Another Judge in yet another State rules abortion clinic law unconstitutional

[SMOGZINN]

Deductive logic shows it. A child is somehow a human being when it exits the womb. Barring a magic fairy which uses its wand to bestow humanity on the child on the birthing table, it stands to reason that the child, at some point, was a human being prior to birth.

That sort of logic can go backwards forever. It would seem that if a embryo is a human, then a sperm is a human, and you have committed murder millions of times in your sleep.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Deductive logic shows it. A child is somehow a human being when it exits the womb. Barring a magic fairy which uses its wand to bestow humanity on the child on the birthing table, it stands to reason that the child, at some point, was a human being prior to birth.

I think that somewhere between conception and birth the fetus becomes a human child. But when?

Conception? Hardly seems human. Of human origin, sure, but definitely not a person. 18 weeks, halfway? Maybe. Full term? Almost definitely.

But if you terminate before the point of it being a child, I don't see any issue. The issue is when is it a child. I don't think an eight week embryo qualifies. A sperm and egg don't go from zero to child instantly.

 

[Kadarin]

I think that somewhere between conception and birth the fetus becomes a human child. But when?

Conception? Hardly seems human. Of human origin, sure, but definitely not a person. 18 weeks, halfway? Maybe. Full term? Almost definitely.

But if you terminate before the point of it being a child, I don't see any issue. The issue is when is it a child. I don't think an eight week embryo qualifies. A sperm and egg don't go from zero to child instantly.

My personal opinion is that I agree with you. I'm totally fine with a woman's choice to abort a blastocyst or fetus, while I would be against her making the choice to abort a pregnancy that's six months along unless there were a damned good reason (i.e. her health is at risk).

 

[BoberFett]

Originally Posted by nehalem256 View Post
Which is nonsense. You are on the one hand saying abortion is murder, because why else would you vehemently oppose it, but then going on to say a woman should be able to legally commit murder...<--- YES, I am saying just that!! It is her body not yours! You made a mistake and stuck it in and now you want her to abort the baby so you don`t have to pay your fair share....without you sticking it in this would not be an issue...man up dude!!

And should women have a right to demand men work to support the child they CHOOSE to have?<--- it is the courts who decide that and again you stuck it in...sorry Charlie....lolol
WTF man. WTF.

I'm loathe to agree with nehalem, but why is the answer for men "Don't have sex, if you do then man up" but the answer for women is "It's not your fault, just get an abortion."

I'm pro-abortion. Not just pro-choice, pro-abortion. I think we need a lot more abortions. But the double standard infantilizes women.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm loathe to agree with nehalem, but why is the answer for men "Don't have sex, if you do then man up" but the answer for women is "It's not your fault, just get an abortion."

It is because the man's locus of control ends at the insertion of sperm, while a woman has 9 more months of decisions to make.
The thing to remember about Child Support is that it is not trying to be fair, it is trying to support a child. Once the child gets here our society does not care who wants it, only that it needs to be taken care of. For that it attempts to put the burden equally on both parents if possible.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Just has the Romans practiced infanticide and we are appalled by it, future generations will look at us as barbarians.

Of course they will, because technology in the future will allow us to reduce unplanned or unwanted pregnancies to zero without the need for terminating a fertilized egg. We look back with ridicule and disgust on the barbers of the medieval period who used leeches and bloodletting as means of curing disease because antiseptic, anesthetic and other advanced medical technology didn't exist. We don't have the technology now to completely prevent unwanted pregnancies, so we're left doing practices that can be broadly (although inaccurately) defined as murder. It's a function of our lack of technology, not our morality.

As for literally every other argument you've made in this thread, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is your answer:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You have to be born to be a citizen, and you have to be a person (meaning a human who has been born) to have the rights enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments. You can argue morality all you want, but the concept of "fetal rights" is sketchy at best, and largely uncodified under US law. Don't confuse your personal morality with what the law actually says.

 

[Cozarkian]

It is because the man's locus of control ends at the insertion of sperm, while a woman has 9 more months of decisions to make.

They have the same decisions for the next 9 months, what to eat, when to sleep, how to spend their leisure, etc... True, the women has new circumstances which may affect those decisions, but after she makes the decision to have unprotected sex in her fertility window, her body will naturally move forward with the consequences of her decision without the need for her to make a further decision on that matter.

 

[alzan]

They have the same decisions for the next 9 months, what to eat, when to sleep, how to spend their leisure, etc... True, the women has new circumstances which may affect those decisions, but after she makes the decision to have unprotected sex in her fertility window, her body will naturally move forward with the consequences of her decision without the need for her to make a further decision on that matter.

Correction, the woman and the man decided to have unprotected sex in the woman's fertility window.

 

[nehalem256]

It is because the man's locus of control ends at the insertion of sperm, while a woman has 9 more months of decisions to make.
The thing to remember about Child Support is that it is not trying to be fair, it is trying to support a child. Once the child gets here our society does not care who wants it, only that it needs to be taken care of. For that it attempts to put the burden equally on both parents if possible.

So why then is it legal for a woman to refuse to name the father and therefore deny it the funds it is owed?

Seems pretty perverse that a woman can deny a child its father's support, but the man cannot.

And it would seem you are saying that the man is not responsible for the baby anyway. If a man gives a woman the gift of his seed why is he responsible for what she does with it?

 

[shira]

The decision in the case at hand wasn't about whether or not women have a right to an abortion. Under Roe v Wade, which is the law of the land, women clearly DO have a right to an abortion pre-viability. So all of you debating whether abortions should or shouldn't be legal just stop. STOP!


The case at hand addressed whether the Alabama law illegally restricts women from getting abortions. The fact that the affected clinics DO have doctors with admitting privileges, yet the Alabama law specifically requires the abortion doctors at those clinics to have admitting privileges, clearly demonstrates that this law isn't about women's safety: As long as a doctor with admitting privileges - regardless of whether he's the abortion doctor - is on hand at the clinics, then there will be no delay in getting a women with complications admitted to a nearby hospital.

So any argument that this Alabama law is about women's safety is just nonsense, and it's obvious that the sole purpose of the law is to create an obstacle for any woman seeking an abortion in the state of Alabama.

On that basis, I think any state law similarly crafted will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

 

[master_shake_]

Even the SCOTUS agrees that such a right exist after 22 weeks gestation. Are you disagreeing with the SCOTUS?

cause they always get it right...

i mean money is speech right?

 

[Paratus]

While Atreus and TH say that people have to be responsible for results of having sex and abortion is murder. By their own lack of actions you can tell they don't believe a word of it.

How many funerals for failed fertilized eggs, excuse me children, did they have?

Did either of them ever intellectually or emotionally take responsibility for the number of dead "children" they would have to have to create a live child?

Of course not.

 

[kage69]

Don't know what you're trying to prove. He didn't appear to say anything outrageous.

Somehow, I'm not surprised at all his retarded comparison to slavery didn't raise your eyebrow. Comparing apples to asteroids is par the course for ideologues who have nothing to stand on, to say nothing of their grasp on history as bucky here has just demonstrated.

Posts of sufficient silliness deserve to be preserved before the poster figures it out and edits it.

 

[kage69]

Liberty for American women should not extend to killing their own offspring. No more than it should for men.

Your liberty should not extend to control the bodies of women against their will. No more than it should for men.


On a side note, I think it's pretty funny that so many in the "pro-life" crowd will gleefully advocate war when they think their liberty is threatened. They hate your freedoms, remember? And I'm not talking the personal, individual freedom over your own body like the ladies are talking about, the "pro-life" part seems to go into remission when the liberty to live a consumptive American life free from the worries of chemical weapon packing boogeymen and expensive gas is threatened.
They seem to be ok accepting the inevitable civilian losses (including real children, ones that have made the journey to be an autonomous human being) that comes with such action, hell some of you practically sprout wood in your 'Murica, fuck yeah' glee, but if it comes down to an American woman wanting to have a say in her own reproductive future, people lose their shit even though it's something they are completely detached from and unaffected by. Same thing for that whole "religious liberty" bullshit a la Hobby Lobby. The feelings of religious business owners are more important to the "pro-life" crowd than the lives and personal choices of women. It worries me that so many adults seem to not be able to see how screwed up that is, yet drape themselves with the flag and defend it.

I dismiss pro-lifers because of the non-life qualifiers the belief seems to always come with, whether they admit it or not. Actions speak louder than words, no? If I saw the group as a whole act with a little (ok A LOT) more consistency and logic I probably wouldn't feel that way. Getting on board with birth control to prevent abortions could go a long way to gaining some credibility, as would maintaining that caring attitude after the woman gives birth. Just saying.

 

[BoberFett]

It is because the man's locus of control ends at the insertion of sperm, while a woman has 9 more months of decisions to make.
The thing to remember about Child Support is that it is not trying to be fair, it is trying to support a child. Once the child gets here our society does not care who wants it, only that it needs to be taken care of. For that it attempts to put the burden equally on both parents if possible.

I understand the logic. It's the attitude that bothers me, and it is a double standard.

I guess it's just part of the liberal War on Men.

 

[Paratus]

I understand the logic. It's the attitude that bothers me, and it is a double standard.

I guess it's just part of the liberal War on Men.

Fundamentally the laws are fair. It's biology that's not. Which is why it should be left up to the individuals involved and not religiously motivated governments.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I understand the logic. It's the attitude that bothers me, and it is a double standard.

I guess it's just part of the liberal War on Men.

So basically you are saying the logic is sound but it makes you feel bad therefore War on Men?

 

[Atreus21]

That sort of logic can go backwards forever. It would seem that if a embryo is a human, then a sperm is a human, and you have committed murder millions of times in your sleep.

Not so. A sperm is potentially nothing further than an adult sperm cell. An egg is the same.

A fertilized egg is a potential adult human being.

 

[Atreus21]

Your liberty should not extend to control the bodies of women against their will. No more than it should for men.

Yes it should, if the woman or man desires to kill someone.

On a side note, I think it's pretty funny that so many in the "pro-life" crowd will gleefully advocate war when they think their liberty is threatened. They hate your freedoms, remember? And I'm not talking the personal, individual freedom over your own body like the ladies are talking about, the "pro-life" part seems to go into remission when the liberty to live a consumptive American life free from the worries of chemical weapon packing boogeymen and expensive gas is threatened.
They seem to be ok accepting the inevitable civilian losses (including real children, ones that have made the journey to be an autonomous human being) that comes with such action, hell some of you practically sprout wood in your 'Murica, fuck yeah' glee, but if it comes down to an American woman wanting to have a say in her own reproductive future, people lose their shit even though it's something they are completely detached from and unaffected by. Same thing for that whole "religious liberty" bullshit a la Hobby Lobby. The feelings of religious business owners are more important to the "pro-life" crowd than the lives and personal choices of women. It worries me that so many adults seem to not be able to see how screwed up that is, yet drape themselves with the flag and defend it.

I dismiss pro-lifers because of the non-life qualifiers the belief seems to always come with, whether they admit it or not. Actions speak louder than words, no? If I saw the group as a whole act with a little (ok A LOT) more consistency and logic I probably wouldn't feel that way. Getting on board with birth control to prevent abortions could go a long way to gaining some credibility, as would maintaining that caring attitude after the woman gives birth. Just saying.

Once again, no one should have the liberty to kill their own children.

 

[Atreus21]

Somehow, I'm not surprised at all his retarded comparison to slavery didn't raise your eyebrow. Comparing apples to asteroids is par the course for ideologues who have nothing to stand on, to say nothing of their grasp on history as bucky here has just demonstrated.

It's not a retarded comparison at all. Slavery deprived men of their liberty. Abortion goes one step further to deprive them of their life in the first place, and then tries to justify it as if its for their own good (just as slavers did). Abortion is portrayed as a fundamental right (just as slavery was). It's the only real civil rights problem of our lifetime.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yes it should, if the woman or man desires to kill someone.

What does that have to do with abortion?

Once again, no one should have the liberty to kill their own children.

Nobody is suggesting that they should.

Look, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Fetuses are not persons. They are not "someone." They are not "children." You are dishonest in the utmost to continue to describe them as such. Take your lack of integrity and kindly fuck off with it.

 

[nehalem256]

That sort of logic can go backwards forever. It would seem that if a embryo is a human, then a sperm is a human, and you have committed murder millions of times in your sleep.

That seems pretty stupid.

Lets say you have a few eggs and some cake mix sitting on your counter do you have a cake? I don't think anyone would say you do.

Now lets saying you mix together all your cake mix and eggs and whatnot and put the batter into a pan and place it into your pre-heated oven. Do you have a cake yet? What about after its in the oven for 5 min? Or is it only a cake after it has fully baked for 30 min? Seems pretty debatable to me.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Not so. A sperm is potentially nothing further than an adult sperm cell. An egg is the same.

A fertilized egg is a potential adult human being.

But that's just a lie.

 

[nehalem256]

Fundamentally the laws are fair. It's biology that's not. Which is why it should be left up to the individuals involved and not religiously motivated governments.

The laws are not fair. Unless you are arguing that treating people the same for unequal actions is "fair"?

Saying that current laws on childsupport/abortion are "fair" is like saying that Middle Eastern rape laws are fair, because they stone both the rapist and rape victim for fornication. Treating people the same for vastly different actions is clearly not fair.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's not a retarded comparison at all. Slavery deprived men of their liberty. Abortion goes one step further to deprive them of their life in the first place, and then tries to justify it as if its for their own good (just as slavers did). It's the only real civil rights problem of our lifetime.

This is another lie.

Liars for Jesus. Oh, I'm sure he'd be so proud....