CDZ Abortion laws should be left up to the States

Abortion laws should be left up to the States

  • True

  • False


Results are only viewable after voting.
Yes, it is. It is from Merriam Webster (hard to get more mainstream than that). Yours is the most narrow definition there is.
OK, let's go with M-W's generalized #1 definition of "empathy":
"the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it."

If you have empathy for a zygote that you don't even know exists, then you must have empathy for bacterium too, right? After all, you said:
"I can IMAGINE how the zygote feels because I understand that it is trying like hell to survive. It has no sentience, it has no memory, it has nothing but a desire to live. That I can empathize with because I too have a desire to live."

Your statement also describes bacteria.
Is your imagination practical? Mainstream? Not in psychology, but maybe in psychiatry.
:)
Perhaps we need to get more practical in this abortion discussion.
There are millions of miserable born babies & children that need empathy & support, and they should have priority over the unborn and gov's interference with a woman's private life. No?
I for one, certainly can empathize for a creature as small as a bacteria. It doesn't take much effort at all to do that.
I don't get confused by capacity to empathize for other things / creatures because they are not human beings.
So by your logic, we should make laws that protect bacteria, zygotes, and sperm as well? In fact, we should ban all forms of masturbation as well since its virtual genocide.
My logic is that ALL human beings (persons) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws because that's what the Constitution says.

That would INCLUDE human beings of any age, size or level of development. Wouldn't it? Why else would it say "ALL?"

Again, you are perverting what the law says, just like your "empathy" for bacteria. Geez, whatever it takes to make a square peg fit into a round hole. LOL.

I'm not perverting anything. The Constitution says "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws." That seems pretty inclusive to me.

Here is the law's definition of "human being":
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

Yeah, you are not only cherry picking (again) but you are also making an "appeal to authority" fallacious argument.

Do you not comprehend that - when the Constitution says one thing (i.e. "all persons") and our laws say another thing (children in the womb are only persons when they are killed in a crime) there is a disparity between the laws and the Constitution.

And that disparity is what is being challenged.

So, your using an existing cherry picked definition from ONE law - as the final word and authority on what the definition should be is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

It's like claiming the King James version of the Bible is the final word of God because the Bible says so.

Thankfully, the SCOTUS will have much more to take into consideration than just your selective cherry picked definitions.
 
My logic is that ALL human beings (persons) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws because that's what the Constitution says.
That would INCLUDE human beings of any age, size or level of development. Wouldn't it? Why else would it say "ALL?"
Again, you are perverting what the law says, just like your "empathy" for bacteria. Geez, whatever it takes to make a square peg fit into a round hole. LOL.
Here is the law's definition of "human being":
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
I'm not perverting anything. The Constitution says "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws." That seems pretty inclusive to me. ...
You continue to distort what the laws say, and it's YOU who refers to law & the Constitution. I am simply quoting what the laws say.
The. Constitution says in the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall
... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

... As previously indicated, the US Code defines "person" as "born alive at any stage of development" ... with the exception of homicide of an unborn (that the pregnant woman intends to give birth to).

Sorry, the laws support my ethics & practical views on individual liberty and a woman's right to an abortion of HER own embryo or young fetus.
You should focus your limited time/energy/resources on helping those millions of miserable born children who die every year ... then worry about single-cell bio matter such as zygotes & bacteria.
 
Last edited:
My logic is that ALL human beings (persons) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws because that's what the Constitution says.
That would INCLUDE human beings of any age, size or level of development. Wouldn't it? Why else would it say "ALL?"
Again, you are perverting what the law says, just like your "empathy" for bacteria. Geez, whatever it takes to make a square peg fit into a round hole. LOL.
Here is the law's definition of "human being":
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
I'm not perverting anything. The Constitution says "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws." That seems pretty inclusive to me. ...
You continue to distort what the laws say, and it's YOU who refers to law & the Constitution. I am simply quoting what the laws say.
The. Constitution says in the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall
... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

... As previously indicated, the US Code defines "person" as "born alive at any stage of development" ... with the exception of homicide of an unborn (that the pregnant woman intends to give birth to).

Sorry, the laws support my ethics & practical views on individual liberty and a woman's right to an abortion of HER own embryo or young fetus.
You should focus your limited time/energy/resources on helping those millions of miserable born children who die every year ... then worry about single-cell bio matter such as zygotes & bacteria.
Is a child in the womb a "child?" Yes or no?

Is a child in the womb a "human being?" Yes or no?

Are our laws and even our Supreme Court rulings infallible. Yes or no?

Has the Supreme Court got it wrong before? Yes or no?

You are the one distorting the 14th. It only refers to persons BORN as it defines a CITIZEN. And you are trying to use that definition to deny the personhood of children in the womb.

Our fetal homicide laws have been a huge step in the direction that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart anticipated- when he said a State could establish that a (human) fetus is a "person" and then the case for abortion would be near IMPOSSIBLE to make.

Pro abort lawyer Sarah Weddington agreed!

They didn't talk about the need to change any legal definitions. Because they know/knew that once the child's personhood is established, the Constitution applies to their rights too.

You tell me.

Why should I dismiss Justice Potter Stewart's view and adopt yours instead?



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
 
My logic is that ALL human beings (persons) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws because that's what the Constitution says.
That would INCLUDE human beings of any age, size or level of development. Wouldn't it? Why else would it say "ALL?"
Again, you are perverting what the law says, just like your "empathy" for bacteria. Geez, whatever it takes to make a square peg fit into a round hole. LOL.
Here is the law's definition of "human being":
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
I'm not perverting anything. The Constitution says "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws." That seems pretty inclusive to me. ...
You continue to distort what the laws say, and it's YOU who refers to law & the Constitution. I am simply quoting what the laws say.
The. Constitution says in the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall
... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

... As previously indicated, the US Code defines "person" as "born alive at any stage of development" ... with the exception of homicide of an unborn (that the pregnant woman intends to give birth to).

Sorry, the laws support my ethics & practical views on individual liberty and a woman's right to an abortion of HER own embryo or young fetus.
You should focus your limited time/energy/resources on helping those millions of miserable born children who die every year ... then worry about single-cell bio matter such as zygotes & bacteria.
Is a child in the womb a "child?" Yes or no?
Is a child in the womb a "human being?" Yes or no?
Are our laws and even our Supreme Court rulings infallible. Yes or no?
Has the Supreme Court got it wrong before? Yes or no?

You are the one distorting the 14th. It only refers to persons BORN as it defines a CITIZEN. And you are trying to use that definition to deny the personhood of children in the womb.
...
I agree that ethics trumps law, and that laws change (as well as definitions), hopefully to better reflect fairness & liberty ... for the born, in addition to practicality.
I also believe the current laws on a woman's privacy & abortion rights are ethical.

It's my ethical view that a human fetus, embryo, and zygote are not yet a "child" or "person" from a social libertarian concern, and their future status should be decided fully by the pregnant woman & her family, and the woman has final say.
Obviously, we disagree, and we'll just have to agree that different ethical opinions exist.
 
My logic is that ALL human beings (persons) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws because that's what the Constitution says.
That would INCLUDE human beings of any age, size or level of development. Wouldn't it? Why else would it say "ALL?"
Again, you are perverting what the law says, just like your "empathy" for bacteria. Geez, whatever it takes to make a square peg fit into a round hole. LOL.
Here is the law's definition of "human being":
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
I'm not perverting anything. The Constitution says "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws." That seems pretty inclusive to me. ...
You continue to distort what the laws say, and it's YOU who refers to law & the Constitution. I am simply quoting what the laws say.
The. Constitution says in the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall
... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

... As previously indicated, the US Code defines "person" as "born alive at any stage of development" ... with the exception of homicide of an unborn (that the pregnant woman intends to give birth to).

Sorry, the laws support my ethics & practical views on individual liberty and a woman's right to an abortion of HER own embryo or young fetus.
You should focus your limited time/energy/resources on helping those millions of miserable born children who die every year ... then worry about single-cell bio matter such as zygotes & bacteria.
Is a child in the womb a "child?" Yes or no?
Is a child in the womb a "human being?" Yes or no?
Are our laws and even our Supreme Court rulings infallible. Yes or no?
Has the Supreme Court got it wrong before? Yes or no?

You are the one distorting the 14th. It only refers to persons BORN as it defines a CITIZEN. And you are trying to use that definition to deny the personhood of children in the womb.
...
I agree that ethics trumps law, and that laws change (as well as definitions), hopefully to better reflect fairness & liberty ... for the born, in addition to practicality.
I also believe the current laws on a woman's privacy & abortion rights are ethical.

It's my ethical view that a human fetus, embryo, and zygote are not yet a "child" or "person" from a social libertarian concern, and their future status should be decided fully by the pregnant woman & her family, and the woman has final say.
Obviously, we disagree, and we'll just have to agree that different ethical opinions exist.

What can I say? You are entitled to believe anything you want. Thankfully, any Supreme Court decisions on this will not be based either of our BELIEFS. At least, I would hope not.

As I stated earlier, we already have fetal homicide laws that define and establish the personhood for children in the womb AT LEAST in certain cases where they are killed in a criminal act.

We also have laws which continue to DENY those same children their rights and personhood- when it comes to abortions.

When challenged to reconcile between the two, the SCOUTS will either have to strike down Roe or they will have to strike down all of our fetal homicide laws.

Until then, various States (lawmakers) will continue to chip away at Roe and that will help even more to get a case before the Court.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
 
Again, you are perverting what the law says, just like your "empathy" for bacteria. Geez, whatever it takes to make a square peg fit into a round hole. LOL.
Here is the law's definition of "human being":
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
I'm not perverting anything. The Constitution says "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws." That seems pretty inclusive to me. ...
You continue to distort what the laws say, and it's YOU who refers to law & the Constitution. I am simply quoting what the laws say.
The. Constitution says in the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall
... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

... As previously indicated, the US Code defines "person" as "born alive at any stage of development" ... with the exception of homicide of an unborn (that the pregnant woman intends to give birth to).

Sorry, the laws support my ethics & practical views on individual liberty and a woman's right to an abortion of HER own embryo or young fetus.
You should focus your limited time/energy/resources on helping those millions of miserable born children who die every year ... then worry about single-cell bio matter such as zygotes & bacteria.
Is a child in the womb a "child?" Yes or no?
Is a child in the womb a "human being?" Yes or no?
Are our laws and even our Supreme Court rulings infallible. Yes or no?
Has the Supreme Court got it wrong before? Yes or no?

You are the one distorting the 14th. It only refers to persons BORN as it defines a CITIZEN. And you are trying to use that definition to deny the personhood of children in the womb.
...
I agree that ethics trumps law, and that laws change (as well as definitions), hopefully to better reflect fairness & liberty ... for the born, in addition to practicality.
I also believe the current laws on a woman's privacy & abortion rights are ethical.
It's my ethical view that a human fetus, embryo, and zygote are not yet a "child" or "person" from a social libertarian concern, and their future status should be decided fully by the pregnant woman & her family, and the woman has final say.
Obviously, we disagree, and we'll just have to agree that different ethical opinions exist.
What can I say? You are entitled to believe anything you want. Thankfully, any Supreme Court decisions on this will not be based either of our BELIEFS. At least, I would hope not.

As I stated earlier, we already have fetal homicide laws that define and establish the personhood for children in the womb AT LEAST in certain cases where they are killed in a criminal act.
We also have laws which continue to DENY those same children their rights and personhood- when it comes to abortions.

When challenged to reconcile between the two, the SCOUTS will either have to strike down Roe or they will have to strike down all of our fetal homicide laws.
Until then, various States (lawmakers) will continue to chip away at Roe and that will help even more to get a case before the Court.
I wish you would be 10x more effective with your limited resources in saving a few lives ... that were already born.
Or, you really don't care about children already born?
  • More than one billion children are severely deprived of at least one of the essential goods and services they require to survive, grow and develop—these include nutrition, water, sanitation facilities, access to basic health-care services, adequate shelter, education and information. As a result almost 9.2 million children under-five die every year. A further 3.3 million babies are stillborn.
WHO | Child mortality
 
I'm not perverting anything. The Constitution says "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws." That seems pretty inclusive to me. ...
You continue to distort what the laws say, and it's YOU who refers to law & the Constitution. I am simply quoting what the laws say.
The. Constitution says in the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall
... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

... As previously indicated, the US Code defines "person" as "born alive at any stage of development" ... with the exception of homicide of an unborn (that the pregnant woman intends to give birth to).

Sorry, the laws support my ethics & practical views on individual liberty and a woman's right to an abortion of HER own embryo or young fetus.
You should focus your limited time/energy/resources on helping those millions of miserable born children who die every year ... then worry about single-cell bio matter such as zygotes & bacteria.
Is a child in the womb a "child?" Yes or no?
Is a child in the womb a "human being?" Yes or no?
Are our laws and even our Supreme Court rulings infallible. Yes or no?
Has the Supreme Court got it wrong before? Yes or no?

You are the one distorting the 14th. It only refers to persons BORN as it defines a CITIZEN. And you are trying to use that definition to deny the personhood of children in the womb.
...
I agree that ethics trumps law, and that laws change (as well as definitions), hopefully to better reflect fairness & liberty ... for the born, in addition to practicality.
I also believe the current laws on a woman's privacy & abortion rights are ethical.
It's my ethical view that a human fetus, embryo, and zygote are not yet a "child" or "person" from a social libertarian concern, and their future status should be decided fully by the pregnant woman & her family, and the woman has final say.
Obviously, we disagree, and we'll just have to agree that different ethical opinions exist.
What can I say? You are entitled to believe anything you want. Thankfully, any Supreme Court decisions on this will not be based either of our BELIEFS. At least, I would hope not.

As I stated earlier, we already have fetal homicide laws that define and establish the personhood for children in the womb AT LEAST in certain cases where they are killed in a criminal act.
We also have laws which continue to DENY those same children their rights and personhood- when it comes to abortions.

When challenged to reconcile between the two, the SCOUTS will either have to strike down Roe or they will have to strike down all of our fetal homicide laws.
Until then, various States (lawmakers) will continue to chip away at Roe and that will help even more to get a case before the Court.
I wish you would be 10x more effective with your limited resources in saving a few lives ... that were already born.
Or, you really don't care about children already born?
  • More than one billion children are severely deprived of at least one of the essential goods and services they require to survive, grow and develop—these include nutrition, water, sanitation facilities, access to basic health-care services, adequate shelter, education and information. As a result almost 9.2 million children under-five die every year. A further 3.3 million babies are stillborn.
WHO | Child mortality
Is there something keeping YOU from being 10x more effective in saving those children?

Let's see you lead the way.

Your diversions and personal attacks will not discourage me.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
 
Will any of those who voted "TRUE" in the poll please explain how a State could legally DENY Constitutional rights and protections to "children in the womb" after the Supreme Court recognizes their rights and decides to overturn Roe?

Anybody?
 
Come on people. Step up.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

200_s.gif


I didn't think so.
 
Bump

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative in the making.
 
Again, I ask.

Will any of you who voted "TRUE" in the poll please explain how a State could legally DENY Constitutional rights and protections to "children in the womb" after the Supreme Court recognizes their rights and decides to overturn Roe?

Anybody?
 
REMINDER!

This thread is NOT about the legality of abortion. It is about whether or not it is to be "left up to the States" if/when Roe v Wade is overturned.

No. It's the slippery slope argument. Then it starts devolving on the states being able to decide on women's suffrage, interracial marriage, incest, child labor laws, etc.

You know, all of the niceties of the good 'ol days, when 'murica was great before them damn librul's and their damn political correctness ruined everything.

Mod Edit: When posting in the Clean Debate Zone please keep it factual and relevant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Forum List

Back
Top