When is Pro-Life pro-life?

[Chuz Life]

It is all a matter of rights and who's rights a paramount at any given time. At no time should an unborn child's rights exceed the mothers right to live or retain her health unless she chooses.

What "right" does an unborn child have to another persons body?

If I were to connect your body to mine in such a way that you will DIE if that connection was broke before say, nine months....

Would you or would you not have a right to the use of my body for that time?

Depends, do YOU die if the connection is broken?

Would you or would you not have a right to maintain the connection, to keep yourself alive?

It's a simple yes or no answer.

No. Now answer my question: how would you enforce your sig law?

I already answered your question. Same way as all other rights are already being enforced today.

Good to know that you don't think you would have a right to the use of my body.... if I were to attach you in such a way that you will DIE if the connection was broken!

Hope you can appreciate how lawyers and judges would likely disagree with you on that, never the less.

 

[Eloy]

What if pro life and pro choice just agreed to change there names to their literal meaning so we don't have all this confusion.

Pro life hmm could be "anti abortion" and could have subgroups if needed with identifying names. Such as anti abortion with exceptions a,b,c.


Pro choice could be "pro legal abortion". They could also have subgroups for differences on certain opinions. Such as a name for those who think abortion should be legal until certain time a,b,c etc

Maybe there would be another group in the middle or some with a specific views.and that group could have a identifying name as well.

So anti abortion I think that needs a group with a explanation is those who have the view

when a women gets pregnant that is a human she is pregnant with. Humans have the same value at all stages of development. All humans begin their development when a woman is pregnant. So the rational is that unborn human developing is the same as a newborn toddler child teen adult . The unborn is a human at the first part of development. So just as a baby or toddler Hasn't developed many things humans develop as they get older doesn't mean that they have less value.

Sometimes it all comes down to. Do people view the unborn as a human that is different from an alive human or not .

If the answer is no then it makes sense that you are pro choice . If you disagree with the people that come from the view unborn humans are as valuable as born humans. Then I think that the two people discussing can agree to disagree . They have different views on life humans value etc. there are more than 1 side that can be right by their views.if pro choice does not think they have the same value it can make complete sense on the points they make.

When talking to people I have found it's easier if we early establish our fundamental views on what the unborn child is in our view.

I actually prefer to be called antiabortion and have said so in the past. Prolifers tend to oppose abortion for religious reasons and I don't. The Constitution and the biological facts are all I need to know that abortions deny children their Constitutional rights.

A person begins at birth.

 

[Chuz Life]

What if pro life and pro choice just agreed to change there names to their literal meaning so we don't have all this confusion.

Pro life hmm could be "anti abortion" and could have subgroups if needed with identifying names. Such as anti abortion with exceptions a,b,c.


Pro choice could be "pro legal abortion". They could also have subgroups for differences on certain opinions. Such as a name for those who think abortion should be legal until certain time a,b,c etc

Maybe there would be another group in the middle or some with a specific views.and that group could have a identifying name as well.

So anti abortion I think that needs a group with a explanation is those who have the view

when a women gets pregnant that is a human she is pregnant with. Humans have the same value at all stages of development. All humans begin their development when a woman is pregnant. So the rational is that unborn human developing is the same as a newborn toddler child teen adult . The unborn is a human at the first part of development. So just as a baby or toddler Hasn't developed many things humans develop as they get older doesn't mean that they have less value.

Sometimes it all comes down to. Do people view the unborn as a human that is different from an alive human or not .

If the answer is no then it makes sense that you are pro choice . If you disagree with the people that come from the view unborn humans are as valuable as born humans. Then I think that the two people discussing can agree to disagree . They have different views on life humans value etc. there are more than 1 side that can be right by their views.if pro choice does not think they have the same value it can make complete sense on the points they make.

When talking to people I have found it's easier if we early establish our fundamental views on what the unborn child is in our view.

I actually prefer to be called antiabortion and have said so in the past. Prolifers tend to oppose abortion for religious reasons and I don't. The Constitution and the biological facts are all I need to know that abortions deny children their Constitutional rights.

A person begins at birth.

Yet, many have already been charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.

Huh.

Imagine that.

 

[Eloy]

What if pro life and pro choice just agreed to change there names to their literal meaning so we don't have all this confusion.

Pro life hmm could be "anti abortion" and could have subgroups if needed with identifying names. Such as anti abortion with exceptions a,b,c.


Pro choice could be "pro legal abortion". They could also have subgroups for differences on certain opinions. Such as a name for those who think abortion should be legal until certain time a,b,c etc

Maybe there would be another group in the middle or some with a specific views.and that group could have a identifying name as well.

So anti abortion I think that needs a group with a explanation is those who have the view

when a women gets pregnant that is a human she is pregnant with. Humans have the same value at all stages of development. All humans begin their development when a woman is pregnant. So the rational is that unborn human developing is the same as a newborn toddler child teen adult . The unborn is a human at the first part of development. So just as a baby or toddler Hasn't developed many things humans develop as they get older doesn't mean that they have less value.

Sometimes it all comes down to. Do people view the unborn as a human that is different from an alive human or not .

If the answer is no then it makes sense that you are pro choice . If you disagree with the people that come from the view unborn humans are as valuable as born humans. Then I think that the two people discussing can agree to disagree . They have different views on life humans value etc. there are more than 1 side that can be right by their views.if pro choice does not think they have the same value it can make complete sense on the points they make.

When talking to people I have found it's easier if we early establish our fundamental views on what the unborn child is in our view.

I actually prefer to be called antiabortion and have said so in the past. Prolifers tend to oppose abortion for religious reasons and I don't. The Constitution and the biological facts are all I need to know that abortions deny children their Constitutional rights.

A person begins at birth.

Yet, many have already been charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.

Huh.

Imagine that.

Yes, you are correct. American law appears to consider a fertilized ovum to be a person. In this respect, anti-abortionists have already won the argument.

 

[Coyote]

What if pro life and pro choice just agreed to change there names to their literal meaning so we don't have all this confusion.

Pro life hmm could be "anti abortion" and could have subgroups if needed with identifying names. Such as anti abortion with exceptions a,b,c.


Pro choice could be "pro legal abortion". They could also have subgroups for differences on certain opinions. Such as a name for those who think abortion should be legal until certain time a,b,c etc

Maybe there would be another group in the middle or some with a specific views.and that group could have a identifying name as well.

So anti abortion I think that needs a group with a explanation is those who have the view

when a women gets pregnant that is a human she is pregnant with. Humans have the same value at all stages of development. All humans begin their development when a woman is pregnant. So the rational is that unborn human developing is the same as a newborn toddler child teen adult . The unborn is a human at the first part of development. So just as a baby or toddler Hasn't developed many things humans develop as they get older doesn't mean that they have less value.

Sometimes it all comes down to. Do people view the unborn as a human that is different from an alive human or not .

If the answer is no then it makes sense that you are pro choice . If you disagree with the people that come from the view unborn humans are as valuable as born humans. Then I think that the two people discussing can agree to disagree . They have different views on life humans value etc. there are more than 1 side that can be right by their views.if pro choice does not think they have the same value it can make complete sense on the points they make.

When talking to people I have found it's easier if we early establish our fundamental views on what the unborn child is in our view.

I actually prefer to be called antiabortion and have said so in the past. Prolifers tend to oppose abortion for religious reasons and I don't. The Constitution and the biological facts are all I need to know that abortions deny children their Constitutional rights.

A person begins at birth.

Yet, many have already been charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.

Huh.

Imagine that.

Under pretty narrowly circumstances however.

 

[Coyote]

It would be very dangerous for the rights of a woman if an unborn child was defined as a "person" with equal rights from conception.

 

[Chuz Life]

What if pro life and pro choice just agreed to change there names to their literal meaning so we don't have all this confusion.

Pro life hmm could be "anti abortion" and could have subgroups if needed with identifying names. Such as anti abortion with exceptions a,b,c.


Pro choice could be "pro legal abortion". They could also have subgroups for differences on certain opinions. Such as a name for those who think abortion should be legal until certain time a,b,c etc

Maybe there would be another group in the middle or some with a specific views.and that group could have a identifying name as well.

So anti abortion I think that needs a group with a explanation is those who have the view

when a women gets pregnant that is a human she is pregnant with. Humans have the same value at all stages of development. All humans begin their development when a woman is pregnant. So the rational is that unborn human developing is the same as a newborn toddler child teen adult . The unborn is a human at the first part of development. So just as a baby or toddler Hasn't developed many things humans develop as they get older doesn't mean that they have less value.

Sometimes it all comes down to. Do people view the unborn as a human that is different from an alive human or not .

If the answer is no then it makes sense that you are pro choice . If you disagree with the people that come from the view unborn humans are as valuable as born humans. Then I think that the two people discussing can agree to disagree . They have different views on life humans value etc. there are more than 1 side that can be right by their views.if pro choice does not think they have the same value it can make complete sense on the points they make.

When talking to people I have found it's easier if we early establish our fundamental views on what the unborn child is in our view.

I actually prefer to be called antiabortion and have said so in the past. Prolifers tend to oppose abortion for religious reasons and I don't. The Constitution and the biological facts are all I need to know that abortions deny children their Constitutional rights.

A person begins at birth.

Yet, many have already been charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.

Huh.

Imagine that.

Yes, you are correct. American law appears to consider a fertilized ovum to be a person. In this respect, anti-abortionists have already won the argument.

Thanks.

I hope you can appreciate how we (pro lifers and antiaborts) would be foolish to ignore the significance of those laws and how they can be used to further challenge the laws which (for now) are keeping abortions legal.

 

[Chuz Life]

What if pro life and pro choice just agreed to change there names to their literal meaning so we don't have all this confusion.

Pro life hmm could be "anti abortion" and could have subgroups if needed with identifying names. Such as anti abortion with exceptions a,b,c.


Pro choice could be "pro legal abortion". They could also have subgroups for differences on certain opinions. Such as a name for those who think abortion should be legal until certain time a,b,c etc

Maybe there would be another group in the middle or some with a specific views.and that group could have a identifying name as well.

So anti abortion I think that needs a group with a explanation is those who have the view

when a women gets pregnant that is a human she is pregnant with. Humans have the same value at all stages of development. All humans begin their development when a woman is pregnant. So the rational is that unborn human developing is the same as a newborn toddler child teen adult . The unborn is a human at the first part of development. So just as a baby or toddler Hasn't developed many things humans develop as they get older doesn't mean that they have less value.

Sometimes it all comes down to. Do people view the unborn as a human that is different from an alive human or not .

If the answer is no then it makes sense that you are pro choice . If you disagree with the people that come from the view unborn humans are as valuable as born humans. Then I think that the two people discussing can agree to disagree . They have different views on life humans value etc. there are more than 1 side that can be right by their views.if pro choice does not think they have the same value it can make complete sense on the points they make.

When talking to people I have found it's easier if we early establish our fundamental views on what the unborn child is in our view.

I actually prefer to be called antiabortion and have said so in the past. Prolifers tend to oppose abortion for religious reasons and I don't. The Constitution and the biological facts are all I need to know that abortions deny children their Constitutional rights.

A person begins at birth.

Yet, many have already been charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.

Huh.

Imagine that.

Under pretty narrowly circumstances however.

I have to ask.

Are there any other situations where you would find it acceptable for our laws to narrowly define a human being as a "person" in one sat of circumstances. . . But deny they are a person in other circumstances?

 

[Chuz Life]

It would be very dangerous for the rights of a woman if an unborn child was defined as a "person" with equal rights from conception.

Funny that the Supreme Courts justices didn't indicate that when they offered the opinion that I quote in my signature line. . .

Wonder why?!?

 

[Coyote]

It would be very dangerous for the rights of a woman if an unborn child was defined as a "person" with equal rights from conception.

Funny that the Supreme Courts justices didn't indicate that when they offered the opinion that I quote in my signature line. . .

Wonder why?!?

And how do you think that would work - if conception marked full personhood in the law?

 

[Coyote]

What if pro life and pro choice just agreed to change there names to their literal meaning so we don't have all this confusion.

Pro life hmm could be "anti abortion" and could have subgroups if needed with identifying names. Such as anti abortion with exceptions a,b,c.


Pro choice could be "pro legal abortion". They could also have subgroups for differences on certain opinions. Such as a name for those who think abortion should be legal until certain time a,b,c etc

Maybe there would be another group in the middle or some with a specific views.and that group could have a identifying name as well.

So anti abortion I think that needs a group with a explanation is those who have the view

when a women gets pregnant that is a human she is pregnant with. Humans have the same value at all stages of development. All humans begin their development when a woman is pregnant. So the rational is that unborn human developing is the same as a newborn toddler child teen adult . The unborn is a human at the first part of development. So just as a baby or toddler Hasn't developed many things humans develop as they get older doesn't mean that they have less value.

Sometimes it all comes down to. Do people view the unborn as a human that is different from an alive human or not .

If the answer is no then it makes sense that you are pro choice . If you disagree with the people that come from the view unborn humans are as valuable as born humans. Then I think that the two people discussing can agree to disagree . They have different views on life humans value etc. there are more than 1 side that can be right by their views.if pro choice does not think they have the same value it can make complete sense on the points they make.

When talking to people I have found it's easier if we early establish our fundamental views on what the unborn child is in our view.

I actually prefer to be called antiabortion and have said so in the past. Prolifers tend to oppose abortion for religious reasons and I don't. The Constitution and the biological facts are all I need to know that abortions deny children their Constitutional rights.

A person begins at birth.

Yet, many have already been charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.

Huh.

Imagine that.

Under pretty narrowly circumstances however.

I have to ask.

Are there any other situations where you would find it acceptable for our laws to narrowly define a human being as a "person" in one sat of circumstances. . . But deny they are a person in other circumstances?

Yes.

A brain dead person on life support.

 

[Coyote]

I think personhood has always been conferred at birth.

 

[Chuz Life]

It would be very dangerous for the rights of a woman if an unborn child was defined as a "person" with equal rights from conception.

Funny that the Supreme Courts justices didn't indicate that when they offered the opinion that I quote in my signature line. . .

Wonder why?!?

And how do you think that would work - if conception marked full personhood in the law?

No idea what more you are looking for with that question. The justices made it clear enough for me in the quote in my sig.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think personhood has always been conferred at birth.

So you think our personhood is "conferred" to us by our government?

Can you cite the exact language of the Constitution that gives our government that power?

 

[Coyote]

It would be very dangerous for the rights of a woman if an unborn child was defined as a "person" with equal rights from conception.

Funny that the Supreme Courts justices didn't indicate that when they offered the opinion that I quote in my signature line. . .

Wonder why?!?

And how do you think that would work - if conception marked full personhood in the law?

No idea what more you are looking for with that question. The justices made it clear enough for me in the quote in my sig.

I'm just thinking what that would mean to a pregnant woman from conception on if it had equal rights as a person to her - and if you define it as a person legally - you can not make exceptions for rape or incest.

 

[Coyote]

I think personhood has always been conferred at birth.

So you think our personhood is "conferred" to us by our government?

Can you. Ite the exact language of the Constitution that gives our government that power?

It's not government.

It's human cultures.

 

[Chuz Life]

I actually prefer to be called antiabortion and have said so in the past. Prolifers tend to oppose abortion for religious reasons and I don't. The Constitution and the biological facts are all I need to know that abortions deny children their Constitutional rights.

A person begins at birth.

Yet, many have already been charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.

Huh.

Imagine that.

Under pretty narrowly circumstances however.

I have to ask.

Are there any other situations where you would find it acceptable for our laws to narrowly define a human being as a "person" in one sat of circumstances. . . But deny they are a person in other circumstances?

Yes.

A brain dead person on life support.

So, a brain dead person can not be raped? Molested? Murdered?

 

[Chuz Life]

It would be very dangerous for the rights of a woman if an unborn child was defined as a "person" with equal rights from conception.

Funny that the Supreme Courts justices didn't indicate that when they offered the opinion that I quote in my signature line. . .

Wonder why?!?

And how do you think that would work - if conception marked full personhood in the law?

No idea what more you are looking for with that question. The justices made it clear enough for me in the quote in my sig.

I'm just thinking what that would mean to a pregnant woman from conception on if it had equal rights as a person to her - and if you define it as a person legally - you can not make exceptions for rape or incest.

I'll take that bet.

Also, why do you use rape and incest separately? Why do you make a distinction between them?

 

[Coyote]

The Emotions of Abortion Opposition

It would be very dangerous for the rights of a woman if an unborn child was defined as a "person" with equal rights from conception.

Funny that the Supreme Courts justices didn't indicate that when they offered the opinion that I quote in my signature line. . .

Wonder why?!?

And how do you think that would work - if conception marked full personhood in the law?

No idea what more you are looking for with that question. The justices made it clear enough for me in the quote in my sig.

I'm just thinking what that would mean to a pregnant woman from conception on if it had equal rights as a person to her - and if you define it as a person legally - you can not make exceptions for rape or incest.

I'll take that bet.

Also, why do you use rape and incest separately? Why do you make a distinction between them?

Because they are legally two different crimes (by incest, I mean child abuse).

 

[Chuz Life]

I think personhood has always been conferred at birth.

So you think our personhood is "conferred" to us by our government?

Can you. Ite the exact language of the Constitution that gives our government that power?

It's not government.

It's human cultures.

Our legal dictionaries (I think rightly) define "persons" as "a human being."

Why do you suppose the legal dictionary does not say anything about a human being's personhood being "conferred" to them by government or human cultures?