Abortion is in the constitution.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Dec 2, 2021.

  1. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All rights have limitations. You have freedom of speech and yet you cannot legally commit libel or slander. You have a right to life yet we have a death penalty. A right to bear arms, yet you can be banned from guns if you use them to commit crimes. Freedom of religion, but you cannot perform virgin sacrifices. Almost all rights have other rights that override them depending upon circumstances and which individual is doing something to another individual. In the case of the ZEF, it is taking the bodily resources of the woman. If the woman gives and maintains permission, such is her option, as much as I can choose to give blood or organs. I can allow harm to myself for another. Another cannot require harm to myself for themselves. If the woman never gave or withdraws permission, then she is harmed with the taking of her bodily resources. If the taker can be stopped from taking without harm or death, it should be done, such as removing a born child from the breast where it as feeding. In the case of abortion, that is currently not possible, but that does not mean that the violation of the woman's bodily autonomy should be allowed to continue. Fetal homicide laws are aimed at those outside of the woman carrying the ZEF, not the woman herself. Such actions from those outside the woman take away the woman's right and ability to choose.
     
  2. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,317
    Likes Received:
    48,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure it does. I've stated that an opinion does not make something constitutional. You are stating a claim that abortion is in the Constitution this goes beyond the realm of opinion and it is to say you are stating a fact, false though it is.

    But it appears you have learned that saying learned persons with an s, means the plural form of people more than one person.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2021
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is christians, for the most part, who are trying to outlaw abortion.

    An irony that I see is that many (not all) christians are on the clot shot bandwagon for injecting any and all, including children. How can they object to abortion while simultaneously promoting shots for children?
     
    Patricio Da Silva likes this.
  4. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That still does not confer upon the ZEF any right to the woman's bodily resources, anymore that I have a right to any other person's bodily resources. As you said, the same rights. Which also means the same limitations.
     
  5. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    """"""Unless, of course, congress creates a law giving a fetus equal rights as a born human."""""


    ...and with those rights comes restrictions that we all have.

    IF a fetus the same rights as born humans it would have the same restrictions. Correct?

    NO one can use the body of another to sustain their life.

    Having the same rights as born humans does NOT give one the right to do anything they please...

    I don't understand...either a ZEF is a person with rights (and restrictions we ALL have) or it isn't. What parameters?
     
  6. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Biden administration wants to take away my right to choose whether to be vaccinated or not.

    If the fetus is not alive until absolute birth then the second count of murder should be dismissed, how can you kill something that isn't alive? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either it's alive and can be murdered via attack on the mother or abortion, or it isn't.
     
  7. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    NO ONE EVER SAID A FETUS WASN'T ALIVE UNTIL BIRTH.....NO ONE....
     
  8. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for admitting that abortion is killing it.
     
  9. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,146
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good thing abortion is not murder.
     
  10. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure it is. If a person kills a pregnant woman, he's charged with a double murder. Get those convictions overturned and we can talk about it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2021
  11. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,146
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And that's not an abortion.
     
  12. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is a whole thread dedicated to the idea of whether or not vaccines should be mandated. The only thing I will put out here is that it is not an all or nothing issue. As such, deal with that topic over there instead.

    Strawman. There is not a claim that the ZEF is not alive. It isn't even the issue. The issue is one of bodily autonomy, of which, if the woman does not give consent or withdraws it, the ZEF is in violation, intentionally or not. If I am violating Your bodily autonomy, it is your right to have it stopped. If the only way to have it stopped results in my death, you still have the right to have it stopped. My right to life doesn't not override your bodily autonomy when I am in violation of your bodily autonomy.
     
  13. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No one has claimed otherwise on that either. So how about trying another tactic other than strawman arguments?
     
  14. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Anti-abortion is guaranteed, we are endowed with the unalienable right to our life at creation.
     
  15. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The law says you have a right to use lethal force against someone else if that someone else is threatening you with IMMINENT death or serious injury. Where does it say that if I am merely violating your bodily autonomy you can kill me?
     
  16. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A murder is the illegal killing of another. This is why it is not murder to kill a person in self defense, in war or for the death penalty.
     
  17. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As we shall soon see, below, given your propensity to asked questions with assumed premises, to use loaded, cheap shot language, dispense with broad swipe vacuous allegations unsubstantiated or unsupported, you therefore do not possess the requisite credibility sufficient to properly assess another's understanding of what 'essential liberty' is..
    Incompetent comment: Questions have an assumed premise, plus use of cheap shot, sophomoric language.
    Incompetent question: Question has an assumed premise, cheap shot, sophomoric language.
    Incompetent question. Question has an assumed premise.

    Your argument is peppered with vague language, cheap shot loaded language,questions offered with assumed premises, and, the overall affect is to render your argument incompetent, and, as such, you lack, in my reasonable view, the requisite credibility to render a reasonable assessment on another's understanding of liberty issues.

    You can't ask a question with an assumed premise. The proper sequence is as follows:

    You establish a meeting of mind on the premise with the person(s) you are posing the question to, and once a meeting of mind has been achieved, then you can ask the question.

    Assumed premises you've made:

    Vaccine mandate is unconstitutional. The short answer is that the premise is debatable, that is why the premise is assumed. But, I'll start the debate: They are constitutional as long as there is a choice to opt out. This is the same for auto insurance, where, in order to own a vehicle, one must purchase auto insurance, and the courts have upheld the mandate because owning a car is not required. Same goes with mandating vaccination. If a job has a vaccine mandate, you don't have to work there, you can work where the mandate is not enforced. You'd have a legit argument if the law made it illegal to refuse vaccination to live in America, but that is not the case.

    Democrats are utilitarians. A very debatable premise. I'll start the debate: I don't agree with this characterization because Utilitarianism is too ideological. It makes sense sometimes, but other times, it makes no sense and utilitarianism would not allow for exceptions. Democrats are more pragmatic than that, and as such, could not fit into the utilitarian characterization.

    Mueller investigation is a 'kangaroo clown show'.
    Willingness to use cheap shot loaded language is the province of novices, and/or those with weak debate skills. I'd respond, but given that fact, it does not merit a response.

    Your comment, overall, is therefore dismissed on those grounds.

    Correct the defects in your comment, and I will be happy to engage.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2021
  18. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are failing to actually read. Note how I said that if the only way to stop the violation of bodily autonomy is the death of the violator, the violator's right to life does not override the right of bodily autonomy. I, at no point, have made the claim that bodily autonomy is an instant carte blanche permission for the termination of the violator. This is why I put forth the point that artificial womb technology could very well change the results of the woman's right to end the pregnancy. If the ability to end the violation without termination, which doesn't currently exist pre viability, then there is no need to terminate the ZEF. But until then, the right still results in termination of the ZEF pre-viability.
     
  19. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm posting in the opinion forum. And whether or not I think something is a fact is irrelevant.

    If I"m posting to the opinion forum, by default, I'm putting up something for debate. That can mean only one thing:

    It means that I think the subject is worthy of debate, and that means I think the subject is debatable.

    If I really believed it were an incontrovertible fact, I probably would have said it was. I do, on occasions, claim some things as incontrovertible fact, but I don't believe I characterized the OP's premise as such.

    Must a person preface every opinion with 'it is my opinion that....' in order to keep you happy? I should think posting something in the opinion forum automatically makes it an opinion, and not a fact. I'm wondering why you even feel it necessary to make such a statement. Why? because it doesn't matter whether or not I think it's a fact or not, because posting it ot this forum automatically means I'm seeking a debate, and that means I think the subject is debatable, fact, or not. Facts are debatable, too, you know? Sometimes facts are not really facts, but misunderstandings mistakenly assumed to be facts. That's the whole point, to debate this stuff. I mean, why are you even making such a statement? It's rather meaningless.

    Now then, just blurting out an opinion isn't an argument. I gave my reasons why I believe it is constitutional.

    So, feel free to challenge my reasoning and supported arguments by Julie Rikelman, arguing for Center for Productive Rights, and Elizabeth Prelogar, US Solicitor General arguing for United States: to that reasoning (hence the plural).
     
  20. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    NO ONE EVER SAID A FETUS WASN'T ALIVE UNTIL BIRTH.....NO ONE....



    You couldn't "admit " hat NO ONE SAID the fetus was dead...yet YOU claimed they did!!!!

     
  21. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The UVVA (Unborn Victims of Violence Act) does not grant the fetus rights.

    State laws vary but if one kills a pregnant woman there are additional charges ( NOT MURDER) and maybe stiffer sentences.

    The UVVA does NOT grant the fetus personhood....it even states that it hs nothing to do with abortion.
     
  22. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not true. It's called viability. Parameters given in Roe/Casey, etc.
     
  23. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    """"""Unless, of course, congress creates a law giving a fetus equal rights as a born human."""""


    ...and with those rights comes restrictions that we all have.

    IF a fetus the same rights as born humans it would have the same restrictions. Correct?

    NO one can use the body of another to sustain their life.

    Having the same rights as born humans does NOT give one the right to do anything they please...



    I don't understand...either a ZEF is a person with rights (and restrictions we ALL have) or it isn't. What parameters?


    What isn't true?

    Do you think we can force others to give us a kidney if we need one to sustain our life?


    Having rights gives people the right to do whatever they please?

    What isn't true?
     
  24. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,146
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No we're not.
     
  25. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    According to the document cited we are.
     

Share This Page