
Click to expand...

I have provided the sources that prove your contention wrong about laws only being to protect the mother. A mother cannot be considered 2 homicides. But at this point, as you keep repeating yourself instead of actually focusing on the facts that are undoubtedly there to work with so we will just have to agree to disagree.
 
Blarkin said:
I have provided the sources that prove your contention wrong about laws only being to protect the mother. A mother cannot be considered 2 homicides. But at this point, as you keep repeating yourself instead of actually focusing on the facts that are undoubtedly there to work with so we will just have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Those sources are nothing new, Minnie and I have seen them many times.

Homicide means 'man kill' in Latin. Not all homicides are even illegal. Killing in self-defense is homicide...it's not illegal, it's not murder. And the laws protect "the interests" of the mother (or state)...the mother may be dead too.The law doesnt protect their lives...they're dead :roll: Otherwise...please tell me what the state IS "protecting" in these cases?

Again: just because charges are brought re: the unborn, it's not recognized has having any rights...that's a fact. That is no inconsistency. Why are you ignoring the example? If someone is charged for killing your dog...it doesnt mean the dog has rights. If you AND the dog are killed, then charges may be brought on behalf of your wife (in your interests), or the state. It still doesnt mean the dog has any rights :doh Sorry if you dont like it, but the charges view the unborn similar to property and damages are only considered for the mother and/or the state.
 
Last edited:
Integrityrespec said:
This is just the typical nonsense we hear from the left who want to kill babies on demand. Most opposition to most of what you are saying is by those who don't want the government liberals doing the sex educating, or forcing those opposed to birth control for religious reasons to have to participate. You just lump it all together. Sort of like abortion on demand being lumped in with mothers health.
Click to expand...

“Government liberals doing the sex educating”? What would be the difference? Would liberals preach free love and conservatives talk about the stork? And you cannot be opposed to birth control unless you know what it is. Hence sex education.
 
Lursa said:
Have seen them many times. Changes nothing in what I wrote. Please address what I wrote and explain any conflict you see between your source and what I wrote.
Click to expand...

Im sorry. I actually was not addressing your last post. I have not read it yet. I will then I will respond.
 
Blarkin said:
Im sorry. I actually was not addressing your last post. I have not read it yet. I will then I will respond.
Click to expand...

Well that was easier than I thought it was going to be. I submitted a link to all of the individual state laws. If you had read them, then you could not make those assertions because they are all very clear. States vary but many states explicitly recognize the unborn as an individual. They also specify that the only time those laws are not valid are in the cases of voluntary abortion. Specifically.

As far as the extended definition of homicide, I appreciate it but we are specifically talking about murder and not self defense.
I have not addressed your dog example because it has nothing to do with anything we are talking about besides your opinion that unborn children are property likes dogs and should be treated as such. Many states disagree with you on that point. I don't compare apples to oranges, or should I say , humans to pets. I "own" several children but I am pretty sure that killing them would be frowned upon. On the other hand, if I kill my dog, it is up in the air whether I am charged or not. But if a dog was to attack one my children, I would not hesitate to kill it and I seriously doubt I would be charged. Big difference.

I am not sure what it matters but I am a wife. I don't have one. I control my body and do not allow people to illegally infringe upon my rights. My personal opinions on abortion are just that, personal. I do not share them nor do I use them in debate settings. My arguments in this thread, again, are simply concerning the hypocrisy of our laws. I have provided the facts that undeniably show the reasoning behind my problem.

It is completely up to you whether you decide to read the laws or not, but I have provided them and they are very clear and detailed and answer all of your questions.
 
Lursa said:
Have seen them many times. Changes nothing in what I wrote. Please address what I wrote and explain any conflict you see between your source and what I wrote.
Click to expand...
My reply is below. I accidentally replied to myself. I am half asleep at this point.
 
Blarkin said:
Well that was easier than I thought it was going to be. I submitted a link to all of the individual state laws. If you had read them, then you could not make those assertions because they are all very clear. States vary but many states explicitly recognize the unborn as an individual. They also specify that the only time those laws are not valid are in the cases of voluntary abortion. Specifically.
Click to expand...
Not a single one recognizes rights. If so, please name it.

It doesnt change what I wrote a bit.

As far as the extended definition of homicide, I appreciate it but we are specifically talking about murder and not self defense.
Click to expand...

I realize you are discussing murder but you kept bringing up homicide so it was necessary to point out that it's not always even illegal.


I have not addressed your dog example because it has nothing to do with anything we are talking about besides your opinion that unborn children are property likes dogs and should be treated as such. Many states disagree with you on that point. I don't compare apples to oranges, or should I say , humans to pets. I "own" several children but I am pretty sure that killing them would be frowned upon. On the other hand, if I kill my dog, it is up in the air whether I am charged or not. But if a dog was to attack one my children, I would not hesitate to kill it and I seriously doubt I would be charged. Big difference.
Click to expand...

See, you almost had me with your being serious...and you go and write the bold, when I specifically said poor readers often did what you just did...and missed where I wrote 'legally treated similarly to property.' I never ever wrote what you said, I just drew a familiar comparison.

You let your emotions convince you to take a poorly read description as personal disparagement of the unborn...when it's not. It's just an accurate description.

Very disappointing.

It is completely up to you whether you decide to read the laws or not, but I have provided them and they are very clear and detailed and answer all of your questions.
Click to expand...

Again, I've read them, that source is not new. I'm sorry, you dont seem to understand what you've read...in that source or in my posts.
 
Blarkin said:
Well that was easier than I thought it was going to be. I submitted a link to all of the individual state laws. If you had read them, then you could not make those assertions because they are all very clear. States vary but many states explicitly recognize the unborn as an individual. They also specify that the only time those laws are not valid are in the cases of voluntary abortion. Specifically.

As far as the extended definition of homicide, I appreciate it but we are specifically talking about murder and not self defense.
I have not addressed your dog example because it has nothing to do with anything we are talking about besides your opinion that unborn children are property likes dogs and should be treated as such. Many states disagree with you on that point. I don't compare apples to oranges, or should I say , humans to pets. I "own" several children but I am pretty sure that killing them would be frowned upon. On the other hand, if I kill my dog, it is up in the air whether I am charged or not. But if a dog was to attack one my children, I would not hesitate to kill it and I seriously doubt I would be charged. Big difference.

I am not sure what it matters but I am a wife. I don't have one. I control my body and do not allow people to illegally infringe upon my rights. My personal opinions on abortion are just that, personal. I do not share them nor do I use them in debate settings. My arguments in this thread, again, are simply concerning the hypocrisy of our laws. I have provided the facts that undeniably show the reasoning behind my problem.

It is completely up to you whether you decide to read the laws or not, but I have provided them and they are very clear and detailed and answer all of your questions.
Click to expand...


Actually , California quote clearly states Defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus .

Look at the law again...

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

The law acknowledges that a fetus ( an unborn ) is not a human being according to law so they had to to specifically say of fetus in order to charge a person with the intentional killing of the fetus.

Also even state laws cannot charge a person with first degree murder of a fetus.

First degree murder charges can only be brought against a person who intentionally kills another person/individual/child/ human being..

Under US Code §8 the words person, individual, child , human being are reserved only to apply to those born.

Some states do use the term “ child in utero “ to describe an unborn but they must have the the term in utero if they use child so as not to confuse an unborn with the born.

I hope you now understand an unborn does not have rights.
 
minnie616 said:
Actually , California quote clearly states Defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus .

Look at the law again...

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

The law acknowledges that a fetus ( an unborn ) is not a human being according to law so they had to to specifically say of fetus in order to charge a person with the intentional killing of the fetus.

Also even state laws cannot charge a person with first degree murder of a fetus.

First degree murder charges can only be brought against a person who intentionally kills another person/individual/child/ human being..

Under US Code §8 the words person, individual, child , human being are reserved only to apply to those born.

Some states do use the term “ child in utero “ to describe an unborn but they must have the the term in utero if they use child so as not to confuse an unborn with the born.

I hope you now understand an unborn does not have rights.
Click to expand...


That is hilarious. I am not an opponent or proponent. My post is completely unbiased and you still refuse to acknowledge the truth about the varying state laws. That's ok. I was hoping for more than the usual smoke, but I did not expect more. Maybe someone else, who is not locked in to their personal platform will address the situation with an open mind.
 
Lursa said:
Not a single one recognizes rights. If so, please name it.

It doesnt change what I wrote a bit.



I realize you are discussing murder but you kept bringing up homicide so it was necessary to point out that it's not always even illegal.




See, you almost had me with your being serious...and you go and write the bold, when I specifically said poor readers often did what you just did...and missed where I wrote 'legally treated similarly to property.' I never ever wrote what you said, I just drew a familiar comparison.

You let your emotions convince you to take a poorly read description as personal disparagement of the unborn...when it's not. It's just an accurate description.

Very disappointing.



Again, I've read them, that source is not new. I'm sorry, you dont seem to understand what you've read...in that source or in my posts.
Click to expand...

Again, you made the comparison, not me which is why I did not address it, nor will I. I do completely understand what I have read and continue to read and what is explained by law professors very clearly. The information is there. I am posting neither for nor against. As I have already said, maybe someone without an opinionated personal platform will seriously address the issue at some point.
 
Blarkin said:
That is hilarious. I am not an opponent or proponent. My post is completely unbiased and you still refuse to acknowledge the truth about the varying state laws. That's ok. I was hoping for more than the usual smoke, but I did not expect more. Maybe someone else, who is not locked in to their personal platform will address the situation with an open mind.
Click to expand...

I was being serious.i was trying to explain to explain feticide laws to you by using the California feticide law as an example.


It is a fact an unborn has no rights.

Feticide laws may protect the fetus but it uses state laws to protect the non person.

A fetus even when protected by the state is not protected because of any rights.

Look up the Scott Perterson case. He was charged with second degree murder of the unborn.

The murder of a fetus in California is not the same as the murder of a human being/born person.
 
Last edited:
Blarkin said:
Again, you made the comparison, not me which is why I did not address it, nor will I. I do completely understand what I have read and continue to read and what is explained by law professors very clearly. The information is there. I am posting neither for nor against. As I have already said, maybe someone without an opinionated personal platform will seriously address the issue at some point.
Click to expand...

I am glad that you understand what your law professors taught you.

I have discussed Roe and state feticide laws and the Scott Peterson murder case with my cousin who was ( he is retired now ) a Federal Court Judge so I too have discussed the laws regarding state feticide laws with someone very knowledgeable about laws and any rights we have.
 
Blarkin said:
Let me try one last time..... I am not arguing for or against anything. I have not in any of my posts taken a side. If you read my posts, you would understand that.

My argument is absolutely concerning contradiction in laws. Which is not me being contradictory. That is what the laws are doing. Apparently, they even confuse people in threads.

I am a woman. I can have an abortion if I want to without anyone telling me what to do. If I am pregnant. My opinion concerning the worth of the life that I helped create is all that matters. It isn't worth anything as a person and it is not a good time in my life to have a child. The unborn child is eliminated by abortion. I live in a state with fetal homicide laws.

I am a woman. I do not want to have an abortion because I want this child. It is a growing life inside me and I want to protect its' life and consider it an individual that the law should protect. I am attacked and in the process my unborn child is killed. I live in a state where there are fetal homicide laws. My attacker is charged with murder for killing my child and aggravated assault on myself.

These two situations happen in the same state. One unborn child is considered an individual who was murdered. The other unborn child is not considered an individual who was murdered.

And that is what I have a problem with because it is contradictory. If one is considered an individual, then the other should be or vice versa.
Click to expand...

As i have said, the law is not contradictory. It is your opinion that abortion is about the life of an unborn child that is skewering the view.

Abortion is not about the life of a fetus. It is about the right of women to bodily autonomy and having the right to choose what happens to their body. When a woman decides to have an abortion that is her exercising her right to decide what happens to her body. When she is attacked by an assailant that is her right being taken away from her. An illegal act.

There is no contradiction with the law. There is only you falsely claiming a fetus has greater rights than the right of a woman.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
I am glad that you understand what your law professors taught you.

I have discussed Roe and state feticide laws and the Scott Peterson murder case with my cousin who was ( he is retired now ) a Federal Court Judge so I too have discussed the laws regarding state feticide laws with someone very knowledgeable about laws and any rights we have.
Click to expand...

I do not have law professors. I just ensure that I am researching all aspects, including other legal decisions and law briefs from across the country.

So then you understand my contention that, even though no one wants to address it, there is in fact contradiction in state laws when it comes to the consideration of a unborn child's individualism, separate and additional to that of a woman. No one wants to address it because then they would have to address the collapse clause of Roe v. Wade. This has been shot down every time it has been brought up but as viability changes and medicine evolves, Roe actually starts to become shaky.

In states, including California, legal challenges that have been brought to fight fetal homicide laws based on Roe v Wade have been completely rejected and the charges upheld each time. So they are saying the arguments are apples to oranges when it comes to abortion and fetal homicide laws. In reality, in my contention, they are not apples to oranges as they both address the exact same issue which is not the acts of abortion or murder, but the same individual subject being aborted or murdered.

I am just looking for opinions as to how these issues should or could be addressed, not a personal opinion of what may be wrong or right about the idea of abortion itself.
 
Blarkin said:
That is hilarious. I am not an opponent or proponent. My post is completely unbiased and you still refuse to acknowledge the truth about the varying state laws. That's ok. I was hoping for more than the usual smoke, but I did not expect more. Maybe someone else, who is not locked in to their personal platform will address the situation with an open mind.
Click to expand...
Blarkin said:
Again, you made the comparison, not me which is why I did not address it, nor will I. I do completely understand what I have read and continue to read and what is explained by law professors very clearly. The information is there. I am posting neither for nor against. As I have already said, maybe someone without an opinionated personal platform will seriously address the issue at some point.
Click to expand...

Please, your bias is very clear.

And no, apparently you are not understanding what you read. The unborn have no rights. This is a legal fact.

Even if a state chose to declare it, SCOTUS decisions (federal level) have determined this. The states cannot make laws that do not conform to the Const. (well they can but they get overturned...see: all the laws to restrict abortion that were made last yr. Every single one blocked as unConstitutional, some already overturned, and not one has been enacted as far as I know). State laws do not overrule the what's set forth in the Const.

You keep objecting to what we have explained, but again, the unborn have no rights.

There is no contradiction...where can a parent kill a child legally and yet if anyone else kills it, they are charged with murder? No state. The child has a right to life (and other rights).

Yet women may have an abortion anytime and not be charged, yet in some states there are legal penalties for destroying what is hers (fetal homicide). Those legal penalties in no way equal recognizing rights for the unborn, it has no right to life. The woman and/or state has a legal right to redress, penalties are in their interests.

Your own interpretations of the law are not holding up to reality, and will not, just because you Wan...t them to. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
I was being serious.i was trying to explain to explain feticide laws to you by using the California feticide law as an example.


It is a fact an unborn has no rights.

Feticide laws may protect the fetus but it uses state laws to protect the non person.

A fetus even when protected by the state is not protected because of any rights.

Look up the Scott Perterson case. He was charged with second degree murder of the unborn.

The murder of a fetus in California is not the same as the murder of a human being/born person.
Click to expand...

Thank you, the bold is about as succinct and accurate as you can get.

Laws protect lots of things...public land, personal property, etc...and those things do not have rights.
 
Lursa said:
Please, your bias is very clear.

And no, apparently you are not understanding what you read. The unborn have no rights. This is a legal fact.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that like it is permanent.

Given your vehemence on this issue it would strongly suggests that even you believe that might change in the future.
 
Dayton3 said:
You keep saying that like it is permanent.

Given your vehemence on this issue it would strongly suggests that even you believe that might change in the future.
Click to expand...

I've answered that before. It's my goal to make sure we never get far enough down that road paved to the Dark Ages by keeping the facts out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom