Roe vs Wade can be reversed?

[Lursa]

The vast majority of abortions are for birth control reasons - for convenience reasons. That which you describe above is (thankfully) quite rare and (again) there is broad consensus within the pro-life movement that, when a pregnancy will kill the mother, the mother also has a right to life.

Hmm. I've never seen 'convenience' listed in any of the links people post (from either side) of why women get abortions. Do you have one?

Do you teach your kids that finishing school is a 'convenience?'
That building a career instead of a minimum wage job is a 'convenience?'
That going to college or trade school is a 'convenience?'
Showing up at your job everyday, and not puking, is a "convenience?"
Not losing your job because you are too sick to go in is a "convenience?"
Being well enough and focused enough to develop a job into a real career is a "convenience?"
Paying all your bills and not taking public assistance to support a child is a "convenience?"
Being able to support the family you have and live in a safe, secure neighborhood is a "convenience?"
That fulfilling their potential and contributing to society is just a 'convenience?'

Well, maybe you do. Maybe you see your life as just a bunch of 'conveniences' all strung together. *I* dont, I value my life and making the most of it.

I dont understand why someone would cheapen life so. But I can see why they wouldnt value a woman's decision to do what's best for her and for her family, current and future. (And about 3/4 of women that have abortions already have 1 child) Or why the unborn is more entitled to that than the woman?

 

[Lursa]

Rights are a social agreement. They don't exist for a solitary individual, the very concept doesn't make sense in that scenario. They're not based on animals. The idea that rights are biologically natural is wrong. Rights are socially natural when universal agreements. There are three: life, expression and self defense. Every group of sane and equal before the law people, throughout time and place, come to these agreements. All rights, human, civil, labor and environmental flow from them.

Aka The Enlightenment.

You and I have found common ground on this. That they derived as a 'natural' outgrowth in order for tribal societies to live together and protect resources.

But yes...the need and the rights are man-made concepts.

 

[jaeger19]

Given your behavior towards those with whom you disagree on this topic, that's an interesting standard for you to raise.

.

I try to keep it civil despite the person attacks on my character... yes.

The exception those of us who are most consistent carve out is bolded, and even if that condition did not exist, I don't think you'll find any of the major pro-life advocacy groups, or demographics, arguing for the imprisonment of a 14 year old child.

Exactly my point. BUT they would most absolutely be in favor of laws.. that would put that 14 year old child in jail for murder. That's the point I have been making. The anti abortion crowd's position is not based on reality, on science, logic or even compassion. Its a knee jerk emotion reaction that's based on some warped moral standard.

As soon as we get into a discussion of the nuts and bolts of how an anti abortion stance would work under the law.. .. the anti abortion premise false flat on its face.

Actually, it is projection. Since you project a simplistic white-hat/black-hate worldview onto your opponent wherein they oppose your desire to care for these women (as opposed to desiring to protect the lives of infants), you projected a false conclusion onto the pro-life movement in exactly the situation you described

.

That's the irony here. I am not projecting a simplistic view. I am pointing out the actual real world gray areas involved. You have TWO lives involved.. both intimately intertwined. Then you have who is in the best position to decide whats best for that embryo. then you have the mental health and legal aspects in cases of rape, and incest. And so forth.

The anti abortion crowd is the one that's black and white... "abortion is murder".. In fact.. you project on me.. that I am "opposed to desiring to protect the lives of infants". I most certainly am not. Nor are any other medical providers. For every one abortion performed.. that same medical provider has probably protected the lives of 97 infants...

You can't help yourselves from ignoring that fact.. because the anti abortion crowd is the one that makes this a black/white issue.

[

QUOTE]

The vast majority of abortions are for birth control reasons - for convenience reasons. That which you describe above is (thankfully) quite rare and (again) there is broad consensus within the pro-life movement that, when a pregnancy will kill the mother, the mother also has a right to life. [/QU[/QUOTE

]Absolutely not. That's absolutely not true the vast majority of abortions are "just convenience and are just a method of birth control.

Actually what I described above.. when an abortion is performed because of risks to the mother or risk to the child are more the norm. Particularly in the US today.

You have based your rationale on a fantasy. Think about it.. if woman were truly using abortion as birth control.. that would mean that a sexual active woman would be having rougly 4 abortions a year (figuring getting pregnant and having the abortion before showing).

That just is not happening and any kind of regular basis.

That which you describe above is (thankfully) quite rare and (again) there is broad consensus within the pro-life movement that, when a pregnancy will kill the mother, the mother also has a right to life.

Except how that would work in the real world is beyond your grasp. What does a medical provider go by before they are committing murder? a 10% chance of death? 20%... 99% that another posted stated was sufficient. Oh and then that poster stated that there needed to be PROOF of the future.. otherwise it was murder.
And what about if the child will be born only to suffer on lifesupport? What about that?

You antiabortion folks put yourself in knowing what is best for that family and child. And you don't have a clue. All you are promoting is more suffering and death.

 

[ecofarm]

You and I have found common ground on this. That they derived as a 'natural' outgrowth in order for tribal societies to live together and protect resources.

But yes...the need and the rights are man-made concepts.

The driving factor of the universal agreements is not merely personal survival. It's species survival. We understand, as individuals, that recognizing and even codifying rights to life, expression and self defense is necessary for us to survive as a species.

 

[jaeger19]

We build shelter, naturally. We live in tribal groups, naturally.

sorry, aint buyin' it.

What you describe, by your own admission, is imagination. If you dont know if other animals have natural rights, how can you tell if man does? Because man said so. And 'man' has come up with different 'natural rights' across the globe even if there are some core ones in common.

More evidence from your response: Hitler thought it was ok to kill Jews. Jews and much of the rest of the world didnt. But many other societies did.

It's entirely subjective. And man-made.

Yes.. we live in tribal groups naturally. Why? Other animals don't. Its in part because of our genetic makeup. And we have social constructs that allow us to exist in those social groups. things like "natural rights".

What you describe, by your own admission, is imagination. If you dont know if other animals have natural rights, how can you tell if man does? Because man said so

no.. not at all. I can tell man has natural rights because I can observe them IF natural rights did not exist.. and rights were merely by government. You would not say that Hitler had violated the Jews rights. because it was legal

IF natural rights did not exist. There would have been no abolitionists fighting for the rights of slaves because slavery was legal.

The fact is.. that for whatever reason.. "god given" as some claim, or something in our genetics and promoted by evolution.. we humans have an almost ubiquitous understanding of "rights".

More evidence from your response: Hitler thought it was ok to kill Jews. Jews and much of the rest of the world didnt. But many other societies did.

I would submit that when those societies felt it was okay.. it was either 1. They did not recognize Jews as humans. 2. they felt that natural rights pertained to THEMSELVES.. and as long as their rights were not being taken.. they could care less about Jews
3. They felt that the Jews deserved it for what they perceived as Jewish incursions on others.

And if its "man made".. its natural. It stems from our innate social cooperation genetics etc.

 

[jaeger19]

The driving factor of the universal agreements is not merely personal survival. It's species survival. We understand, as individuals, that recognizing and even codifying rights to life, expression and self defense is necessary for us to survive as a species.

Yep.. and that driving force is innate. Not created by government.. in most cases.. we create government to protect it.

(by the way.. we really don't have a belief in right to life.. we believe in right to self determination.. that's why we believe that you have a right to be taken off of lifesupport).

 

[ecofarm]

Yep.. and that driving force is innate. Not created by government.. in most cases.. we create government to protect it.

(by the way.. we really don't have a belief in right to life.. we believe in right to self determination.. that's why we believe that you have a right to be taken off of lifesupport).

Self determination is an overarching term for life, expression and self defense.

 

[Lursa]

Generally they do not - certainly I do not, and while you'll find some nutters (just as you'll find advocates for killing children up to 6 months post-birth among the pro-choice side) out and about, the anti-abortion crowd doesn't either.

Well holy crap! I just found one. And I agree with your assessment.

I hope the OP knows that some like myself view that a human doesn't become a person until years after birth when significant mental faculties like theory of mind and rationality come in and that's roughly around 3 years of age. That's my line.

I'm fine with abortion throughout the full 9 months and I'm fine with infanticide.

 

[jaeger19]

Actually theres ZERO logic that supports FACTUAL natural rights. Logic proves its factually made up and subjective. If you disagree simply provide these natural rights and prove they are factual...it cant be done. Anything you present will be subjective and not natural or factual.

Even your questions about the jews, if i or anybody FEELS thats what hitler did thats all it is, its a feelings. My feelings arent facts. What about the people that feel he didnt?

of course a person is free to believe in natural rights but they do not exist in any other form then subjective manner.

Yet your feelings are real.. they exist and they influence your behavior.. (and your behavior influences your feelings).. the proof that they are factual is that they exist regardless of government.

If you feel that what hitler violated rights.. then that's an example of natural rights. Your feelings ARE facts.

of course a person is free to believe in natural rights but they do not exist in any other form then subjective manner.

Of course..

then again.. we often express our believe in our natural rights with behavior.. like holding people on trial for "human rights violations".. etc.

Or by creating government entities to protect those natural rights.

 

[jaeger19]

Self determination is an overarching term for life, expression and self defense.

Bingo.. Its more complicated than just "right to life"..

Otherwise.. we would not allow physician assisted suicide, or abortion, or taking people off of life support, or allowing a child to die because of religious objections to medical care etc.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Yet your feelings are real.. they exist and they influence your behavior.. (and your behavior influences your feelings)..
2.) the proof that they are factual is that they exist regardless of government.
3.) If you feel that what hitler violated rights.. then that's an example of natural rights. Your feelings ARE facts.
4.)Of course.. then again.. we often express our believe in our natural rights with behavior.. like holding people on trial for "human rights violations".. etc.

Or by creating government entities to protect those natural rights.

1.) correct my feelings re real for me but nothing else they are still subjective and meaningless to facts who said "feelings" dont exist, nobody
2.) no they dont excist they are made up
3.) no my feelings are NOT facts thats the most silly and factually wrong claim i ever heard LMAO if i feel all <insert grous here> are murders does that make it fact? or course not
4.) which again is subjectivity

like i said...if you disagree simply provide these natural rights and prove they are factual...it cant be done. Anything you present will be subjective and not natural or factual.

 

[ecofarm]

Bingo.. Its more complicated than just "right to life"..

Otherwise.. we would not allow physician assisted suicide, or abortion, or taking people off of life support, or allowing a child to die because of religious objections to medical care etc.

Rights are a choice, not an obligation. When a soldier sacrifices for others, they're exercising their right.

 

[jaeger19]

1.) correct my feelings re real for me but nothing else they are still subjective and meaningless to facts who said "feelings" dont exist, nobody
.

Umm.. you just said they are real for you.. and that makes them meaningful.. especially when it comes to your behavior.

2.) no they dont excist they are made up

umm.. who said feellings don't exist..? You just did.
Natural rights are feelings.

3.) no my feelings are NOT facts thats the most silly and factually wrong claim i ever heard LMAO if i feel all <insert grous here> are murders does that make it fact? or course not

Nope.. but your feelings are real..and when/if you act on them..you make real actions.

like i said...if you disagree simply provide these natural rights and prove they are factual...it cant be done. Anything you present will be subjective and not natural or factual.

I did. If they did not exist.. no one would care about "rights violations".. that happened within the law.

No one would care about "human rights violations".. that happened under governments that allowed those actions under the law.

the proof is all around you. you just are choosing to ignore it. but its a fact.. that natural rights HAVE to exist before government.

 

[jaeger19]

Rights are a choice, not an obligation. When a soldier sacrifices for others, they're exercising their right.

They are a choice and an obligation. In a cooperative society.. we are generally obligated to respect anothers rights. Often times we codify that in specific government protections. but note.. often rights are only protected in a general sense. Not specifically detailed out. That's because the rights we have are innumerable.

 

[ecofarm]

They are a choice and an obligation. In a cooperative society.. we are generally obligated to respect anothers rights. Often times we codify that in specific government protections. but note.. often rights are only protected in a general sense. Not specifically detailed out. That's because the rights we have are innumerable.

That's conflating two or more things.

1. Rights are an option, a choice and not an obligation.

2. The exercising of a right, many rights in many ways, might be an ethical or moral obligation but not an obligation via the existence of the right. One is not required to live, express oneself or defend oneself. A right is the option and its realization is dependent on access to resources and observance of that right by authority.

3. The agreement to observe the right is natural. Ask anyone, "do you agree to observe the rights to life, expression and self defense in order to preserve the same for yourself?" and the answer is always yes. Qualifiers: if the person asked is not sane or not subject to the same laws equally, then their answer is disqualified as not logical or tyranny respectively.

4. There is an ethical and moral obligation to personally observe rights; however, rights are, always have been and always will be violated by individuals and governments. Inalienable means part of humankind, not inviolable.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Umm.. you just said they are real for you.. and that makes them meaningful.. especially when it comes to your behavior.
2.)umm.. who said feellings don't exist..? You just did.
3.) Natural rights are feelings.
4.)Nope.. but your feelings are real..and when/if you act on them..you make real actions.
5.)I did.
6.) If they did not exist.. no one would care about "rights violations".. that happened within the law.
7.) No one would care about "human rights violations".. that happened under governments that allowed those actions under the law.
8.)the proof is all around you. you just are choosing to ignore it. but its a fact.. that natural rights HAVE to exist before government.

1.) no, it doesnt when compared to facts.If i feel all women are whores and lessers than mean that is meaningless and doesnt make it fact
2.) no i factually did not LMAO
3.) correct feelings and opinions that are meaningless and factually made up
4.) thanks for that meaningless strawman but it has nothign to do with the fact that natural rights are made up and not factual
5.) no you didnt you didnt provide one single one LOL lying wont change that fact
6.) people care about flat earth claims to doesnt make it fact
7.) see #6
8.) no there is no proof hence why you cant proved any evidence of them LMAO they are made up and subjective they do not exist in any factual form.

once again like i said...if you disagree please simply provide these natural rights and prove they are factual...it cant be done. Anything you present will be subjective and not factual. Let us know when you can list them, thanks!

 

[Lursa]

Rights are a choice, not an obligation. When a soldier sacrifices for others, they're exercising their right.

There was a poster here who swore that a person could not choose suicide (such as the terminally ill in pain) because of their right to life. That they were not 'allowed' to violate their own right to life. :doh

So that in his opinion, a person did not control their own rights...some higher authority apparently did (altho he vehemently denied that too.)

 

[ecofarm]

There was a poster here who swore that a person could not choose suicide (such as the terminally ill in pain) because of their right to life. That they were not 'allowed' to violate their own right to life. :doh

So that in his opinion, a person did not control their own rights...some higher authority apparently (altho he vehemently denied that too.)

An unfortunate projection of religious or personal ideals or ethics onto the Constitution or Enlightenment understanding.

 

[Lursa]

An unfortunate projection of religious or personal ideals or ethics onto the Constitution or Enlightenment understanding.

Always in that case. And extremely hostile. Filled with hate.

 

[ecofarm]

Always in that case. And extremely hostile. Filled with hate.

It must be extremely frustrating to believe "endowed by Creator" means dependent on a deity when all evidence points to it means natural and in context socially natural.

 

[jaeger19]

That's conflating two or more things.

nope its not.

Rights are an option, a choice and not an obligation.

Often they are an obligation as well..in cooperative society.. we are obligated to respect anothers rights.

The agreement to observe the right is natural

Yep.. see above. That means that its an obligation to respect one anothers rights.

There is an ethical and moral obligation to personally observe rights; however, rights are, always have been and always will be violated by individuals and governments. Inalienable means part of humankind, not inviolable.

Yep.. bingo

In otherwords.. part of humankind.. i.e. "natural"

no conflating things on my part here. You realize you are in one way or another supporting everything I said about natural rights? Are you just wanting to argue?

 

[jaeger19]

1.) no, it doesnt when compared to facts.If i feel all women are whores and lessers than mean that is meaningless and doesnt make it fact
!

Your feelings would be a fact. If I argued that you believed that woman are all whores.. and you then treated all woman as whores... would you argue that I could not prove that you in fact.. held such a belief despite what you said and what you did?

I argue that we as humans all believe in natural rights. and proof of that belief is evident by the fact that people will believe in folks having rights.. despite the law saying they don't

IF there were no such things as natural rights.. and rights were only granted by government.. .. then where did the government get these "rights"...

you can't say from humans.. because then you are admitting that rights stem from humankind.. and not from government.

so please explain your logic.. that humans do not have natural rights?

where do governments get them? Aliens?

 

[ecofarm]

nope its not.



Often they are an obligation as well..in cooperative society.. we are obligated to respect anothers rights.



Yep.. see above. That means that its an obligation to respect one anothers rights.



Yep.. bingo

In otherwords.. part of humankind.. i.e. "natural"

no conflating things on my part here. You realize you are in one way or another supporting everything I said about natural rights? Are you just wanting to argue?

Conflation:

They are a choice and an obligation.

They are a choice by right and an obligation by ideal. They might also carry an obligation by personal ethics. A right does not inherently carry obligation beyond reciprocation, and that is a tenuous ideal.

My point was the exercising of a right is a choice. The exercising of and the existence of also should not be conflated.

A right is not an obligation to do anything.

 

[jaeger19]

An unfortunate projection of religious or personal ideals or ethics onto the Constitution or Enlightenment understanding.

Actually its the same as believing that governments give rights. Its the belief that rights are not natural.. but subject to a higher authority. whether the government or a supreme leader, or a supreme being.

 

[jaeger19]

Conflation:



They are a choice by right and an obligation by ideal. They might also carry an obligation by personal ethics. Any obligation is separate from existence.

Nope.. they are choice.. in how you choose to exercise those rights.. AND an obligation to respect them in others.. as they respect them in you.

Actually you realize that YOU are the one that pointed out that humans respect of others rights (an obligation) was natural.

The agreement to observe the right is natural