• 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

Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you've never made that claim before. Oh well, goalpost shift if you wish.
 
Dayton3 said:
Pretty sure you've never made that claim before. Oh well, goalpost shift if you wish.
Click to expand...

Not a claim, I have explained it even recently.

Dont care if you believe me, I havent seen you believe much truth or fact on a rational basis.

edit: :lamo:lamo It's right here, posts 7 & 9 of YOUR OWN OP! :lamo

So much for you being able to critically assess 'new information.'
 
Last edited:
Blarkin said:
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.
Click to expand...

No I don’t understand your contention.

There are differences in state laws regarding animal cruelty. Some include all animals.
Some states only include domestic pets.

Some states have different laws regarding farm animals than regarding pets.

Perhaps you could study those laws.

But I will give you a big hint.

None of those state laws give rights to any animals. They are all states rights laws...The right of a state to make laws protecting non persons.
 
soylentgreen said:
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.
Click to expand...

wow. When did I say that? I didn't.
 
minnie616 said:
No I don’t understand your contention.

There are differences in state laws regarding animal cruelty. Some include all animals.
Some states only include domestic pets.

Some states have different laws regarding farm animals than regarding pets.

Perhaps you could study those laws.

But I will give you a big hint.

None of those state laws give rights to any animals. They are all states rights laws...The right of a state to make laws protecting non persons.
Click to expand...

This gets better and better. Wow.
 
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.

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:
Click to expand...

Alabama- Code 13a-6-1: amended code to include.."an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability, as a "person" and "human being" for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault" Amended 2006

Alaska- establishes the crimes of "murder of an unborn child", "manslaughter of an unborn child" criminally negligent homicide of an unborn child" and "assault of an unborn child". Statutes 11.81.900(b) defines "unborn child" as "a member of species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Arizona- The "unborn child in the womb at any stage of it's development" is fully covered by the state's murder and manslaughter statutes. For purposes of establishing level of punishment, a victim who is "an unborn child shall be treated like a minor who is under twelve years of age." Senate bill 1052 signed into law in 2005 with additional revised statutes.

Arkansas- Effective in August 2013, the killing of an "unborn child" is capital murder, murder in the first degree, manslaughter or negligent homicide. Defines "unborn child as "offspring of human beings from conception until birth" Updated 2013

Florida- The Florida Unborn Victims of Violence Act became effective in 2014. Provides that any person who while committing a crime"causes the death of or bodily injury to, an unborn child commits a separate offense" and that the punishment "is the same as the punishment provided... had the injury or death occurred to the mother of the unborn child," except that the death penalty may not be imposed. The law defines "unborn child" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb". Florida statutes section 775.021

30 states have full-coverage laws which recognize unborn children as victims throughout the period of prenatal development. There are 8 more that have partial coverage laws.

Full Coverage States
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin

Partial Coverage States
California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Washington.
 
Blarkin said:
wow. When did I say that? I didn't.
Click to expand...

Quite a few times. Every time you argue that an unborn has rights. Which you have done. The corollary of your premise must be that the fetus has a greater right to life than a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body.
 
soylentgreen said:
Quite a few times. Every time you argue that an unborn has rights. Which you have done. The corollary of your premise must be that the fetus has a greater right to life than a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body.
Click to expand...

If you actually read my posts, you would know that I am talking about state laws and their wording, not any opinion of mine in that area. My only shared opinion is that our laws are contradictory in 38 states to the claim that no law recognizes the unborn as an individual. I do not share my own emotionally driven opinion concerning "right" or "wrong" in these threads. Not a single time. I have never once posted that unborn children should have more rights than women. I have never posted that women should have more rights than the unborn in any form of what I personally think.
 
Blarkin said:
Alabama- Code 13a-6-1: amended code to include.."an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability, as a "person" and "human being" for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault" Amended 2006

Alaska- establishes the crimes of "murder of an unborn child", "manslaughter of an unborn child" criminally negligent homicide of an unborn child" and "assault of an unborn child". Statutes 11.81.900(b) defines "unborn child" as "a member of species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Arizona- The "unborn child in the womb at any stage of it's development" is fully covered by the state's murder and manslaughter statutes. For purposes of establishing level of punishment, a victim who is "an unborn child shall be treated like a minor who is under twelve years of age." Senate bill 1052 signed into law in 2005 with additional revised statutes.

Arkansas- Effective in August 2013, the killing of an "unborn child" is capital murder, murder in the first degree, manslaughter or negligent homicide. Defines "unborn child as "offspring of human beings from conception until birth" Updated 2013

Florida- The Florida Unborn Victims of Violence Act became effective in 2014. Provides that any person who while committing a crime"causes the death of or bodily injury to, an unborn child commits a separate offense" and that the punishment "is the same as the punishment provided... had the injury or death occurred to the mother of the unborn child," except that the death penalty may not be imposed. The law defines "unborn child" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb". Florida statutes section 775.021

30 states have full-coverage laws which recognize unborn children as victims throughout the period of prenatal development. There are 8 more that have partial coverage laws.

Full Coverage States
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin

Partial Coverage States
California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Washington.
Click to expand...

And where are they recognized as having rights? I Wan to see that.
 
Blarkin said:
If you actually read my posts, you would know that I am talking about state laws and their wording, not any opinion of mine in that area. My only shared opinion is that our laws are contradictory in 38 states to the claim that no law recognizes the unborn as an individual. I do not share my own emotionally driven opinion concerning "right" or "wrong" in these threads. Not a single time. I have never once posted that unborn children should have more rights than women. I have never posted that women should have more rights than the unborn in any form of what I personally think.
Click to expand...

I think you should try posting your question in the another area of this forum.

Perhaps you could post a new thread with your question and thoughts on the law and order board.

Here is a link:
Just click on the link and you will taken the board

https://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/
 
Lursa said:
And where are they recognized as having rights? I Wan to see that.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Every aforementioned state considers an unborn child a human being defined within each statute. These states, in the cases of murder, manslaughter, assault, etc. clearly define an unborn child as an individual protected independently by the same laws that protect the mother- some in varying degrees. Regardless, it is all clear and is all there. I can add the exact wording of the rest of the states, but they are all similar in their wordings. If states did not consider the unborn as having rights to life, they could not levy individual charges that are separate from a woman. I can't make it any clearer and I cannot provide any more evidence than I already have, nor do you need any. All questions are answered.
 
minnie616 said:
I think you should try posting your question in the another area of this forum.

Perhaps you could post a new thread with your question and thoughts on the law and order board.

Here is a link:
Just click on the link and you will taken the board

https://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/
Click to expand...

Thanks. I am over it at this point, though. No one seems to be interested in a logical debate that is not fueled by tired rhetoric or extreme personal opinion to the point they refuse to recognize actual facts. It is kind of sad really. But, thanks again for the suggestion. I should have looked at that in the first place.
 
Blarkin said:
Are you serious? Every aforementioned state considers an unborn child a human being defined within each statute. These states, in the cases of murder, manslaughter, assault, etc. clearly define an unborn child as an individual protected independently by the same laws that protect the mother- some in varying degrees. Regardless, it is all clear and is all there. I can add the exact wording of the rest of the states, but they are all similar in their wordings. If states did not consider the unborn as having rights to life, they could not levy individual charges that are separate from a woman. I can't make it any clearer and I cannot provide any more evidence than I already have, nor do you need any. All questions are answered.
Click to expand...

Nope...you're wrong. And as we wrote...none are acknowledged as having rights.They can define 'person' or 'individual' legally any way they way they want...but that doesnt mean it's the same definition as at the federal level. At the federal level, persons and individuals are born and have rights.

And the bold also conforms to what Minnie and I wrote...they still bring charges for pets killed, yet...pets have no rights. Charges are brought on behalf of owner. Because of the harm done to the owner.

You cant make it any clearer...you're wrong.
 
Last edited:
Blarkin said:
If you actually read my posts, you would know that I am talking about state laws and their wording, not any opinion of mine in that area. My only shared opinion is that our laws are contradictory in 38 states to the claim that no law recognizes the unborn as an individual. I do not share my own emotionally driven opinion concerning "right" or "wrong" in these threads. Not a single time. I have never once posted that unborn children should have more rights than women. I have never posted that women should have more rights than the unborn in any form of what I personally think.
Click to expand...

Just because you have never said the words does not mean that their intent is not there. Your argument is based on a false concept that the unborn has a right to life. Follow that logic and regardless of whether you say the words or not the corollary is that therefor the unborns right to life must be greater than the womans right to decide what happens to her body. You cannot dismiss the obvious premise simply because you have not said the words.

And once again i need point out that there is no contradiction. You see a contradiction only because you are basing your thinking on the false premise that an unborn has a right to life. Where as what the law is actually doing is upholding the right of a woman to decide what happens to her body. And in the case where she is attacked and the life she carries is killed then the law is simply describing what has been taken from her for the purpose of establishing what the crime is. Not as you imagine giving a right of individuality to the unborn.
I would refer you to the wording in the first of your examples .
"Alabama- Code 13a-6-1: amended code to include.."an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability, as a "person" and "human being" for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault" Amended 2006"

The key words there are " for the purpose of" And the purpose in this case is to establish what the crime is rather than to assign individuality to the unborn.
 
Last edited:
soylentgreen said:
Just because you have never said the words does not mean that their intent is not there. Your argument is based on a false concept that the unborn has a right to life. Follow that logic and regardless of whether you say the words or not the corollary is that therefor the unborns right to life must be greater than the womans right to decide what happens to her body. You cannot dismiss the obvious premise simply because you have not said the words.

And once again i need point out that there is no contradiction. You see a contradiction only because you are basing your thinking on the false premise that an unborn has a right to life. Where as what the law is actually doing is upholding the right of a woman to decide what happens to her body. And in the case where she is attacked and the life she carries is killed then the law is simply describing what has been taken from her for the purpose of establishing what the crime is. Not as you imagine giving a right of individuality to the unborn.
I would refer you to the wording in the first of your examples .
"Alabama- Code 13a-6-1: amended code to include.."an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability, as a "person" and "human being" for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault" Amended 2006"

The key words there are " for the purpose of" And the purpose in this case is to establish what the crime is rather than to assign individuality to the unborn.
Click to expand...

I think those posts considering the unborn as equally regarded (equal status to born people) in fetal homicide show a good example of having the "answer" and then interpreting all the supporting research to fit that answer, rather than being open to the actual truth.
 
Blarkin said:
Thanks. I am over it at this point, though. No one seems to be interested in a logical debate that is not fueled by tired rhetoric or extreme personal opinion to the point they refuse to recognize actual facts. It is kind of sad really. But, thanks again for the suggestion. I should have looked at that in the first place.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your belief that you are posting actual facts that we ignore.

I sincerely believe I and others have tried to be logical and explain the laws to you.
 
Lursa said:
I think those posts considering the unborn as equally regarded (equal status to born people) in fetal homicide show a good example of having the "answer" and then interpreting all the supporting research to fit that answer, rather than being open to the actual truth.
Click to expand...

No. I only came to my conclusion and realized the imbalance after I ran into these laws during my research of something else. All of that led to further research which led to my conclusion that the laws are contradictory. In 38 states, the "unborn" are recognized as individuals that are protected legally, except in abortion situations. My "posts" are based on the actual laws as they are written and followed. And so far, arguments against those laws have been tossed out. We speak out of both sides of our mouths because we find the situation to be too hard to properly address.
 
minnie616 said:
I disagree with your belief that you are posting actual facts that we ignore.

I sincerely believe I and others have tried to be logical and explain the laws to you.
Click to expand...

And I appreciate you trying to explain the laws to me but I literally posted the laws word for word and they are very clear. There is nothing about them to misunderstand.
 
Blarkin said:
No. I only came to my conclusion and realized the imbalance after I ran into these laws during my research of something else. All of that led to further research which led to my conclusion that the laws are contradictory. In 38 states, the "unborn" are recognized as individuals that are protected legally, except in abortion situations. My "posts" are based on the actual laws as they are written and followed. And so far, arguments against those laws have been tossed out. We speak out of both sides of our mouths because we find the situation to be too hard to properly address.
Click to expand...

That's a bunch of 'nuthin'.

I know exactly what I'm discussing. And your conclusions are wrong, as more than one of us have explained. Just because you posted the laws doesnt mean you interpreted them correctly. You didnt. You dont understand their limitations in a larger context.

Your post only reinforces my opinion, that you demonstrate:

"a good example of having the "answer" and then interpreting all the supporting research to fit that answer, rather than being open to the actual truth."
 
Blarkin said:
And I appreciate you trying to explain the laws to me but I literally posted the laws word for word and they are very clear. There is nothing about them to misunderstand.
Click to expand...

Thanks for knowing I was explaining the laws

I know you posted the laws word for word but even though a few of us tried to explain it seems you still refuse what was posted since goes against what you think you read.

That’s why I pointed you to law board where possible it’s lawyers may post there and may be able to explain it to you in legalese language , that the states laws regarding the unborn are protecting non persons who have no rights.
 
Last edited:
Blarkin said:
And I appreciate you trying to explain the laws to me but I literally posted the laws word for word and they are very clear. There is nothing about them to misunderstand.
Click to expand...

Except that you have misunderstood them. Because you have falsely based them on a right to life for an unborn when no such purpose was intended.

" You said " In 38 states, the "unborn" are recognized as individuals that are protected legally," and have deliberately cherry picked out the part that states " for the purpose of. "

There really is nothing difficult about this unless, like you, we refuse to recognise anything that will contradict your predetermined belief of a right to life for the unborn.
 
Blarkin said:
I am not confused. The exception in every single state is the legality of abortion.
Click to expand...
Which means that every UVVA allows the killing of the unborn.

And from that, you conclude that UVVA laws don't allow the killing of the unborn :roll:
 
Blarkin said:
I have not tried to prove anything at all that has to do with my opinion of the whether an unborn child is an individual or not. I have not once stated a personal opinion on that question. I am pointing out that laws currently contradict.
Click to expand...

You're certainly allowed to have your own opinions, but you're not allowed to have your own facts.

FACT. The unborn are not persons. They have no rights.

And you have yet to identify any contradictions
 
Blarkin said:
They do take up space when they are here and I used that as a simple phrasing.
Click to expand...

They aren't here.
As simple as the point you were making. You obviously have nothing of substance left to add as you continually run around in circles. I am happy to look at anyone's side of an issue so if you have anything to add after you do research on state abortion laws and state fetal homicide laws, I will be happy to consider your points. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I accept your surrender!
 
Blarkin said:
I am sorry. But again, as I have repeated, 38 states have fetal homicide laws that exist and cover the unborn. Some of those states simply increase the charges, some of them charge homicide. For instance, California charged charged Scott Peterson with two counts of homicide and he was convicted. An individual can only die by homicide once. The other was the individual life of the unborn child which was still in the womb when the mother was murdered.

I am sure that Minnie does. I suggested that she look at some other information because she seems like she is not here to blow smoke and enjoys increasing in knowledge from others as I do. There was no disrespect intended. I certainly do not claim to be an expert or know everything. I am constantly learning from others and proud to be. I can also admit freely when I am wrong. I do it all of the time.
Click to expand...
Nothing you posted refutes, in any way, the fact that no law makes the killing of the unborn illegal.

And abortion is not the only exception to UVVA laws. If a mother consumes so much alcohol that the fetus dies, the death is not a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom