Originally posted by: shira
Where human life begins is irrelevant.
Originally posted by: shira
Where human personhood begins is what's important. You, of course, are incapable of understanding the distinction.
I hope the need for abortion becomes non-existent. But until there is better birth control, better people who don't rape, responsible people who take the birth control and better predictive capabilities for genetic malfunctions, it won't.Originally posted by: hellokeith
...
If this country lasts another 200 hundred years, I do believe abortion will be looked back upon people of that time as 1000x worse than slavery ever was.
Human life does not begin at conception, as has already been covered in this thread. At no point in the reproductive process are any of the constituent cells not human or not alive, so there can be no such beginnings.Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: shira
Where human life begins is irrelevant.
On the contrary, it is 100% relevant. There is no difference between aborting a 8 1/2 week old fetus and an 8 1/2 month old fetus. Both are 100% human. If you are in support of abortion, you must support it up until the first neonatal breath, else we get into an argument again about when human life begins which has already been universally agreed upon by geneticists and doctors alike.
That certainly isn't true, and it demonstrates a profound ignorance of the pertinent issues. Only a pregnant mother can decide to terminate her pregnancy, and there are provisions in the law for causing the unlawful death of a fetus (distinct from persons, incidentally).Originally posted by: shira
Where human personhood begins is what's important. You, of course, are incapable of understanding the distinction.
Ah, we are finally getting somewhere. Because it doesn't really matter if the unborn child is human, since it doesn't have legalrights, so we can just conveniently do whatever we like to it.
Slaves were persons, still, under the law, and they in fact had some rights. This is all irrelevant, of course, to the issue of abortion.I recall a very similar group of humans just a few hundred years ago who had no rights - slaves - and how now slavery is near universally accepted in this country as barbaric and unconstitutional.
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: shira
Where human life begins is irrelevant.
On the contrary, it is 100% relevant. There is no difference between aborting a 8 1/2 week old fetus and an 8 1/2 month old fetus. Both are 100% human. If you are in support of abortion, you must support it up until the first neonatal breath, else we get into an argument again about when human life begins which has already been universally agreed upon by geneticists and doctors alike.
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: jonks
Confused...if abortion is illegal, where exactly does a woman go to get an abortion for which she can later be arrested?
The same as with any other existing illegal medical action: she doesn't go do it.
[/quote]Originally posted by: hellokeith
I honestly don't see how liberals jump to the ridiculous and ludicrous conclusion that women will be bound up and turned into helpless baby factories, except only to incite fictitious fear in uninformed women.
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.
Fortunately it's not up to those like you to determine.Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.
She gives up these rights when she doesn't use a contraceptive and gets herself pregnant, just like when a criminal commits a crime, they lose various rights also. Rights are not a guaranteed thing. They are dependent upon your actions.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.
She gives up these rights when she doesn't use a contraceptive and gets herself pregnant, just like when a criminal commits a crime, they lose various rights also. Rights are not a guaranteed thing. They are dependent upon your actions.
Fortunately it's not up to those like you to determine.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fortunately it's not up to those like you to determine.Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.
She gives up these rights when she doesn't use a contraceptive and gets herself pregnant, just like when a criminal commits a crime, they lose various rights also. Rights are not a guaranteed thing. They are dependent upon your actions.
Blah, blah, blah.:roll:Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fortunately it's not up to those like you to determine.Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.
She gives up these rights when she doesn't use a contraceptive and gets herself pregnant, just like when a criminal commits a crime, they lose various rights also. Rights are not a guaranteed thing. They are dependent upon your actions.
Yes, fortunately people like you are in power who will continue to speak out of 2 sides of their mouths- exploitation for some, protection of rights for others. Try a complete non-exploitation platform. It is unheard of in our politics. That is one reason why there is such division in the nation.
No, she doesn't. What a silly idea. Contraceptives have failure rates, y'know.Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.
She gives up these rights when she doesn't use a contraceptive.
She doesn't get herself pregnant. The zygote implants itself into her uterine wall, and in fact to accomplish that it must subvert her immune defenses that would otherwise protect her.and gets herself pregnant,
just like when a criminal commits a crime, they lose various rights also. Rights are not a guaranteed thing. They are dependent upon your actions.
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
No, she doesn't. What a silly idea. Contraceptives have failure rates, y'know.Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.
She gives up these rights when she doesn't use a contraceptive.
She doesn't get herself pregnant. The zygote implants itself into her uterine wall, and in fact to accomplish that it must subvert her immune defenses that would otherwise protect her.and gets herself pregnant,
just like when a criminal commits a crime, they lose various rights also. Rights are not a guaranteed thing. They are dependent upon your actions.
For shit's sake you're comparing having sex to committing a crime -- don't you see how divorced from reality your thinking is?
Waivers to fundamental rights must be explicit. I've already cited precedent in this thread to establish that.
Originally posted by: shira
The U.S. Constitution, and most particularly the Bill of Rights, consistently refer to the rights of "people" and "persons," never to the rights of "human life."
Since the United States is a not a theocracy, those of you who claim that a fetus has rights solely based on its status as "human life" really have no foundation for your argument. It's clear that you realize this because you so obviously slip terms like "child" and "baby" into your rhetoric, as if they're interchangeable with "human life." They are not, and unless you can demonstrate that "human life" = "person," your anti-abortion arguments are stillborn.
Thus, if your purpose is to outlaw all abortions, the burden of proof is on you to establish that a human life is a person at conception. The fact that you never even make such an attempt just demonstrates how lacking in substance your arguments really are - all dogma, no cogency.
Why is your spectrum of "responsible" actions so narrow? A woman also has an obligation to her own present and future, to her happiness and sense of well-being. Taking a morning-after pill or getting an abortion at six-weeks is not the same as strangling a baby in its crib. Obviously YOU think they're the same, but there's no accounting for psychosis.Originally posted by: spittledip
Is the woman responsible for having sex which causes conception? Yes. Is she responsible for what happens if the measures she takes fail? Yes. What is the responsible thing to do when her tricks fail her and she ends up pregnant? Take a life or allow the life to live?
Get this "spread her legs" nonsense. You COULD have said, ". . . when she and her boyfriend made love." But "spread her legs" so much more accurately portrays the kind of sluts we're dealing with, doesn't it? Only dirty sluts "spread their legs" as they succumb to the evil temptation of sex. Ride her good, cowboy, and pay the price, whore!!!Originally posted by: Genx87
btw women consented to grant permission to that fetus when she spreads her legs.
No. You are obviously very confused about the nature of liability. Sex isn't negligent, so there can be no duty to convey.Originally posted by: spittledip
Is the woman responsible for having sex which causes conception? Yes.
Responsible to who?Is she responsible for what happens if the measures she takes fail? Yes.
You can have your own opinion about what the right thing to do is, but the law cannot compel her to remain an involuntary incubator when she has committed neither a crime nor a tort.What is the responsible thing to do when her tricks fail her and she ends up pregnant? Take a life or allow the life to live?
Ah, so pregnancy is punishment to you. That explains a lot.When you gamble and lose, you have to pay the bookie.
You really enjoy speaking from your posterior, I see. Perhaps you should read back through the thread so I don't have to demonstrate again the facts that refute you.Same thing with contraceptives b/c those are a gamble too. Just b/c your gamble doesn't pay off doesn't mean you aren't responsible for getting pregnant. In reference to pregnancy, the most responsible position is abstinence b/c that is the only fail safe way to avoid pregnancy aside from rape- but getting raped isnt a choice.
No, you compared getting pregnant to committing a crime. That is a fact.And to think that I was comparing the act of sex and getting preganat with crime is a willful attmept to discredit the entire argument, and is utterly absurd as you know, and is dishonest of you as well.
Actually, rights are guaranteed until they are waived, either implicitly or explicitly. As has already been established, waivers to fundamental rights must be explicit, and sex is not that.Seeing that you need me to hold your hand through that analogy: rights are not a guaranteed thing- what we do determines that status of our rights.
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: shira
The U.S. Constitution, and most particularly the Bill of Rights, consistently refer to the rights of "people" and "persons," never to the rights of "human life."
Since the United States is a not a theocracy, those of you who claim that a fetus has rights solely based on its status as "human life" really have no foundation for your argument. It's clear that you realize this because you so obviously slip terms like "child" and "baby" into your rhetoric, as if they're interchangeable with "human life." They are not, and unless you can demonstrate that "human life" = "person," your anti-abortion arguments are stillborn.
Thus, if your purpose is to outlaw all abortions, the burden of proof is on you to establish that a human life is a person at conception. The fact that you never even make such an attempt just demonstrates how lacking in substance your arguments really are - all dogma, no cogency.
ACtually, "life" is good enough for me. I merely refer to a fetus as a life. And you have no ability to disprove that it isn't a life b/c we dont even know what life is at this point. Better to err on the side of greater good.
Originally posted by: shira
Please demonstrate to us that a fetus is a person at conception.
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: shira
Please demonstrate to us that a fetus is a person at conception.
Please demonstrate to us that a fetus is a person at 8 months 4 weeks 1 day, while still in the womb.
