Abortion is in the constitution.

Nope you are confusing bodily autonomy with the lethal use of force in self defense.

 

You said other poster, and given my recent frequency with you, I'm sure you understand my thinking you meant me.

 

And yet you can't seem to step through the hypothetical to show me either how you can kill me in order to disengage me from you, or how you are stuck with me since you are not in imminent danger of life or serious injury, and I have a right to life.

 

I don't need to deal in hypotheticals let's deal with the reality. I have clearly stated under what conditions a human being can use lethal force against another.

 

Look earlier in the quote:

So in Ireland, viability means without extraordinary life sustaining measures. In the US, it seems that pretty much anything medical science has available that can be used, will determine viability.

Let's go back to what I originally said:

Note the bold. All I addressed was viability. And you responded with:

Admittedly, I allowed you to take me off track, but that statement means nothing towards viability. And you just admitted above that viability is variable, especially given the variability of available medical technology. So to my original point: Technology could, and probably will, reach a point where the ZEF can be viable as soon after conception as it is detected and removed.

 

If you cannot show how your principles can work in any situation, including how a given situation would be an exception, then you don't have a good grasp on your principle. Hypotheticals are a good way to explore those principles. Can you have me separated and kill me, or are you stuck with me because there is no imminent threat to your life or serious injury?

 

First off, her. Fox is a woman, last she mentioned to me in a thread quite a while back. There is the possibility that has changed since then,

Secondly, I do believe all three of us are on the same page as far as being forced (as opposed to choosing) to bring the ZEF to term is highly detrimental to the woman.

But that still doesn't explain by what principle it suddenly makes overriding the ZEF's right to life acceptable. Is it a self defense principle? Something else? How does that same principle apply in other situations?

Look at all the examples I give showing how the principle I assert is consistent. The woman doesn't have carte blanche to terminate the ZEF. I've used the surrogate example and the AW example to show how she cannot terminate it because it is outside her body and thus is not in violation of her bodily autonomy. It also proves that she cannot just terminate the ZEF simply on the principle of not wanting to financially care for it, because if that principle was true she then could terminate it even when not in her body. I further use my hypothetical to show that the principle applies to all person, regardless of sex/gender, and that the violated one can kill if there is no other way to end the violation. Which is why I point out how AW technology or ZEF transplant procedures, if perfected, could maintain the woman's right to end the use of her body, but not necessarily allow her to have the ZEF terminated. The principle remains consistent.

 

I am not making this a justification for all abortions. That is not my position. However, what I and Fox are asking is what changes with a conception from rape that all of the sudden strips the ZEF of their right to life? Especially when the argument has been life begins at conception and the ZEF has a right to life from the moment of conception.

 

A hypothetical has to have some basis in reality to be valid, that being said. If you can't deal with the reality then you can't deal with it at all. If you are asserting that other than in self defense from an imminent threat to my life or serious bodily harm I can kill you then cite the law that would allow it.

 

Nothing changes as I have said. Just as nothing changes about the what is created at conception is a human being, and individual person who has the inherent right to their life. Some would justify that because the woman took no active role in the creation of that life then the killing of the child should be allowed, if you believe that justifies the killing of a human being who had nothing to do with the rape explain the difference between killing it when it is in the womb and after it has been born.

Now since 99% of abortions are not due to rape, let's discuss those and the justification for the taking of that human life when it is not posing an imminent threat to the life of the person or serious bodily harm.

 

Irrelevant.

I don't.

 

Nope, you are confusing bodily autonomy with self defense.

I did not make the self defense argument in conjunction with bodily autonomy although they are related.


You are confusing bodily autonomy with self defense...and I won't explain them again since you don't seem to understand either one.

 

But it is not now.

But, hey, take your idea to the doctors!

From conception the ZEF can be taken out of the woman, pumped full of growth drugs and grow into a baby.

Women will love you for eliminating those rather uncomfortable and physically damaging 9 months !!!


Neither technology nor science can make a fetus grow faster.

And you call that fact "taking you off track " ? LOL

 

When FoxHastings said there is no difference between an abortion due to rape and an abortion due to consensual sex FoxHastings was stating a FACT.

It is not a viewpoint it is a fact.
Abortion is abortion and the ZEF does NOT magically change from an "innocent precious life" to NOT being an "innocent precious life" because daddy is a scumbag.

That's why the Anti-Choice faction that makes exceptions for rape victims are two-faced.....abortion either kills an "innocent precious life " or it doesn't....they should make up their minds.

I notice a total lack of compassion for the woman who had consensual sex but the pregnancy is harming her...total lack of caring for her ....almost as if she had to be punished for having consensual sex

 

And totally FOS.



The above refers to the GOP but can just as easily refer to the anti-choice faction (usually one and the same anyway). Once the fetus is born, most of these "right to lifers" don't really give a flying **** about life. You'll find many genocidal war mongers among them.

 

Okay.

The mRNA vaccines have very few side effects and we've seen hundreds of millions of doses administered.

The husband of the daughter of long-time friends is allergic to everything thing under the sun, including many foods. He would have not taken the vaccine except his wife had colon cancer and was immunocompromised. He had a slight reaction to the shot and they watched over him with an epipen in hand.

It won't necessarily prevent infection, and almost certainly won't protect as well as a vaccine. Your inability to get a vaccination is unfortunate.

I think we may all be better off if we can last long enough to get to some of the new treatments coming up. It could be a matter of a few months to when they will be widely available.

 

We can make it as real as you want. Keep it as simple as I am taking blood from you as such a rate that that you life in not in jeopardy but mine will end if you disconnect me. Hell let's even go so far as to make this because I rigged the machinery such that it would result in my death if you disconnected it. It doesn't matter why I am hooked up to you. The situation remains. I am taking your bodily resources. You are not in imminent danger of serious injury or death. Disconnecting me will kill me, for whatever reason. Are you allowed to disconnect and kill me or are you stick with me? This isn't a very hard situation to comprehend. You just don't want to answer because it shatters your assertions. If you do not agree, then step through it and show me why not.

 

Thing is, you are not even the one we are asking the question of, since you are not the one who made the assertion that there should be an exception if the woman is raped. @Injeun did. So we are asking him what he is claiming is the change to allow the exception. For me, the issue of rape in inconsequential, since my principle remains consistent regardless of whether the conception happened due to rape or by consent to sex.

 

You seem to be making a claim that the point of viability cannot change that it is always 22-24 weeks, and always has been and always will be. Am I simply misunderstanding your claim?

Since that wasn't my initial claim, yes. You introduced that concept. I was talking about the fact that science can eventually and will eventually dial viability all the way back to conception.

 

You may be right and the long term side effects may be minimal. Since I only get one shot at life, I will not be participating in this medical trial. I have a family depending on me to provide. I do agree that they can do better and more effective treatments will be here soon.

Im glad your friend is okay.

 

Yes, ZEF aren't growing any faster than they did hundreds and hundreds and thousands of years ago.
YOU have not proven they are.

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...

 

Then let's talk about the 99% of the other abortions and how the mother ended the life of her baby, another human being, is justified under our inherent rights.

 

I know of no real life situation, reality, where any such nonsense would be even vaguely possible.

Deal with reality. My assertion is the you cannot kill another human being unless they are threatening your life or you with serious bodily harm, show me where the constitution says otherwise.

 

Nonresponsive.

 

Nope have you not asserted this claimed "body autonomy" is a right to to defend yourself from another? That that other person is causing harm therefore can be killed. You even constantly post your long list of asserted harms as justification and then claim a right to use lethal force to defend against them. So it is not me who is confused it is you.