Why are pro choicers afraid to fight it out state by state?

Ok then - present the proof.

Interesting.
You oppose animal cruelty laws?
You oppose laws against bestiality?
You do not oppose inhumane animal testing?

 

“Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.

Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.

Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.””
The University of Chicago The Law School, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit, Meredith Heagney, May 15, 2013.
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/j...s-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

So, did they run a tox screen on RBG?

 

I did, unless you think ethics is not defined by harm to others. But if it weren't, I don't see the use for it.

I think I alluded to the fact that animal rights is a much harder issue ethically. They are less sophisticated, but they can suffer and feel emotions. Ethically it would be better to be vegetarian, but culturally it's hard. Naturally our ancestors had to take all available food sources, meat or not. And now one might get iron or B12 deficiency without meat, but there are ways around it in modern society. When you have a choice, it's ethically better not to eat meat. This is all stuff for another thread, but I definitely remember losing this argument to Agnapostate back in the day. I just couldn't find a logical reason animals shouldn't have rights. I just wanted to eat meat. But eating a hamburger is much more wrong than having an abortion, clearly.

 

No. You stated an opinion. Everyone has an opinion
You need to present a proof that necessarily eliminates those other opinions from consideration.

At what point does this apply to an unborn child, and why?

 

Actually I stated a series of if-then statements that are logically true if you accept the premise of the first statement. If you don't accept it, explain why.

There comes a point at which it is no longer just human tissue, but a new person. Pro-lifers aren't so different in this regard. I mean, sperm and eggs are alive and human, but then when they come together is when lifers choose. But at this point it's really not ethically different from any of your cells. There's still a massive gap between that and becoming a person. All you really have is a cell with a blueprint.

Logically, it should be when a mind is possible. Consciousness - having feelings, maybe basic thoughts, the capacity to suffer, these all require that the structures in the brain are interconnected in a certain way. The connections of the cortex of the brain with the brainstem and/or thalamus (names may vary as they have precursors during development). These connections begin in the early 20s in terms of weeks. Without such a connection, no consciousness, or mind, is possible. Without ever having had a mind, there is no other person/being with interests to protect. It's just a "potential person" as much as there's an unimaginable number of unique potential people who could have become persons but the vast, vast majority of which never will be. You know, the millions of sperm that didn't make it to an egg every orgasm, or the eggs not fertilized by one of other quadrilions of sperm that exist, or the fertilized eggs that never implanted, etc. Or the billions of potential clones that could be made from each person, which would be genetically identical but randomly and experientially unique as persons if they developed that far. But you know, whatever on the unique part. The point is whether it's a being/person.

 

You need to present a proof that necessarily eliminates those other opinions from consideration.
You have not done this.

And so, at what point in the development of the unborn is it unethical to kill it?

 

To allow for uncertainty, after 20 weeks. With more knowledge we may be able to pinpoint it to a precise, but later, week.

I'm not aware of any other opinions worth consideration on the basis of ethics. Religion comes to mind, but it's not worth considering.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Not afraid but basic a human right like bodily autonomy should include EVERY American.
Ever heard of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA
We shouldn't have to go to another state to exercise the right of free speech....or will that be next.



What TF has that got to do with the post of mine you quoted?.....nothing



What TF has that got to do with the post of mine you quoted?.....nothing
And it must be a lousy country that permits "murder" in some states but not others...and with your "oh well" it sounds like you don't care



Oh, cute, BABY talk...LOL....and it also sounds like you really don't care about the "baby " being MURDERED....It's good for you because it punishes women for having sex....




Yes, I was wrong about there being enough DECENT Americans to protect EVERYONE'S rights...

Your glee in seeing them destroyed says a lot (all bad)

LOL, AGAIN you make it sound like it's a crime that has to be punished.....well, it is now for some and let's hope they stick to their "murder" guns and EXECUTE or jail for life all the "BAD EVIL " women who have abortions.....afterall, if it's murder then women are murderers....is that what you want??

All women who have abortions executed or jailed for life ???

 

Forcing a woman in having to face up the consequences of her actions should do the trick

 

Agreed .. in the case of an accidental and unwanted pregnancy .. the responsible thing to do is abort as quick as possible. The consequences of not aborting .. a child to take care of .. without help from sperm donor.

 

If it were unwanted, she wouldnt have partaken willingly in the one act that can create pregnancy. So no. We don't agree.

Accidental is not a thing in sex. You don't "woops how did that sperm get up in there?".

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Not afraid but basic a human right like bodily autonomy should include EVERY American.
Ever heard of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA
We shouldn't have to go to another state to exercise the right of free speech....or will that be next.



What TF has that got to do with the post of mine you quoted?.....nothing
What TF has that got to do with the post of mine you quoted?.....nothing
And it must be a lousy country that permits "murder" in some states but not others...and with your "oh well" it sounds like you don't care



Oh, cute, BABY talk...LOL....and it also sounds like you really don't care about the "baby " being MURDERED....It's good for you because it punishes women for having sex....a really sick position




Yes, I was wrong about there being enough DECENT Americans to protect EVERYONE'S rights...

Your glee in seeing them destroyed says a lot (all bad)


LOL, AGAIN you make it sound like it's a crime that has to be punished.....well, it is now for some and let's hope they stick to their "murder" guns and EXECUTE or jail for life all the "BAD EVIL " women who have abortions.....afterall, if it's murder then women are murderers....is that what you want??

All women who have abortions executed or jailed for life ???

Do what "trick"?

What does that solve?

I doubt you'd want to be forced to face up to the consequences of your actions ..

AND women do face up to the consequences of their actions...some gestate and some abort... WHY WOULD YOU CARE WHAT THEY DID???

Why couldn't you answer any of those inconvenient questions in the post of mine you keep quoting ?

 

You say she would not have willingly had sex .. but she did have sex .. willingly. It is not about agreement .. this is a statement of fact

Sperm got there because of an accident .. condom broke.

You seem to not have basic understanding of topic mate...

 

If the penis was willfully placed into the vagina then risk of outcome was assumed and agreed too.

Nope.. she's responsible for the outcome and murder is not an acceptable out.

 

So you run from your previous claims - which is a good thing as were nonsense .. but your new claims are not much better.

The couple agreed to the risk of accidental pregnancy .. if the accident occurs .. the couple is responsible .. not just the woman .. and the responsible thing to do if the pregnancy is unwanted is to abort as soon as possible.. the couple responsible for the costs.

Your claim that termination of a pregnancy is "Murder" .. is assumed premise fallacy on steroids .. and simple nonsense on this basis.

This is the abortion debate mate ..the major part of which .. is whether or not the entity at various stages is a Person .. and in crying "Murder" you are stating defacto that a person exists ..

You have not supported your claim that a person exists right after the condom breaks.... prior to taking the abortion pill a few hours after the accident.

 

Hey let me walk you through this if you get into a car to drive it you are assuming responsibility over the action of driving a car should you recklessly kill someone even if it's an accident you are still at fault and will be punished as such

 

Walk me through what .. you walked away from your demonstrably nonsensical claims in the first post .. walked away from your refuted claims in the second .. now you are talking about killing a person with a car .. repeating the same fallacious nonsense from the last post in a different way by claiming a person exists right after the condom breaks.

What part of ... You have not supported your claim that a person exists .. do you not understand ? as such .. there is no person for the car to hit .. and so what is this driver to be punished for .. killing a fantasy person that does not exist ?

Repeating a claim - over and over - is not support for claim mate. Your claim that a person exists shortly after the condom breaks is unsupported .. "Experts Disagree" and so running around pretending otherwise .. is purile nonsense.

 

Ok well you can cry not my fault dude I put on a condom so that means I'm not responsible all you want but the reality is is through the course of your willful actions you've created a person and now need to be responsible for that person.

 

Why not duke it out state by state over all rights?

Why have federal law at all? Why not vote on the Constitution state by state?

 

I didn't say anything of the sort.. You are making up false nonsense and claiming it came from me .. because you have no ability to support your claim that a person exists a shortly after the condom breaks. The responsible thing to do is to abort prior to a person existing.

Mindlessly repeating a claim "A Person Exists" as if you have managed to show this claim is true .. is not support for claim.

Repetition of a claim .. is not proof of claim . you can repeat "moon is made of green cheese" over and over .. as many times as you wish .. but, that does not show that your claim is true.

Your claim that one needs to be responsible for some fantasy person you made up .. is plain silliness.

 

This wasn't a part of the constitution and it should have never been decided on by the supreme Court. They are correcting their over reach

 

Is it human?

Is it alive?

Will it become a fully grown adult if given time?

Cancer cells, or any other nonsense you want to try to present to shirk out from your responsibilities is exactly nonsense.

I don't require something to develop future traits to acknowledge what it is once created.

Be great full that the heart beat bill still gives you a window to get out from your responsibilities.

 

Just your opinion. It has been law for 50 years - a protected right.

This puts all rights up for grabs beginning with the 2nd Amendment.

But more to the point, you want states rights, so lets do it. Get rid of Federal law altogether. That is what this has been all about.

 

Well it's actually a fact now since it's been overturned. Lol

second amendment is actually part of the constitution.

 

If that’s the case then make an argument for a constitutional amendment