Abortion is in the constitution.

Separate heart beat. Separate brain. Feels pain when the mother does not. The only difference between it and a fully developed infant is that it is not yet fully developed and it is still attached and inside the mother's womb.

 

Well, we disagree. The concept existed, and the wrongfulness of unjustifiable homicide, was acknowledged quite a ways back, before penal codes were enacted.

 

I think homicide works..see there ya go.
Just or unjust. Yes, Homicide is sometimes required. I understand you would like to reduce the occurrences. Ur tactics are failing. Using the state to do it has failed in the past, and will fail again.

 

No. Homicide includes reckless and negligent killing, amd even hot blooded manslaughter which are not murder in ordinary language.

See? There ya go.

Stop with the condescension, please.

 

Get some stake in the mothers game, then form a policy to take care of these unborn babies.

 

Get some stake in the unborn baby's game. He's 8.9 months old and just wants to live.

 

If you care about someones life, then you CARE enough to make sure they are able to have a life. Yes, put stake in the game, otherwise even if we had technology to extract a fetus at say 1 month in and have it grow outside the mother. What would happen then?

 

I actually do think that the entire citizenry has some kind of stake in every one's kids, yes even their unborn kids. Continuity. Survival. See there ya go.

I do think also that you and everyone here has a stake in my health, saying I should exercise and eat right, even though it's "MY BODY MY RIGHT!!!!" to weigh 600 pounds. I don't, but the point is obvious. To me, anyway.

You're too belligerent for me to want to exchange views with you further.

Farewell. (See there ya go.)

 

Thats a bit socialist for my taste, but i appreciate the accusation.
Its best you stay out of the topic then, i agree. For someone who gives up that quick, and fails to answer a simple question, i dont see how you can take such a position. Its quite interesting.

If ur gonna infringe on someones body autonomy, put some stake in the game. Thats it.

 

Correct, you don't know (about) me.

It is born when it's no longer in a woman's body, that is more than obvious and not a question that should be asked by anyone with any reasonable amount of intelligence. There are people who believe in all sorts of things, including that a traitor should be President. Then again, we've have several of those.

 

Correct and that changes nothing, the fetus is still part of and within a woman's body until it isn't.

 

You're avoiding the question, which I won't re-state again because it's clear, and we know why you're avoiding it (you don't want to face the ugliness of late term abortion when the head is visible enough to plunge some long, sharp scissors into it).

Next, you inject electoral politics into the equation which any person with a reasonable amount of intelligence would know is not analogous or helpful.

I'd say "nice dodge," but it isn't nice.

 

Nonsense, I haven't avoided anything. You're inventing crap. If you mean when it's born, that was answered. If you mean when it's deserving "legal" protection, that was also answered throughout this thread but if you missed it, it's deserving independent "legal" protection the moment it's born, within the constraints of individual parental rights.

Who is "we"? You speak only for yourself or are you so insecure that you believe you speak for everyone?

It was a response to an irrelevant hypothetical you posted about what "some" people believe. Don't be a hypocrite.

 

Where I asked Maqiscat "REALLY??? You can't make that intellectual distinction between an abortion and executing someone who committed a capital crime against another human being?" How you read that to mean I can't is beyond me.

Execution is not murder PERIOD end of story. Cite where the law makes legal execution as allowed in the Constitution murder.

AND it says what I just highlighted. They are not mutually exclusive, the Constitution the first stating a person CAN be held to a capital crime, one that is punishable by death, the second only insures it will only be done after due process.

So explain how that makes a legally sanction execution of someone who has committed a capital offense murder? Murder is specifically NOT a legally sanction taking of another persons life.

And the bolded makes your statement entirely specious and moot. Killing a slave was murder in the United States under the law. Murder is a STATE crime not a FEDERAL crime, except on FEDERAL property, of course the Constitution doesn't on it's face make murder illegal it doesn't say anything about rape either just as it doesn't say anything about abortion.

 

What was the punishment for killing of a Slave in the South ?

 

This is why having a discussion with you is an exercise in futility, you have severe reading comprehension issues.

You didn't at the time, you merely asked the question. But I anticipated you can't by your question.

Here we go again with what's in the Constitution, already addressed numerous times. I was never talking about the "legality" of executions, I was talking about the ACT of execution as murder, the taking of a life for no other reason than financial compensation. Why do you think I posted this:

Killing a slave is and always was murder regardless of the "law', same as any execution. Obviously.

 

If you are just going to post your specious whining and invective then don't bother. I gave you an intellectual response to which you can't respond civilly. When you can choose to and then so let me know.

 

I can, especially if they are talking about actual hot cocoa, and not using that name for hot chocolate, a common idiom. Cocoa and chocolate are radically different foods, despite coming from a common animal. It's rather like me where I love bacon, and like pork, but I don't like ham. It's all from the pig, but they are very different from each other.

 

A very interesting observation. Now while I don't use this as my own personal argument, as a counter to yours, you do realize that the vast majority of abortions happen before the offspring has all of these, right? And that the vast majority of those after 20 weeks are based on medical problems that threaten the health or life of the mother, yes?

 

What you are saying in this, whether you realize it or not, is that a person does not have a right to determine who can or cannot use their body or it's resources, AND that if they ever do agree to another using their bod or its resources, they can then never change their mind. Have you thought about what the consequences of that are?

 

Never! Or maybe I should say it should never be illegal. Inappropriate is a subjective value, and as such any given things has multiple views. Quite honestly, as a pro-choice person, I would fully defend the right of anyone to protest abortions.

Never! If you do that, then what justification would then come up for some other procedure to be blocked. Look at what happened to Alfie Evans. His parents wanted to take him out of country for a medical treatment not available in England. They were prevent from taking him. Yes, that was the government, but if a citizen believed that they were saving Alfie from something, would it have been any different? What you propose there is a slippery slope. The freedom to protest never allows anyone, especially another citizen, to violate another citizen's freedoms.

 

No. The minimum needed to end the violation of her bodily autonomy is the maximum extent of her right with respect to the rights of the offspring. IF the simple cutting of that cord would kill the offspring, that is still the minimum needed to end the use of her bodily resources. There is nothing in her bodily autonomy that permits the termination of the offspring if it is not necessary to end the violation of her bodily resources.

 

You are in effect contradicting yourself. That is a late term abortion procedure. They are first and foremost rare; much less than 1%. They are also rarely done (within the whole number of late term abortions) for any reason other than the risk of health or life to the mother and/or the offspring having those birth defects you referenced. If the woman has carried the offspring for that long, there are Ivory Odds of her actually wanting the offspring, even if she has to terminate it to save her own life.

 

Murder is actually quite contextual. By the definition given by @Bluesguy, "murder is not a legally sanction taking of a human life", it would not be murder by the governing legal authority. Now it might be murder by a given religious law, and it might also be murder by another country's civil law. Any given homicide can be both murder and not murder when taking into account all the various laws available to define it by.

 

Then you have a whole new ball game. The woman's right isn't the termination of her offspring. That is the results of the right that she possesses. If a woman had the right to terminate her genetic offspring, then she could do so while the offspring was being gestated in the womb of a surrogate woman. Since that is not the case, such is not the right. Once the offspring is out of her own body, then there is no bodily autonomy violation for the woman to act upon. Now there is the question of whether or not, assuming the proposed tech exists, she gets to decide whether to have a termination or just a transfer. There are other factors in play now. Is the termination procedure even offered anymore? Is there more bodily trauma in one procedure over the other? These things greatly effect the outcome.