What if Roe Vs. Wade was Overturned?

[KarlMarx]

Let's, just for the sake of argument, assume that you are correct in your assumption that life begins at conception. The blasyocyst, that's the newly fertilized egg, is a living being. Following the same logic, the cells we wash down the drain each time we bathe are living entities. Unfertilized ova are living entities, so you have to prevent ovulation and menstration. Spermatazoa (<i>Ever see <b>Monty Python's The Meaning of Life</b></i>?) which fail to reach an egg are living entities, so you have to criminalize masturbation. These cells are are living entities eqaully as capable of giving rise to a human life as a blastocyst, so aren't they entitled to the same concern?

If my statements seem absurd, they only reflect the absurdity and fallaciousness of the 'pro-life' arguments.

Life doesn't begin at conception. Adherents of this position posit this argument with the sole aim of criminalizing <b>ANY</b> form of contraception or birth control. You've run out of ammo, as shown by your name-calling and poor excuses for argument, so you're left with throwing the gun.

And you're still stuck in the world of bad analogies, aren't you. Arson is a crime, not a safe, legal medical proceedure.

Specious arguments..... the cells of the human body cannot live on their own, they are too specialized. Therefore, although cells from our bodies are alive, they cannot do so without being part of the body they came from.

Life does begin at conception. From the moment of conception, the genetic material of the baby is separate and distinct from its mother. It often has a different blood type, eye color, (sometimes skin color). No other biological process in our bodies results in cells which are genetically distinct from our own. In fact, a woman's body is naturally programmed to turn off the immune response toward the unborn baby because otherwise, her body would treat it as a foreign body or an infection.

The unborn baby displays the properties of personhood ---- i.e. reacts to stimuli, sucks its thumb, has brainwaves etc.

Therefore, since the baby's body is genetically distinct from its mother's, displays personbood, then abortion is not an issue about a women's right to choose what to do with her body, it is an issue about a women's right to choose what to do with her baby's body.

The position of abortionists is that the baby is treated as the woman's property (i.e. it is strictly up to the woman, and no one else to determine what the fate of the baby is). This is the same as slavery. The baby's right to live is now entirely up to the mother's discretion. So, without trial, jury or judge, without any charges of wrong doing, without a writ of habeus corpus, without legal counsel, with absolutely no legal rights whatsoever, the baby is condemned to die, for being guilty of nothing else but of existing.

That is what you're defending. You would have had a riot in the South before the Civil War.

 

[no1tovote4]

That's not what I said. Some people believe that a fetus gets a soul at conception, some believe that they get a soul at birth, some believe that there is no soul at all. I'm saying that abortion legislation should be a compromise of all 3 postions since there's no way to prove any of them right or wrong.

There is one thing we know with a Scientific Certainty, they become human life at conception. The question is whether we believe that human life has some significance that deserves protection regardless of the level of development. A sperm is not human life, an egg is not human life, a zygote is human life. It is easy to deny the significance of life one cannot see and that cannot complain, they have no voice therefore they are of no consequence.

 

[Zhukov]

Actually sperm/eggs are human life.

When fingerprinting the DNA of sperm, upon elucidation of it's origins one could accurately say "it's human."

It's just a different phase of the human life cycle. In human beings the haploid gamete phase of the life cycle (sperm and egg) is reduced in (time) length and microscopic in size.

The complete opposite is true for say a moss. The haploid gametophyte phase of development is dominant. That doesn't make it's diploid sporophyte phase any less the same species. Sphagnum moss is sphagnum moss no matter what generation it is in.

Now sexual development in humans is not the same as in mosses but the principle is the same: genetically, sperm and eggs are human life.

When they join, they become a new genetic individual.

 

[no1tovote4]

Actually sperm/eggs are human life.

When fingerprinting the DNA of sperm, upon elucidation of it's origins one could accurately say "it's human."

It's just a different phase of the human life cycle. In human beings the haploid gamete phase of the life cycle (sperm and egg) is reduced in (time) length and microscopic in size.

The complete opposite is true for say a moss. The haploid gametophyte phase of development is dominant. That doesn't make it's diploid sporophyte phase any less the same species. Sphagnum moss is sphagnum moss no matter what generation it is in.

Now sexual development in humans is not the same as in mosses but the principle is the same: genetically, sperm and eggs are human life.

When they join, they become a new genetic individual.

23 Genes do not make a human. There is no way in which a Spermatazoa will ever become human on its own. There is no doubt that it carries half of a human's genome but it is not yet human.

 

[Zhukov]

It is not a human being, but it is human.

 

[Zhukov]

Life is a circle without break.

Human life does not come from dead material.

As it concerns humans, at any time on that circle, from one unique genetic individual to the next, you can point and say, 'that is human.'

 

[elephant]

To tell the truth, in order to save the lives of innocents I would be willing to pay for it through government funds.

Great! I would pay for all kinds of shit with other people's money. I can just see it now - there will be an "unwanted fetus assistance tax" on alcohol or gasoline.

Please pay for it yourself if you want to "save the lives of innocents" so badly.

 

[no1tovote4]

Great! I would pay for all kinds of shit with other people's money. I can just see it now - there will be an "unwanted fetus assistance tax" on alcohol or gasoline.

Please pay for it yourself if you want to "save the lives of innocents" so badly.

Then you should pay for it yourself if you want to kill them so badly. Tax dollars are currently spent giving money to Abortion Clinics.

This would actually be researching a new way to help people. I would be willing to spend money on that over abortions any day.

 

[elephant]

Then you should pay for it yourself if you want to kill them so badly. Tax dollars are currently spent giving money to Abortion Clinics.

This would actually be researching a new way to help people. I would be willing to spend money on that over abortions any day.

Stop assuming I like the system the way it is. I do not want tax dollars subsidising abortions as it reduces the profitability of private abortion clinics.

By the way, tax dollars are spent on all kinds of things with which I disagree. I just do not want more tax and spend ideas. If your idea were really good, you would just invest your own money in it. Good Luck.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Specious arguments..... the cells of the human body cannot live on their own, they are too specialized. Therefore, although cells from our bodies are alive, they cannot do so without being part of the body they came from.

Life does begin at conception. From the moment of conception, the genetic material of the baby is separate and distinct from its mother. It often has a different blood type, eye color, (sometimes skin color). No other biological process in our bodies results in cells which are genetically distinct from our own. In fact, a woman's body is naturally programmed to turn off the immune response toward the unborn baby because otherwise, her body would treat it as a foreign body or an infection.

The unborn baby displays the properties of personhood ---- i.e. reacts to stimuli, sucks its thumb, has brainwaves etc.

Therefore, since the baby's body is genetically distinct from its mother's, displays personbood, then abortion is not an issue about a women's right to choose what to do with her body, it is an issue about a women's right to choose what to do with her baby's body.

The position of abortionists is that the baby is treated as the woman's property (i.e. it is strictly up to the woman, and no one else to determine what the fate of the baby is). This is the same as slavery. The baby's right to live is now entirely up to the mother's discretion. So, without trial, jury or judge, without any charges of wrong doing, without a writ of habeus corpus, without legal counsel, with absolutely no legal rights whatsoever, the baby is condemned to die, for being guilty of nothing else but of existing.

That is what you're defending. You would have had a riot in the South before the Civil War.

By equating the potential (the <b><i>fetus</i></b>, not the <b><i>'unborn baby</i></b>) with the actual (the woman), you deny the woman has a right to exist as a free and independent being. The decision to carry a fetus to term is a choice best left to the woman had her physician.

You are also the victim of inapproriate analogies. Slaves in the antbellum South were actual, existing human beings, not potential human beings. YOur analogy is utterly inappropriate to this argument. But since you've run out of intellectual ammo, all you can do is throw the gun.

 

[Hobbit]

By equating the potential (the <b><i>fetus</i></b>, not the <b><i>'unborn baby</i></b>) with the actual (the woman), you deny the woman has a right to exist as a free and independent being. The decision to carry a fetus to term is a choice best left to the woman had her physician.

You are also the victim of inapproriate analogies. Slaves in the antbellum South were actual, existing human beings, not potential human beings. YOur analogy is utterly inappropriate to this argument. But since you've run out of intellectual ammo, all you can do is throw the gun.

See, the problem with this is your statement that fetuses are not persons is not fact, it's theory and opinion. Nobody's truly 100% sure when a fetus becomes a person, and some prefer to be more cautious.

Also, if a woman wants to choose not to carry a baby to term, then she shouldn't be having sex. Sleeping with everybody on the block without so much as taking a pill is just asking for it, and I don't want her bailed out at the cost of her child's life.

 

[KarlMarx]

By equating the potential (the <b><i>fetus</i></b>, not the <b><i>'unborn baby</i></b>) with the actual (the woman), you deny the woman has a right to exist as a free and independent being. The decision to carry a fetus to term is a choice best left to the woman had her physician.

You are also the victim of inapproriate analogies. Slaves in the antbellum South were actual, existing human beings, not potential human beings. YOur analogy is utterly inappropriate to this argument. But since you've run out of intellectual ammo, all you can do is throw the gun.

huh? There isn't a potential anything here Bully.... my point is that the fetus is already a person, therefore, is entitled to legal protections.

I am defending the right of the fetus to live, by doing so, I am not denying the woman's right to exist as a free and independent being. On the contrary, the woman still has legal protections. On the other hand, by advocating abortion you are denying the fetus's right to exist as a free and independent being.

The choice to carry a fetus to term is not a right as defined in the Constitution, any more than the choice to get have your neighbor knocked off because he annoys you.

You refuse to acknowledge that the fetus is a separate person and instead consider it nothing more than something that can be disposed of by the mother and her physician at will. That is the same attitude as the slave owners who lived in the antebellum South toward their slaves. You've reduced a living human being to nothing more than property, you've bought into the lie that person has no legal rights or at least isn't entitled to them.

 

[no1tovote4]

Stop assuming I like the system the way it is. I do not want tax dollars subsidising abortions as it reduces the profitability of private abortion clinics.

By the way, tax dollars are spent on all kinds of things with which I disagree. I just do not want more tax and spend ideas. If your idea were really good, you would just invest your own money in it. Good Luck.

Stop assuming that I would not invest my own money in it. I simply stated that if it were to be policy I would not mind tax dollars spent that way, rather than spent on directed action to kill a fetus.

I didn't say you would like it, nor did I say I would like it. In almost every way I wish the government would step the hell out of things. However in this particular thing there is a direct victim of action by others, thus it is the governments prerogative to either sanction the action or to take action against it. IMO the sole reason for government is to protect the rights of the individual.

Worrying about the profitability of private vs. public abortion clinics is really your argument? Truly?

If my idea is good, it can become an actual solution to an issue rather than a silly idea of "choice" it can provide an actual choice.

 

[no1tovote4]

Let's, just for the sake of argument, assume that you are correct in your assumption that life begins at conception. The blasyocyst, that's the newly fertilized egg, is a living being. Following the same logic, the cells we wash down the drain each time we bathe are living entities. Unfertilized ova are living entities, so you have to prevent ovulation and menstration. Spermatazoa (<i>Ever see <b>Monty Python's The Meaning of Life</b></i>?) which fail to reach an egg are living entities, so you have to criminalize masturbation. These cells are are living entities eqaully as capable of giving rise to a human life as a blastocyst, so aren't they entitled to the same concern?

Your analogies are flawed, as usual. The Blastocyst is an entirely separate entity with its own DNA, a skin cell that we wash down the drain during a shower is not even alive let alone a separate being. Unfertilized Ova are a living thing, however their life cycle includes ovulation, however left to themselves they too will never grow beyond the one cell and are not a separate being from the woman Genetically. Spermatazoa are much the same as eggs, their lifetime is even shorter, and they too are not a separate genetic entity from the father.

If my statements seem absurd, they only reflect the absurdity and fallaciousness of the 'pro-life' arguments.

If your statements seem absurd, it is because they are. Taking a statement, creating an absurdity, then attacking the absurdity is a logical fallacy called Reductio Ad Absurdam.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#reductio

Life doesn't begin at conception.

Ridiculous, you are actually attempting to argue that the blastocyst is not alive? You are lost to your argument, even to the point of denying the existence of life in a Blastocyst, and attempting to argue that it is not a genetically separate entity from the mother.

Adherents of this position posit this argument with the sole aim of criminalizing <b>ANY</b> form of contraception or birth control. You've run out of ammo, as shown by your name-calling and poor excuses for argument, so you're left with throwing the gun.

Only if you use the Reductio Ad Absurdam that I spoke of earlier. By equating an Ovum with a Blastocyst (which is an entirely separate being genetically from the mother while the Ovum is not) is simply an absurdity not backed by science.

And you're still stuck in the world of bad analogies, aren't you.

Yes, I keep reading your posts and therefore cannot escape them and the logical fallacies you attempt to derive from them.

Arson is a crime, not a safe, legal medical proceedure.

Safe for whom? Clearly not for the fetus, but we can discount them because they are the same as a skin cell according to your ridiculous analogy.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

There was a war in the US from 1861 to 1865 called the Civil War. When a group of states, the Confederate states, tried to secede from US, the Union states, who, for the record, were fighting against “states rights”, tried to kill all the Confederate citizens, and thus, they, the Confederate states, were stopped from seceding. POOF – no more “states rights”. The right to secede, or, “vote with your feet”, was what kept groups of like minded people living and working together. When the “state” tried to impose taxes or laws with which the people disagreed, they, the citizens, simply left and started a new “state”. Even northern states formally announced their intentions to secede until concessions were made. Enough on history.

HEADLINE, “CIVIL WAR OVER IN 1865 – STATES RIGHTS LOST”

What will really happen when Roe vs. Wade is overturned?

One state, pick any one, will make abortion illegal. A citizen of that state will want an abortion and with the help of some lawyers get a case heard by the Supreme Court. The court will rule in favor of the state. Now there will be federal precedent for the illegality of abortion. Other citizens in states where abortion is legal will bring cases before every court in the land, and either by using the Supreme Court precedent, or by eventually having the case heard by the Supreme Court, the cases will be ruled in favor of whoever wants to stop abortion. Basically this means no legal abortion.

Then, Canada and Mexico will setup private abortion clinics and bring Americans over for abortions. They will trade their abortion stocks on NYSE and become rich. Everyone is happy.

The Union tried to kill ALL the citizens of the confederate states?? REALLY?
Well, you just lost any and all arguements when history is involved. Thats such a ludicrous statement beyond pale.

For your info, States decide many laws, uh, some kinda important, like THE DEATH PENALTY !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reason the confederate states werent allowed to cecede is stated by Lincoln. "if everytime a state disagreed with the union of states, it simply ceceded from the union, soon their would be no union."

 

[elephant]

The Union tried to kill ALL the citizens of the confederate states?? REALLY?
Well, you just lost any and all arguements when history is involved. Thats such a ludicrous statement beyond pale.

For your info, States decide many laws, uh, some kinda important, like THE DEATH PENALTY !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reason the confederate states werent allowed to cecede is stated by Lincoln. "if everytime a state disagreed with the union of states, it simply ceceded from the union, soon their would be no union."

It is called hyperbole, but clearly you are slow so I will help you out. The point is that physical coercion should not be an integral part of a rebublic or a democracy or whatever you want to call it. Futhermore, the Union was prepared to fight until they killed the last dissident in the South. They would have killed them all if that is what it took.

The death penalty is not important. Could a state decide that the punishment for murder is baking a cake with the victim's name on it and giving it to the victim's family? No! The laws must all be within a narrowly defined area deemed acceptable to the federal judicial system. Those that are not are immediately challenged. Do you really think it matters whether some serves life or gets the needle? How is this changing the fabric of society? This law does not seem to really matter at all. It is a nice high school debate team topic and that is all. Please move on.

To your last point. A country of people that are only citizens by force is not much of a country. What is the point of a forced union among people? I do not believe this is what the founding fathers had in mind. It is what Lincoln wanted though and his side won the war.

If you read the rest of the thread you will notice it has moved on to other ideas. Please try to keep up.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It is called hyperbole, but clearly you are slow so I will help you out. The point is that physical coercion should not be an integral part of a rebublic or a democracy or whatever you want to call it. Futhermore, the Union was prepared to fight until they killed the last dissident in the South. They would have killed them all if that is what it took.

The death penalty is not important. Could a state decide that the punishment for murder is baking a cake with the victim's name on it and giving it to the victim's family? No! The laws must all be within a narrowly defined area deemed acceptable to the federal judicial system. Those that are not are immediately challenged. Do you really think it matters whether some serves life or gets the needle? How is this changing the fabric of society? This law does not seem to really matter at all. It is a nice high school debate team topic and that is all. Please move on.

To your last point. A country of people that are only citizens by force is not much of a country. What is the point of a forced union among people? I do not believe this is what the founding fathers had in mind. It is what Lincoln wanted though and his side won the war.

If you read the rest of the thread you will notice it has moved on to other ideas. Please try to keep up.

I doubt a state legislature which enacted the cake baking punishment would be reelected. State laws do matter, regardless of your willingness to deny the truth.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

It is called hyperbole, but clearly you are slow so I will help you out. The point is that physical coercion should not be an integral part of a rebublic or a democracy or whatever you want to call it. .

So, is rudeness, condensating and insulting an integral part of you? :chillpill
Physical coercion is an integral part of any society. Check out who really keeps the courtroom in order, its called the baliff, the guy with the gun on his side.

Futhermore, the Union was prepared to fight until they killed the last dissident in the South. They would have killed them all if that is what it took..

You could say that about any war.

The death penalty is not important. .

I guess that depends upon which side of the rope you are on)

Could a state decide that the punishment for murder is baking a cake with the victim's name on it and giving it to the victim's family? No! The laws must all be within a narrowly defined area deemed acceptable to the federal judicial system. .

the defined area isnt so narrow. The original Constitution gave so much power to the states that the feds didnt have enough power for the entire country to work very well, so they re wrote it giving the feds more power.

Those that are not are immediately challenged. Do you really think it matters whether some serves life or gets the needle? How is this changing the fabric of society? This law does not seem to really matter at all. It is a nice high school debate team topic and that is all. Please move on..

The repricussions of the death penalty obviously goes much deeper and further than you are aware of. I wont bother debating it with you as it is long, tedious and involved, but I KNOW FOR A FACT it is there, so I wont waste my time on it with you.

To your last point. A country of people that are only citizens by force is not much of a country. What is the point of a forced union among people? I do not believe this is what the founding fathers had in mind. It is what Lincoln wanted though and his side won the war..

The southern states came into the union voluntarily, when you do so, its with the stipulation that you cant just bow out any time you feel like it. If what you say is true, then either A. we arent much of a country, or B. the citizens arent forced to be such. WHich is your choice?

If you read the rest of the thread you will notice it has moved on to other ideas. Please try to keep up.

Well, since you are here with me on this idea, I guess we both need to try to keep up. But listen sonny boy, insults dont work with me, I guess maybe you just came from some teenage girls forum where those kind of things are taken personal.

Oh, have a nice day

 

[LuvRPgrl]

With humans, you have male and female.

When an egg is fertilized, it receives either the x or y chormosome and its sexual gender is determined. It is about half the time a different sex than the mother. How can that be if its not a LIVING< INDIVIDUAL HUMAN?

Is the woman to say, look, my arm its a male arm, the rest of me is female?

Its ludicrous and you have to strain your sensibilities to think anything but a human individual life begins at conception. Its scientifically easily verifiable.


But the worst part is the lies those who are "pro choice" put out. Acting like they are the compassionate one, then falsley accusing pro lifers of not caring about the baby or woman, when in fact, the pro choicers are so full of shit their breath stinks.

I am an active member of AA, and one of the most gut wrenching things that occurs very, very often when women get sober or are coming off drugs is when they break down, the guilt they express for "killing their baby", the abortions so often are the source of what leads them to drink and drugs. It often destroys lifes, much more so than if they had raised the baby. They are lied to by the power hungry feminists and pussy ass men who support the feminists.

And dont give me this load of crap about how "we enduce guilt into them", women instinctively know, THEY KNOW, its their baby they are killing. Women routinely grieve greatly when they lose their baby through miscarriage, nobody coerces them to grieve. The real cover up is the women who cover up their guilt and hide it after having abortions.

Gloria steinem and her ilk, she told all these women you dont need a man, life your life single, then she goes out and gets married. THousands upon thousands of women are extremely angry at her for buying into her shit, having forgone having a husband and kids, now its too late for them, and they regret it dearly.

 

[Powerman]

I'm sorry. Maybe I'm totally ignorant. But what is the validity of "states rights" in the modern era? Maybe when this country started there were differences between the states. But now there are none. Mississippi has Walmart, Office Depot and MacDonalds. So does Alaska. And every state in between. There is very little regional culture in America and absolutely no "State" culture, excepting cheese in Wisconsin and lobster in Maine. What is the BFD about "states rights"? Isn't this a ridiculous anachronism?

:wank: :wank: :wank:

Well before Katrina Louisiana definitely had culture exlusive to the state. Hopefully things we'll see the light at the end of the tunnel here soon.