More abortions = less welfare. Pick one, right wingers !

I only refer to myself as a matter of giving my own perspectives and opinions.

The question is - "why do you talk about me - when I don't feel the need to talk about you?"

 

Jeeez, you really are overly sensitive, I will leave you alone from now on, I would not want you to get your fellings hurt.

Bye Bye, have a Nice Life and God Bless.
Casper

 

Care to show me where I have ever accused you of making an appeal to authority .. or am I not one of the "you guys"

 

Many of those (you guys) on your side of the issue - like to accuse myself and others of making an appeal to authority - when they are citing legal sources.

Here's someone on their side of the issue - blatantly making an appeal to authority and (crickets)...

Not even a peep from them - about it.

 

Just so I get your position...are you pro-choice throughout the entire nine months? Or do you want to restrict womens rights by denying them a late term abortion?

 

.

Just following your lead .. if you can appeal to authority, why can't I or is that only the domain of pro-lifers.

As they say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

Citing the UVVA as a source to support the claim that the UVVA defines a child in the womb AS "a child in the womb" and as "a human being" is not making an appeal to authority.

It's citing and sourcing a legal fact.

Saying "they know more than you so I'm going with their OPINIONS" - THAT is an appeal to authority.

 

You know you are right, citing the source of a claim which is the same as the claim as your proof, is circular reasoning or a logical fallacy AND an appeal to authority.

Appeal to Authority - You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true. ie Authority think that the UVVA is true in it's definitions, therefore you think it is true .. when you have also admitted yourself that authorities get it wrong.

Circular reasoning - You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise. ie The UVVA says that a fetus is a "person", therefore because the UVVA says this it must be true.

Along the way you have also added in the following in other comments;

appeal to nature - You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal. ie pregnancy is the natural outcome of sex, and so it is justified in enforcing pregnancy
anecdotal - You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence. ie the premature birth of your own child

but hey I'm all good with them, if we invoked every single possible logical fallacy there wouldn't be any debate.

 

Do you think that it is a bad thing to be pro-choice throughout the entire nine months? 1% of abortions are done after 20 weeks.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/07/texas_abortion_ban_after_20_weeks_prenatal_testing_reveals_birth_defects.html

"According to the Guttmacher Institute, only about 1 percent of abortions are performed after 20 weeks of gestation (a normal pregnancy is 40 weeks), which are those banned by the proposed Texas law."

Reasons: Why do some women wait so long? The answer is that comprehensive fetal testing, such as anatomical sonograms and ultrasounds of the heart, are typically performed just before 20 weeks of gestation. Such scans are critical for uncovering major birth defects, such as anencephaly (severe brain malformations), major heart defects, missing organs and limbs, and other severe birth defects. Fetal development is a complex process that often goes awry. Roughly 2 percent of all pregnancies are complicated by a major birth defect, and of those about 0.5 percent have a chromosomal defect, such as an extra or missing segment of normal DNA. Birth defects are a leading cause of infant mortality, and in many cases of severe birth defects, no medical treatment can salvage a fetus’s life or result in any measure of normal future health.

"It is hard to overstate the heartrending nature of these decisions and the amount of time and effort the care team spends on educating and supporting these families as they make very personal decisions."

 

Not always.

"Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment.... " Nizkor List of Fallacies

As for the rest....

I have to get someone to a dr. appointment so - maybe later.

 

Never said it was always .. but are you saying that a lawyer is not a legitimate authority on law, or a biologist a legitimate authority on biology .. I mean at worse I was a little vague by just saying lawyers, but I can certainly pull up a few quotes from lawyers if you want, or biologists.

How about Jeffrey Rosen, JD, professor of law at George Washington University Law School

 

That was great!

I should send him some money or something to reward him for helping to lure the proponents of abortion into a false sense of security.

 

So I can take it from your reply that you have nothing of value to add, apart from some dismal attempt to side-step . .fair enough.

 

You should take that guys advice and not worry about the language of the UVVA's impact on future decisions by the SCOTUS when it comes to the abortion issue.

I'm sure the Justicse will agree with the professor and with his opinions - they will conclude that sending people to prison for MURDER has no significant meaning at all - and they will be oblivious to the disparity with the laws that says a pregnant woman could kill the same child at the same stage of development and it would be no crime at all.

 

There is hardly a need for advice on that. Anyone with an IQ above their shoe size knows that if that language of of the UVVA would or could have ANY impact on anything having to do with abortion, it would have already done so.
It takes a very special kind of stubborn ignorance to not see that.

 

As said nothing of any real value to add

No matter how many times you try to force the fallacy of abortion being murder you will fail, simply put under current law it is not . .now you are free to disagree with that, but until (if ever) the position changes you are quoting a lie.

The point being that just because your own personal opinion is that abortion is murder and the UVVA gives constitutional personhood rights to a fetus doesn't make it true, so please do keep repeating the lie, all it does is make your position less credible, oh and it is most defiantly a lie until (if ever) the current law is changed.

It is interesting that you say that a professors point of view is merely an opinion, yet you claim your viewpoint is not .. no matter what you post and from whomever you post, it can all be said to be mere opinion.

Your claim the the UVVA gives grounds for a challenge to Roe is opinion and until that opinion is tested by the highest courts then it is of no more value than mine or anyone else's.

Maybe if it ever comes before SCOTUS your opinion will be validated, at that time you can crow all you like about being right (as in correct), until then your unwillingness to debate your opinion really makes me believe that you either -

a. Do not have enough belief in your own convictions
b. Do not have enough evidence to support you convictions
c. Hoping that if you say it often enough, people will believe you
d. A distinct lack of understanding how a debate works

and finally

e. don't have the slightest interest in other peoples opinion as only yours counts.

 

Projecting

I've never questioned that abortions are not currently legal.

Can you tell me how a person can be convicted for murder under the UVVA - if the child that they killed has no Constitutional personhood rights?

Man, if I could only get one of you guys to answer a question.... that one would be at the top of my list!

LOL!

Nice caveat!

What can I say?

I encourage you to take that guys opinions over mine.

I can't say that sincerely enough.

I completely agree with that.

I've debated the issue now for more than 20 Years - TRYING to get enough influence to get a law passed with the language that the UVVA has.

Now that - that has been accomplished?

It's time to concentrate our efforts on the rest.

It doesn't have anything to do with me being right. That's consistently the mistake my opponents make. Even as I try to remind you that it's not about me - you can't help but to try to make it about me.

Meanwhile, opinions are changing - because more and more people see you denials for what they are.

 

Let do this in a different way, shall we? Why don't you answer the real pertinent questions to this topic?
What are you afraid of? Is it that your mantra will become unraveled? Is it that you simply do not understand the issues involved? Is it lack of integrity to admit failure. Is it fear of failure? Is ti all of the above? Why don't you answer the real questions instead of playing these stupid game of semantics? How about it? Put the issue to bed, clarify once and for all this, answer the questions I asked in the thread "If fetuses were persons"

At the top of your list should be honest and intelligent ways of debating and you clearly are not.

Considering what you have accomplished anyone with the least intellect would recognize it as a failure. Time to change methods. You may wish to look into the ones that actually have meaningful results. This is not only tiresome but really a disservice to your cause. Time to wake up and smell reality.

It would if you actually were right. You are not.

You are again deluding yourself. It is about what YOU bring to the debate and it is not facts, rational reasoning, or integrity.

 

Only projecting if it isn't true

Then why do you keep saying that abortion is murder, at best you should be saying that abortion should be murder, especially as you claim to be debating only on the legal standing.

Already answered - "the same states that declare fetuses to be persons from conception also emphasize that, before viability, a fetus's interest in potential life is not weighty enough to override a woman's right to choose an early-term abortion.... [confirming that] the language of fetal 'personhood' is shorthand for complicated moral judgments that weigh the interests of the fetus differently in different circumstances. "

Still correct though is it not?

and I will take his expert opinion as having more credence than a layman's opinion

At least we can agree on something

So after 20 years you have got a law that doesn't even address your primary concern, abortion ... well done!!!!

When you debate in a forum then it is about what you believe to be correct, you are the one placing your opinions ... do you think that you wouldn't be questioned?

That statement is erroneous at best, the overall opinions on abortion have changed very little since 1973 -

historically - http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Recent - http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

 

Still waiting for the answers chuz, come and shed light on this.

 

You were projecting.

Do you know what an allegation is?

Do you know the difference between an allegation and a prosecution?

When I (or anyone else) says that an abortion is "murder" - it is an allegation.

We are completely aware of the fact that it is (for now) legal - just as slavery was a crime against humanity when it too was legal.

When slavery was legal and someone like me said "slavery is a crime against humanity" - would you have dismissed their allegations by reminding them that "slavery is legal?"

The exclamation "abortion is murder" is not a claim about the current legal reality -it's an indictment against the laws which (for now) keep abortion legal.

We realize that we need to get the right case before the SCOTUS in order to prosecute that allegation.

Again, that's only one person's opinion. We have people already serving time in prison for illegally killing children in the womb. The lives they destroyed were not 'potential' lives - they were real - actual lives. You can't be convicted of MURDER for killing a "potential" human being.

If you could, ever male in the nation above puberty would be guilty of mass genocide.

I don't think so.

Good!

I've decided that I actually want for you to do that.

You say that as you think I personally have any control over the outcomes.

So long as it is about the beliefs, opinions etc. I have no problem with questions at all.

But it's not about me 'personally.'

Neither is it about YOU personally.

The laws (like fetal homicide laws) reflect the changes in people's opinions too.

Don't they?

 

And what are you waiting for? UVVA has been law for a long time, what else do you need? Why don't you want to answer the relevant questions?

 

In your opinion

If ever I have seen a squirm and twist then this is it.
The slavery analogy has been debunked so many times that it is now just boring, can you do not better than that?
You see slavery analogies work just as well for the pro-choice side as it does for pro-lifers .. Slavery was also about ownership, you know owning another human being .. that is what you are advocating, owning a woman in order to stop her exercising her individual rights.

The "exclamation" "Abortion is murder" is factually & legally incorrect and as it stands a lie . .regardless if you (or what ever group you are a member of) think to say "abortion is murder" is nothing more than a bold faced lie.

I know very well the difference between an allegation and a prosecution, the point is you don't express it as an allegation, you express it as a fact.

One person of many, do you want a whole page of legal, and scientific experts who don't agree with your interpretations, because if you do I'll happily oblige.

The question that requires answering by you, or your comrades, is IF the woman had consented to what was done to her, would these people in prison actually be there .. at worst they would have been charged with assisted suicide .. now prove me wrong in that.
The UVVA only convicts when the woman has not given her consent and despite the stupidity of some pro-life prosecutors who have tried to get convictions over women who have consented, every single one has Failed

You think a lot of things, most of them incorrectly.

I really couldn't care less what you want or decided, though it would seem that you only agree because you have nothing to offer in dispute.

not at all, you as in meaning "all of you" ie used to refer to the person being addressed together with other people regarded in the same class

But you do, otherwise you wouldn't maintain the mantra that it isn't about "you" .. don't forget you are the one posting, who else are people supposed to address with counter arguments or questions.

Not at all, they reflect the opinions of a few people in positions to sway decisions .. would you agree to abide by a national referendum on abortion no matter the outcome .. if yes then you (used to refer to the person being addressed together with other people regarded in the same class) ARE listening to the people, if not then you (used to refer to the person being addressed together with other people regarded in the same class) ARE trying to enforce a minority opinion onto all.

 

SCOTUS will not overturn Roe v Wade if justices base their opinions on why Roe v Wade was established. RW allows a woman to make her decision anytime during her pregnancy. We do unfortunately have justices who base their opinion on their political beliefs when discussing establish law. That is so very wrong and should be fixed.

All the shenanigans played by state legislators only hurt poor women. They may use unhealthy methods to about just as they did before RW. It does not stop women from needing an abortion and, with means, getting the proper care for an abortion. The pseudo science does not change the fact that a woman has a right to choose. It just makes it harder and more dangerous.

Woman will never be charged with murder for having an abortion. Only 1% of abortions are done after 20 weeks and anyone who believes that it not a tough decision for 99% of those women is fooling themselves.

Some men want a woman to carry a fetus to term even knowing that the baby will be delivered dead. The religious right wants to tell women that their beliefs overrule her choice. People on the right want to reduce food stamps, children's programs and education spending. How does that makes since when, at the same time, you want more women to carry to term?