Abortion is in the constitution.

I'm not claiming that they are. That is your strawman. I have claimed that because the medical tech is advancing such that they can keep an early ZEF alive sooner, that viability occurs sooner. In our lifetime we will probably see it scaled back to 20-22 weeks. Being able to keep them alive from sooner in the gestation is not a claim that they are growing any faster.

Ah, another strawman. I've not claimed that it is any better for the offspring to have to be cared for and continue to develop outside the womb. I have only claimed that medical tech is such that if it comes out of the womb it can continue to develop and the point at which the odds are under 50% for death (which is currently 22-24 weeks) will become earlier and earlier.

 

You go right ahead. This particular question is directed at @Injeun, not you. I've already responded to all the other sub threads we've engaged in together.

 

Are you saying that it is not possible for me to knock you out, say with a drug, insert needles hooked up to tubes and a machine to transfer blood between us, and then to rig that machine such that if you try to disconnect it, I die? Do you also find it not possible (note I have not claimed probable) that you could volunteer for such a procedure, and then change your mind later? All that seems rather possible and plausible to me. You just don't want to answer it because it destroys your argument. Are you allowed to disconnect and kill me or are you stuck with me? Who cares whether it is plausible or not. How would the Constitution cover this situation?

Ah so now it is unconstitutional to kill someone in order to save another person's life who is being threatened by them. Are you actually an opponent of the death penalty due to it being unconstitutional? Is killing the enemy in war unconstitutional unless they are directly shooting at you? Is it unconstitutional for the UCMJ to call for the death penalty for treason, sedition, misbehavior before the enemy, aiding the enemy, espionage, murder or rape?

 

Interesting question, if unrelated to the OP. My answer is that no, I don't think that would be a winning strategy in Court, but it should be. Not only is the War on Drugs a failed policy which should be scrapped if for no other reason than that, but since it required a Constitutional Amendment to ban booze, I can't help but wonder why Congress can ban other substances just because they feel like it.

As for the on-topic subject of abortion (for the 13 millionth time), it's not a subject I care too much about, but I will say two things... the idea that a fertilized egg is a full human a mere 5 minutes after sperm meets egg is absurd, and the Court's decision on the Texas case says nothing about the merits.

 

Apparently Dr. Ryan Cole of Idaho coined that phrase, clot shots.

That because the shots so frequently cause clots in the recipients. I like the phrase. It has a nice sound and is very descriptive.

 

Fetal viability is not changing, only the science that can keep a preemie alive is changing.

.

Neither have I.

Where did you get "offspring" from "As I said , women will be happy to not have to go through 9 months of pregnancy....let me know when your fantasy comes true...""

Only with artificial means, that doesn't mean the fetus develops faster......and a fully developed fetus is the ideal, partially developed fetuses are not a good idea..

 

I'm not a Republican, if that's what you mean, and I think Roe v. Wade is settled law and should be left alone. The court got it about as right as they could given Griswold.

I do think the rape exception is sensible for reasons I've given twice.

 

I'm saying stick with the reality here instead of your strained attempts at nonsensical hypotheticals. And read more closely as to what I ACTUALLY say. And if you do not understand the difference between lethal use of force in an act of self-defense and war, and capital punishment then I can't help you.

 

Is it supposed to be a euphemism for COVID shots, similar to how my wife calls them "Faucci Ouchies"?

 

Pay attention as we go over definitions again:

Which means that as the technology gets better, the earlier in the gestation period a preemie can be kept alive. As also noted:

Which means that here in the US, viability is much earlier in the gestational period than in say Zimbabwe. As the tech develops, that viability point will be earlier and earlier. Just as it is earlier now than it was, oh, 50 years ago, or even 100.

I didn't say you did. You said that I said it, when I didn't. Thus Strawman.

Since a woman now doesn't have to go through 9 months of pregnancy because she can get an abortion, then the only group that statement would apply to would be those that do not want to have an abortion. The offspring will do better in the mother's womb, but as is the case with preemies the earlier they are born the less chance they have to survive. Technology can and has extended the period where the offspring can be prematurely born and still survive.

Since I already stated in a previous post that faster development is not the point I am making, the fact that you stated it once again means that you know you are making a strawman argument and are dishonest.

 

What is the difference between capitol punishment (death penalty) and abortion. The person who is killing the one under the death penalty is not under imminent threat of death or physical injury. By your own words, it is unconstitutional to execute them. Same with if go to kill someone who is trying to kill another person. Since I'm not the one who is under imminent threat of death of physical injury, it is unconstitutional for me to kill him by your claims. And again if the principles you claim are so clear, then you can easily apply them to the hypothetical, and explain how the situations have the principles applied differently. The only reason I can see to avoid doing so is because it destroys your assertions.

 

REALLY??? You can't make that intellectual distinction between an abortion and executing someone who committed a capital crime against another human being?

 

Actually it's you who can't (or hasn't demonstrated you can), so let me help you.

The executioner is killing another human being, in this case a born person who has absolutely no connection to the executioner, never mind harmed him/her in any way. It's state sponsored murder, nothing more and definitely nothing less. The person being executed actually MAY NOT HAVE committed murder. History shows it is not always true that he/she actually committed any crime, never mind murder. The executioner is killing another human being not because of any reason that may affect the executioner's life if the one he/she is killing remains alive but simply for money. He/she is getting paid for the job.

OTOH women have abortions (or don't) because unlike the executioner, it directly affects their personal lives and they don't get paid for it if they do. And in this case, what they abort is not a born person. In some cases failure to have an abortion can destroy their lives in a variety of ways, perhaps even kill them if continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to their health. Or if they fail to abort or are forced to carry on until birth, they can potentially give birth to a defective human being whose life may either be short lived and/or lived in a permanent state of torture either psychologically or physically or both.

You're welcome.

 

It is not murder it is a legally sanction execution of someone who committed a capital murder against another human being, a CRIME against society of the highest order. Some states do not allow execution, perhaps by your logic and reasoning they should outlaw abortions then.

You can't make the intellectual distinction between the execution of a capital murderer and a mother killing her unborn child who has not killed nor harmed anyone?

And I have already showed you and it remains unrefuted by the science that the life in the womb is human being, a person, born or unborn makes no difference.

 

LOL! Trotsky was a "democratic socialist".....sound familiar?

 

He wasn't a DS by current standards.

 

Not given the standard you gave. YOU are the one who claimed that it is only allowable to take another human's life when your own life is in danger or are in danger of serious bodily harm. The executioner does not fall under that category. Given all the arguments that you have presented so far, you are being hypocritical if you are still allowing for the death penalty to occur. Or even for saving the life of another by killing their attacker, since the one killing the attacker is likewise not in danger as you claimed is the only justification.

And I guess with this it technically answers my hypothetical in that you would not be allowed to disconnect me since that connection did not threaten your life nor you with serious bodily harm.

 

Hell the Democrats and Republicans of the Civil War era are not Democrats and Republicans by current standards.

 

I already figured explaining it to you is a waste of time.

It's murder as already explained and it's not only outlawed in some states it's also outlawed in many western nations because it's murder. There is no comparison between execution and abortion for all the reasons already posted and many others I haven't posted.

I sure did quite explicitly but just like everything else I've ever posted in discussions with you, it's way over your head and you indicate you have no clue so you treat what I post as if I never posted anything. So just like all other discussions with you, I'm not going to go around in circles.

 

Sorry, I am bored to death with yet another of your rather ridiculous and meaningless premises like .. "Fetus will grow faster and some where in there is a POINT "


When pregnancy goes from 9 months to 2 or 3 as you claim it will let me know Or you learn what "ARTIFICIAL means " mean (which seems to be never)

 

Well then take your little self back and read the thread it was not ME who was making a comparison between abortion and execution that was Maquiscat. And no a legal execution is not a murder either, murder is not a legally sanction taking of a human life. The Constitution states the government can charge a person with a capital crime and that person can be deprived of their life. Try reading the 5th Amendment.

 

There is nothing artificial about a pregnancy, it becomes artificial when an abortionist artificially causes a miscarriage.

 

YOU, a private citizen,. Geeezzz

If in your scenario and willfully went along with you hooking up with me and then was told well you can't come unhook for 9 months no I could not kill you, so enough with your strained inane hypotheticals which have nothing to do with reality.

 

So after 35 pages we have discovered several things, Chief amongst them is that abortion is nowhere in the Constitution.... Not mentioned one time whatsoever.

Secondly we have learned the thread title is a blatant fabrication.

 

I don't understand opponents of the death penalty when the opposition is on constitutional grounds (religious grounds are different). By their logic, imprisonment is also unconstitutional because it's cruel. Or something.