Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

[AZRWinger]

Its not relevant because there are no persons involved and because the law recognizes bodily autonomy and rights, which do not apply to non-persons. Science does not make law nor determine right/wrong on an issue, including abortion. Thats a matter of law, not science. And neither you or any abortion opponent can provide a rational and legal reality to restrict abortion in the least, wheyher on a whim or not. It seems all you have are buzz words with emotional appeals.

No persons involved? You are reduced to spouting slaveholder rhetoric, uniformly Democrats.

 

[Gordy327]

No persons involved? You are reduced to spouting slaveholder rhetoric, uniformly Democrats.

Correct, no persons involved! The Constitution and federal law affirms that too. Neither do the federal government or the states recognize unborn persons/personhood. I have asked you before why that is, which you never answered. Neither have you provided anything to refute it. Got anything legally relevant or valid to offer or do you only have your feelings?

 

[AZRWinger]

Once again, as do so many anti-abortites, he does not consider that there is another human inextricably involved, who DOES have rights and undergoes pain and suffering and is a moral agent all on her own, and has dependencies in society and with loved ones. The unborn has none of that...so when weighing in on balancing a moral stance, science and morality support the life...this considers the entirety of a life, not just a heartbeat...to protect and support the woman and morally...leave the choice up to her.

The pro abortion arguments depend on ignoring the most basic right, the right to life, of the human unborn child. They insist on creating out of thin air a nonperson status for the unborn despite many of them conceding the humanity of the unborn.

Kindly cite the Constitutional text where a single human can arbitarily deprive another of their life. It's not there. With good reason the Constitution requires due process of law to deprive a human of liberty, property, or life.

Right @AZRWinger? Isnt the moral view based on protecting and respecting the woman? Who may not want to bring a child into the world to an abusive father who will have rights to that child? Or knowing she or the father have a genetic disorder they dont want to risk passing on, like Huntington's disease? Birth control is not 100%. How is it the moral High Ground to intentionally impose pain and suffering on another human being that has done nothing wrong?

Since Roe there have been some 63 million abortions in the US. No way there were anything approaching that number of pregnancies due to rape, incest, or with a likelihood of a significant genetic defect. Abortion advocates want to obscure the vast majority of abortions are elective.

Abortionists used to claim their objective was to keep abortion safe, legal and rare. Of course rare cut into Planned Parenthood's profits so it's been replaced with on demand as a right.

 

[Gordy327]

The pro abortion arguments depend on ignoring the most basic right, the right to life, of the human unborn child. They insist on creating out of thin air a nonperson status for the unborn despite many of them conceding the humanity of the unborn.

Anti abortionists cannot seem to explain why neither the federal government or the states recognize personhood for the unborn or reconcile the fact that neither the Constitution or federal law establishes any rights or personhood for the unborn. Instead, they ignore those facts and djishonestly continue peddle their flawed claims and arguments based on nothing but emotionalism.

Kindly cite the Constitutional text where a single human can arbitarily deprive another of their life. It's not there. With good reason the Constitution requires due process of law to deprive a human of liberty, property, or life.

Kindly cite the Constitutional text which enumerates a "right to life," especially for the unborn!

Since Roe there have been some 63 million abortions in the US. No way there were anything approaching that number of pregnancies due to rape, incest, or with a likelihood of a significant genetic defect. Abortion advocates want to obscure the vast majority of abortions are elective.

Abortionists used to claim their objective was to keep abortion safe, legal and rare. Of course rare cut into Planned Parenthood's profits so it's been replaced with on demand as a right.

What difference does it make who, when, or why someone has an abortion? Seriously! It's a matter between a woman and her doctor like all medical procedures and is certainly no one else's business or concern. Anti-abortionists cannot even make a rational and legal argument why abortion should be restricted in the slightest.

 

[AZRWinger]

Correct, no persons involved! The Constitution and federal law affirms that too.

Go back and reread the thread.

Even abortion boosters concede the unborn are human. Kindly cite the Constitutional or statutory definition creating classes of humans that are nonpersons.

Neither do the federal government or the states recognize unborn persons/personhood. I have asked you before why that is, which you never answered. Neither have you provided anything to refute it. Got anything legally relevant or valid to offer or do you only have your feelings?

 

[Gordy327]

Go back and reread the thread.

Even abortion boosters concede the unborn are human. Kindly cite the Constitutional or statutory definition creating classes of humans that are nonpersons.

No one has argued or said they weren't "human." That is not the issue. Its just a Red Herring. The unborn are not legal persons, per the 14th Amendment and 1 US Code is 8. Now, care to go back and address why neither the federal government or the states recognize the unborn as legal persons with rights? Or are you going to disingenuously dodge the question-again! While you're at it, provide a rational and legal reason why abortion should be restricted!

 

[Lursa]

The pro abortion arguments depend on ignoring the most basic right, the right to life, of the human unborn child. They insist on creating out of thin air a nonperson status for the unborn despite many of them conceding the humanity of the unborn.

Kindly cite the Constitutional text where a single human can arbitarily deprive another of their life. It's not there. With good reason the Constitution requires due process of law to deprive a human of liberty, property, or life.

Not until you directly respond to what I wrote. And according to our Constitution, the unborn has no right to life. For laws, that's what we go by. And since the unborn is inside someone else...there is a conflict of rights (if the unborn had any). I discussed that moral and legal aspect and you ignored it. Please address it directly instead of asking me to cite something. You cant "cite" where the unborn has any right to life to be protected from being "deprived of it."

Dobbs made that clear, for one example. It said women and their doctors sure could, based on state laws, so obviously you're off-track here.

Since Roe there have been some 63 million abortions in the US. No way there were anything approaching that number of pregnancies due to rape, incest, or with a likelihood of a significant genetic defect. Abortion advocates want to obscure the vast majority of abortions are elective.

If it's a person as you claim, there should be no exceptions except if the woman is in immediate danger of dying (as in self-defense). So...there should be zero exceptions to that...right? If it's a "person?" Yes or no?

Abortionists used to claim their objective was to keep abortion safe, legal and rare. Of course rare cut into Planned Parenthood's profits so it's been replaced with on demand as a right.

It is, compared to the number of births. Dont deflect to accusing PP. When people fight for a woman's right to choose we're not considering PP or any clinics' profits at all. We see that such places help REDUCE abortions by providing counseling and birth control. And also support women thru their pregnancies with exams, pre-natal vitamins, etc.

 

[Lursa]

No persons involved? You are reduced to spouting slaveholder rhetoric, uniformly Democrats.

Here's slavery: when the state (govt) bans a medical procedure and demands a woman produce a child without her consent. That's exactly what slave owners did, right?

Women/couples commit no crime in consensual sex, esp. not married ones. Why should the state punish people for birth control that isnt 100%? What basis is there for the state to then demand a woman risk her life and health and ability to earn an income for a child they cannot support, for example? Or just to dump into the huge pool of ~100,000 kids already waiting to be adopted? That is unconscionable and immoral IMO. Produce a kid that's not wanted and has nowhere to go...just because the state demands it? (slavery) And then taxpayers foot the bill for public assistance, daycare, or in foster care waiting, waiting, waiting?

 

[Lursa]

Go back and reread the thread.

Even abortion boosters concede the unborn are human. Kindly cite the Constitutional or statutory definition creating classes of humans that are nonpersons.

Born and unborn. The first section of the 14th Amendment and the US Code that you seem incapable of understanding. To most people, it's explicitly clear in defining and making the distinction you're demanding.

And again, you hide from the fact that federal laws reflect this. Dobbs is just one, solid example....

 

[The Brad Dad]

No persons involved? You are reduced to spouting slaveholder rhetoric, uniformly Democrats.

A fetus is not a person.

 

[AZRWinger]

A fetus is not a person.

Democrats revive their Confederacy slaveholder policy this time targeting the unborn.

 

[Gordy327]

Democrats revive their Confederacy slaveholder policy this time targeting the unborn.

Meanwhile anti abortionists want to enslave a woman to a fetus. But I'm sure the irony is lost on them.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Democrats revive their Confederacy slaveholder policy this time targeting the unborn.

Dunno what all that means but a fetus isn’t a person.

 

[Gordy327]

Dunno what all that means but a fetus isn’t a person.

Its funny how some do not seem to understand that. They claim a fetus is a person, but cannot even make a rational, legal argument for it.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Its funny how some do not seem to understand that. They claim a fetus is a person, but cannot even make a rational, legal argument for it.

Know how I know a fetus isn’t a person? Because if it was, Republicans wouldn’t be so invested in it.

 

[Gordy327]

Know how I know a fetus isn’t a person? Because if it was, Republicans wouldn’t be so invested in it.

I suppose thats 1 way to know. Other ways to know are from the Constitution and Federal law.

 

[Lursa]

Democrats revive their Confederacy slaveholder policy this time targeting the unborn.

Republicans revive slavery...demanding a woman remain pregnant against her will...just like slave owners did.

 

[weaver2]

Democrats revive their Confederacy slaveholder policy this time targeting the unborn.

You appear to have a numbered list of inane anti-abortion phrases you toss out when one phrase gets shot down by biology or the law or the Bible or common sense . "Democrats revive...." looks like number 37. Can't wait to see #38

 

[choiceone]

You concede that unborn children are fully human. Then, you insist that the slaughter of millions of fully human unborn children is authorized by a so-called moral standing which can be bestowed or withdrawn by political sentiment. The affirmation of humanity is contradicted by degrading unborn children to subhuman status.

Kindly explain what is unsupported about associating fully human unborn children with human persons? The law recognizes many stages of human life but in none of them does it license the at will extermination of human beings.

A person has demonstrated unique conscious human-like mind with conscious perception in conscious human-like vocal or facial expressive capacity to other conscious human-like minds with the same. That happens at birth.

The reason this is important is as follows.

1. You might think that gastrulation would determine personhood for humans, because that is the early point in pregnancy when the number of embryos - one to four - is determined. After all, if there are two identical twins, though they have the same DNA, there are still two of them determined at gastrulation. But no. That's because no mindless organism is a person. A corpse is human, but it isn't a person, either.

2. When conjoined twins are born, the question is how many persons are born? There is only one organism or body, but when there are two heads, either both heads are functional or one isn't functional. When both are functional, each is capable of consciousness and perception which are demonstrated by human voice or facial expression and other objective organisms with such functionality can objectively observe that. Hence, there are two persons. But if one head is non-functional, it is called "parasitic," and only one person is claimed to be born. If the parasitic head can be removed without harming the well-being of the functional head/person, it is removed. When there are two functional heads/persons, if at all possible, doctors attempt to separate them, because each one deserves a separate body.

The human unborn has not demonstrated personhood, which is not mere life. You have to demonstrate conscious mind and perception of human type with human type expressive capacity. Once you have, you can still be a person if you're asleep or in a coma, because you already did that.

This, by the way, is the reason doctors who delivered babies traditionally spanked them on the backside when they came out, to get them to show that they could breathe air and use vocal communication.

We actually have no way to know whether or not liberty depends on life. The implanted embryo is only alive because it is implanted and receiving life from the woman's body. When it isn't implanted, it dies because it has no life of its own. But when it develops fully and is born, it doesn't die when separated from the woman's body, because it has a life of its own. That is simultaneously life and liberty. You don't choose between them or put them in some stupid hierarchical relationship.

 

[choiceone]

The pro abortion arguments depend on ignoring the most basic right, the right to life, of the human unborn child. They insist on creating out of thin air a nonperson status for the unborn despite many of them conceding the humanity of the unborn.

Kindly cite the Constitutional text where a single human can arbitarily deprive another of their life. It's not there. With good reason the Constitution requires due process of law to deprive a human of liberty, property, or life.

Since Roe there have been some 63 million abortions in the US. No way there were anything approaching that number of pregnancies due to rape, incest, or with a likelihood of a significant genetic defect. Abortion advocates want to obscure the vast majority of abortions are elective.

Abortionists used to claim their objective was to keep abortion safe, legal and rare. Of course rare cut into Planned Parenthood's profits so it's been replaced with on demand as a right.

The right to life is not more basic than the right to liberty. This is anti-American nonsense.

A pregnant woman has the right to liberty to leave one state and go to another or leave the US and go to another country. No one can hold her captive just because an embryo is growing inside her. The place she goes may allow abortion. If she goes there and has an abortion, she is not breaking an anti-abortion law in the original state, because the that state has no power to enforce its laws on the other state or country.

An unmarried pregnant woman less than two months pregnant has the right to go to another country from which she can purchase citizenship legally and receive citizenship in three to six months and she can renounce her US citizenship at the US embassy. Then, she can give birth to her child, and her child won't have US citizenship.

Neither the US government nor any US state or territory has the power to force her to stay or to give US citizenship or state residency to the embryo. Being unmarried, she doesn't even have to declare who the father is on the birth certificate - all she has to say is "Father unknown." And she doesn't have to tell the guy where she is, either - if you don't marry a woman, she doesn't have to share her pregnancy or child with you.

Get over it.

 

[choiceone]

Democrats revive their Confederacy slaveholder policy this time targeting the unborn.

This argument doesn't work, because the free states before the Civil War are pro-choice states now, and the slave states before the Civil War are largely the anti-abortion states now. It is the incorrigible descendants of slave owners who are targeting women.

 

[Gozaburo]

Neither the US government nor any US state or territory has the power to force her to stay or to give US citizenship or state residency to the embryo. Being unmarried, she doesn't even have to declare who the father is on the birth certificate - all she has to say is "Father unknown." And she doesn't have to tell the guy where she is, either - if you don't marry a woman, she doesn't have to share her pregnancy or child with you.

Get over it.

Where do you think rights come from? If the US government wanted to force women into captivity, or forcibly confer particular citizenship and state residency upon newborns, it could easily do that.

The issue with the argument on abortion is that both sides seem to think that this is a problem of morals, ethics, or logic, when it is not. Abortion, not unlike declaring and waging war, is a purely political issue. I happen to be pro-choice, but I think the pro-life argument when articulated well has no identifiable moral or logical flaw when viewed in the context of our individualistic liberal society. Arguments about what constitutes human life are largely arbitrary and a matter of taste.

The question to me is not "what is more moral or logical" - both sides provide equally compelling arguments on those terms - it's a question of what is best for society. At that point I think the pro-choicer handily wins the utilitarian & eugenic debate without much effort.

 

[Lursa]

Where do you think rights come from? If the US government wanted to force women into captivity, or forcibly confer particular citizenship and state residency upon newborns, it could easily do that.

The issue with the argument on abortion is that both sides seem to think that this is a problem of morals, ethics, or logic, when it is not.

Of course it's a legal and moral issue.

Abortion, not unlike declaring and waging war, is a purely political issue. I happen to be pro-choice, but I think the pro-life argument when articulated well has no identifiable moral or logical flaw when viewed in the context of our individualistic liberal society. Arguments about what constitutes human life are largely arbitrary and a matter of taste.

Really? How about the violation of women's rights to the exact same things, plus her bodily autonomy, due process, and moral agency, if the govt protects or acts on the unborn without her consent? Such as denying her an abortion if she determines she needs one?

The question to me is not "what is more moral or logical" - both sides provide equally compelling arguments on those terms - it's a question of what is best for society. At that point I think the pro-choicer handily wins the utilitarian & eugenic debate without much effort.

I'm all for respecting that view but believe me...the pro-life people mostly focus on the individual, as we've discussed elsewhere recently. Their argument is that the unborn is exactly the same as a born person. So in other words, unless they're hypocrites, abortion should be banned in all cases except the imminent death of the woman (as in self-defense).

 

[Gozaburo]

Of course it's a legal and moral issue.

I mean, I suppose it's a legal issue with moral subject matter but as I said, both sides have compelling moral arguments which stand to logical scrutiny. It's a political issue because much like the unavoidable consequence of civilian deaths in war, our conclusion on abortion is going to have collateral damage no matter which sides "wins".

Really? How about the violation of women's rights to the exact same things, plus her bodily autonomy, due process, and moral agency, if the govt protects or acts on the unborn without her consent? Such as denying her an abortion if she determines she needs one?

Once again the other side would just argue that the unborn has access to all of those universal rights that the woman does and this is a very compelling argument.

I'm all for that view but believe me...the pro-life people mostly focus on the individual, as we've discussed elsewhere recently.

Well no. I think many in the pro-life crowd have a maximalist approach to individual rights which is honest and respectable. I don't actually think many pro-lifers adopted their views cynically because they want to punish or subjugate women. I think they genuinely believe a fetus is a valuable human life like any other and women have the unfortunate, if necessary, biological role of pregnancy.

 

[Lursa]

I mean, I suppose it's a legal issue with moral subject matter but as I said, both sides have compelling moral arguments which stand to logical scrutiny. It's a political issue because much like the unavoidable consequence of civilian deaths in war, our conclusion on abortion is going to have collateral damage no matter which sides "wins".



Once again the other side would just argue that the unborn has access to all of those universal rights that the woman does and this is a very compelling argument.

So then they dont have a logical, reasonable argument (whatever words you used)...because the unborn does "not" have access to any of them and cannot exercise any of them. So it's not "equal" in any way. Except for a right to life, it's rights cannot be violated until birth.

Another difference, physically and morally...the woman suffers great pain and suffering and society is choosing to impose that on women in favor of recognizing rights for the unborn. IMO it's immoral to intentionally impose pain and suffering on others, the woman has done nothing wrong to be punished by society. (Physically and mentally in the disrespect and minimization by society) The unborn however, suffer nothing. How is that justified (even if all else were equal)?

Well no. I think many in the pro-life crowd have a maximalist approach to individual rights which is honest and respectable. I don't actually think many pro-lifers adopted their views cynically because they want to punish or subjugate women. I think they genuinely believe a fetus is a valuable human life like any other and women have the unfortunate, if necessary, biological role of pregnancy.

Yes, they do...again...they focus on the individual and its rights. Which is what I said. They do not view it from a societal perspective...they have seen the data and economics regarding the benefits of abortion on society and refuse to accept those...after all...do we accept those as reasons for killing born people?