Does a woman have a right...

[maquiscat]

No such right to an abortion exist in the Constitution. I can look at the Constitution and read where the right to bear arms exist. Can you show me the word abortion in the Constitution?

No right to a marriage exists in the Constitution, and yet SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld that marriage is a right. There is a section that talks about unenumerated rights, i.e. those not specifically spelled out.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

I answer the question. Perhaps you should spread your legs for whomever is willing to do you. That appears to be the only thing you're good at.

It's common when failing in an argument to refuse to answer the difficult questions. As is pretending you've already done so.


However since it's a discussion forum, that's what actually required to discuss. So you quit then? Or are you going to continue the discussion and answer the question?

So, regarding rights, the question was:

If not the govt...who then?

 

[Lursa]

I am far from a bleeding heart, but I do believe that we need to support those who can't work. That's called compassion.

It's classic extremist conservative lack of logic: demand the women have babies they cant afford and then deny them (if they could) the assistance they need to raise the child.

Zero logic, compassion, or rationality.

 

[Lursa]

What makes you think Lursa has had an abortion? Not that it's okay to wish harm on people who have aborted....

Oh dont worry about me. He's been wrong about everything else in these threads...why on earth would anyone give his opinions and speculation any credibility at all?

Personal attacks are the tool of the loser.

 

[maquiscat]

In the case of abortion, assuming an endowing creator exists to endow rights, for a woman to exercise her option to have an abortion, the right to life endowed by the creator to the unborn child is erased.

Does a person have a right to erase the divinely endowed rights of another at a personal caprice for personal advantage when the other thereby becomes a blameless victim?

I am going to put something out here. I have a picture from Facebook. I'll try to get on something other than my phone later and post it.

Basically it notes that if I am providing life support for another, say in the form of blood transfusion, or something else, I, at any time, can stop providing that support. Even if it means that the other might die. I can stop giving blood directly to the other in the middle of the procedure even if stopping then kills them. It is that same principle of bodily autonomy that applies to abortion. By your logic, I would not have the right to stop, even if I didn't consent to the procedure, and woke up to find it going on.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[CFI302]

It's common when failing in an argument to refuse to answer the difficult questions. As is pretending you've already done so.


However since it's a discussion forum, that's what actually required to discuss. So you quit then? Or are you going to continue the discussion and answer the question?

So, regarding rights, the question was:

If not the govt...who then?

Perhaps you should read the Declaration. Thomas Jefferson was clear about it. If you can't understand it, I'll help you to a level but it's clear that your level is very low. I suspect about an 85 IQ is all you have and that's below average.

 

[maquiscat]

In the USA, we have the right to bear arms or own guns. The right to own guns does not mean that the government has to use tax dollars to buy anyone a gun, who cannot afford one and/or who simply chooses to own a gun. The gun owner has to act like an adult, earn money and buy their own. There is no tax dollars involved. The litmus test of the right to bear arms is not the dependency of a child, but rather the right assume there is an adult in the room.

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution and is therefore a higher right than the right to abortion which is not a direct amendment. In spite of that, guns can be regulated in terms of age, it can be regulated in terms of a required background check to make sure the person is psychologically fit. NY state is also trying to impose taxes and the requirement of extra insurance all at the expense of the person with the right to own a gun.

The same schema for a main right should apply to abortion which is a lessor right. A right makes an option available to a person. But like gun ownership, a right requires personal accountability, jumping through hoops, and paying your tab. If abortion gets a more lax deal, than gun owners should sue, since the term right is being perverted for them. Or the courts needs to make a level playing field for abortion that mimics the procedures and responsibilities of gun ownership.

Women are no longer the fragile sex that needs accommodation. The abortion seeking women need to man up, like the gun owning women. Gun owning women show that women are capable of the tougher standards expected of men. The accommodation of the weaker sex syndrome is having a negative impact. This is regressive.

Say we decided to make the right to own a gun modeled on current abortion procedures. Children will be taught about guns in elementary school as part of civics. Children can also get free guns without parent approval. Any poor inner city person who wants a gun, but cannot afford one, will have one given to them. These will have the same high standards as the rich gun owner. If one spouse does not want a gun but the other does, the gun wanter always wins. Will using the abortion right procedure, make things better for all? Or will it make a problem even worse?

Forgive me if I missed you responding earlier, and I realize you are responding to a poster who responded to my OP, but how does this answer the question of whether the woman still has a right or not to an abortion of she is not pregnant?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[CFI302]

No right to a marriage exists in the Constitution, and yet SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld that marriage is a right. There is a section that talks about unenumerated rights, i.e. those not specifically spelled out.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Yet not one of the Justices that says it is can point to the word marriage in the Constitution. Neither can you. However, I can point to the words "right to bear arms". I you can't tell the difference, there is no educating you. Continue to live as a fool.

 

[soylentgreen]

The problem with your argument is that I am not an antiabortionist. For that matter, the issue at hand, while using abortion as the example, is not limited to abortion.

But that aside for the moment, let's look at another thing. Trepanning is, or was, a medical procedure. Assuming I can find a doctor who would do it, do I have a right to that procedure? I'm pretty such it would be considered illegal, although I wouldn't know where to look to be sure. Is it a rights issue or a medical issue? There are people out there now saying that there is gay conversion therapy available, yet some states have banned it. Don't people have a right to undergo such therapy if they want it? Is it a rights issue or a medical issue? I am making an assumption for such to be done by a consenting adult, not forced upon them by a parent, a separate issue altogether.

Also please cite where I have suggested that abortion is a stupid and impulsive thing to do. That is purely in your head.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

My argument has nothing to do with your stance one way or the other.

Again you bring up a ridiculous example. Can you find a doctor these days who would recommend an outdated and discarded practice of trepanning that has been shown to have more negative results than positive? And if you cannot then why compare it to a medical procedure such as abortion. Same with conversion therapy. Find me good medical opinion that it works rather than some opinion by a biased theist. Your argument seems to be to ask if stupidity is a right rather than is abortion a right.

I already explained how you are comparing abortion to stupidity. Here is this post by suggesting stupid and proven not to work procedures being compared to an abortion and in your previous post doing the same with suggesting dumb actions are comparable to an abortion.

 

[Logician Man]

Yet not one of the Justices that says it is can point to the word marriage in the Constitution. Neither can you. However, I can point to the words "right to bear arms". I you can't tell the difference, there is no educating you. Continue to live as a fool.

////// I you can't tell the difference, there is no educating you.///// <------> //// Continue to live as a fool. ///// pot...meet kettle.......:alert:2rofll::alert

 

[CFI302]

////// I you can't tell the difference, there is no educating you.///// <------> //// Continue to live as a fool. ///// pot...meet kettle.......:alert:2rofll::alert

Perhaps you can find the word marriage in the Constitution. None of the Justices have yet idiots like you continue to believe it is.

 

[Logician Man]

Perhaps you can find the word marriage in the Constitution. None of the Justices have yet idiots like you continue to believe it is.

:screwy :2mad::2mad::2mad::lol:

 

[DarkWizard12]

What people don't understand is that pregnancy is a choice. No one is naturally born pregnant, so the government has a right over deciding how and when you should get pregnant (AKA: Have sex).

 

[CFI302]

:screwy :2mad::2mad::2mad::lol:

I accept your surrender and admittance the word isn't in the Constitution.

 

[Logician Man]

I accept your surrender and admittance the word isn't in the Constitution.

:spank:

 

[CFI302]

:spank:

What you and your homosexual lover do privately is your business.

 

[Logician Man]

What you and your homosexual lover do privately is your business.

^^^^ :lamo:lamo:lamo ^^^^

 

[maquiscat]

Yet not one of the Justices that says it is can point to the word marriage in the Constitution. Neither can you. However, I can point to the words "right to bear arms". I you can't tell the difference, there is no educating you. Continue to live as a fool.

Pot, kettle, achromatic? I noticed that you completely ignored the bit about unenumerated rights, as mentioned in the 9th amendment.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

My argument has nothing to do with your stance one way or the other.

Again you bring up a ridiculous example. Can you find a doctor these days who would recommend an outdated and discarded practice of trepanning that has been shown to have more negative results than positive? And if you cannot then why compare it to a medical procedure such as abortion. Same with conversion therapy. Find me good medical opinion that it works rather than some opinion by a biased theist. Your argument seems to be to ask if stupidity is a right rather than is abortion a right.

I already explained how you are comparing abortion to stupidity. Here is this post by suggesting stupid and proven not to work procedures being compared to an abortion and in your previous post doing the same with suggesting dumb actions are comparable to an abortion.

You are avoiding the question altogether. How effective a procedure is is irrelevant if the deciding factor is whether it's a medical issue or a rights issue. If it's a medical issue, as you have placed abortion to be, then they cannot make it illegal, since it's not a rights issue. If it's a rights issue, again, how do you make it illegal? The principle must hold across the board. And a reminder, I am arguing from the principle that a right is something that the government cannot make illegal, but is not.required to provide.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

No right to a marriage exists in the Constitution, and yet SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld that marriage is a right. There is a section that talks about unenumerated rights, i.e. those not specifically spelled out.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

[maquiscat]

What people don't understand is that pregnancy is a choice. No one is naturally born pregnant, so the government has a right over deciding how and when you should get pregnant (AKA: Have sex).

Wait! You are saying that the government should be able to decide whether or not and under what circumstances I can have sex?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

^^^^ :lamo:lamo:lamo ^^^^

You and I rarely see eye to eye, but I am with you here!

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Perhaps you should read the Declaration. Thomas Jefferson was clear about it. If you can't understand it, I'll help you to a level but it's clear that your level is very low. I suspect about an 85 IQ is all you have and that's below average.

I wanted to see if you understood it. Maybe you do, maybe you dont, but since you have been wrong pretty much everywhere here, I'd say you dont.

That's what people believe when posters refuse to answer questions and give cryptic replies.

So...nah, you have no idea.

(btw, I do know the correct answer to the question...apparently you do not)

 

[Lursa]

Wait! You are saying that the government should be able to decide whether or not and under what circumstances I can have sex?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

It was sarcasm.

 

[maquiscat]

It was sarcasm.

Given some people on here....



Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk