CDZ Will any USMB abortion proponents admit that an abortion kills a child?

[Chuz Life]

Just what the thread title says.

I have participated on a lot of forums and debate sites for nearly 30 years now and though it is very rare, I have in fact encountered abortion proponents who are not afraid to admit that an abortion kills a child. They agree that an abortion denies prenatal children their rights while in the womb. . . etc. Their argument is simply that the rights of the mother trumps the rights of the child.

Strange as it may seem, I actually have a bit more respect for those opponents - because we (at least) have some common ground on the biological facts, when and how life begins, etc.

How about it?

Anybody?

Your belief is fine and logical. But I am a small government guy. Just as others don't want my belief masturbation is a sin imposed on them, they don't want your belief on abortion imposed on them.

Even the smallest of governments have a legitimate role to play in defending human rights. "Sin" doesn't have anything to do with it.

The Constitution clearly says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws." Our supreme court acknowledged that fact (see my sig.)

So, it all comes back to whether or not a person in the first days of their life, growth and development is a human being / person or not.

The science (not religion) tells me that they are.

 

[Chuz Life]

That's what makes it a political question, Bud.....

You keep voting and telling everyone who'll listen how you feel about stuff, I'll do the same, and we'll meet in court if necessary.

Beer? ​

The sooner the better.

 

[Toronado3800]

Just what the thread title says.

I have participated on a lot of forums and debate sites for nearly 30 years now and though it is very rare, I have in fact encountered abortion proponents who are not afraid to admit that an abortion kills a child. They agree that an abortion denies prenatal children their rights while in the womb. . . etc. Their argument is simply that the rights of the mother trumps the rights of the child.

Strange as it may seem, I actually have a bit more respect for those opponents - because we (at least) have some common ground on the biological facts, when and how life begins, etc.

How about it?

Anybody?

Your belief is fine and logical. But I am a small government guy. Just as others don't want my belief masturbation is a sin imposed on them, they don't want your belief on abortion imposed on them.

Even the smallest of governments have a legitimate role to play in defending human rights. "Sin" doesn't have anything to do with it.

The Constitution clearly says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws." Our supreme court acknowledged that fact (see my sig.)

So, it all comes back to whether or not a person in the first days of their life, growth and development is a human being / person or not.

The science (not religion) tells me that they are.

Huh, I remember what science and religion had to say about what orbits what.

In this case we are protecting those who believe differently than you and those with a strange urge to control what their bodies do.

Your belief is legitimate though. We are not going to force you to have an abortion. I'm also not going to let the government force you to face Mecca a couple times a day.

 

[Chuz Life]

Just what the thread title says.

I have participated on a lot of forums and debate sites for nearly 30 years now and though it is very rare, I have in fact encountered abortion proponents who are not afraid to admit that an abortion kills a child. They agree that an abortion denies prenatal children their rights while in the womb. . . etc. Their argument is simply that the rights of the mother trumps the rights of the child.

Strange as it may seem, I actually have a bit more respect for those opponents - because we (at least) have some common ground on the biological facts, when and how life begins, etc.

How about it?

Anybody?

Your belief is fine and logical. But I am a small government guy. Just as others don't want my belief masturbation is a sin imposed on them, they don't want your belief on abortion imposed on them.

Even the smallest of governments have a legitimate role to play in defending human rights. "Sin" doesn't have anything to do with it.

The Constitution clearly says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws." Our supreme court acknowledged that fact (see my sig.)

So, it all comes back to whether or not a person in the first days of their life, growth and development is a human being / person or not.

The science (not religion) tells me that they are.

Huh, I remember what science and religion had to say about what orbits what.

In this case we are protecting those who believe differently than you and those with a strange urge to control what their bodies do.

Your belief is legitimate though. We are not going to force you to have an abortion. I'm also not going to let the government force you to face Mecca a couple times a day.

Does the government have a legitimate role to play in defending human rights from the moment a person's life (and constitutional rights) begin? Or not?

Yes or no?

 

[Toronado3800]

Just what the thread title says.

I have participated on a lot of forums and debate sites for nearly 30 years now and though it is very rare, I have in fact encountered abortion proponents who are not afraid to admit that an abortion kills a child. They agree that an abortion denies prenatal children their rights while in the womb. . . etc. Their argument is simply that the rights of the mother trumps the rights of the child.

Strange as it may seem, I actually have a bit more respect for those opponents - because we (at least) have some common ground on the biological facts, when and how life begins, etc.

How about it?

Anybody?

Your belief is fine and logical. But I am a small government guy. Just as others don't want my belief masturbation is a sin imposed on them, they don't want your belief on abortion imposed on them.

Even the smallest of governments have a legitimate role to play in defending human rights. "Sin" doesn't have anything to do with it.

The Constitution clearly says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws." Our supreme court acknowledged that fact (see my sig.)

So, it all comes back to whether or not a person in the first days of their life, growth and development is a human being / person or not.

The science (not religion) tells me that they are.

Huh, I remember what science and religion had to say about what orbits what.

In this case we are protecting those who believe differently than you and those with a strange urge to control what their bodies do.

Your belief is legitimate though. We are not going to force you to have an abortion. I'm also not going to let the government force you to face Mecca a couple times a day.

Does the government have a legitimate role to play in defending human rights from the moment a person's life (and constitutional rights) begin? Or not?

Yes or no?

Yes.

The government is compelled to protect you from what I believe. I might believe crazy religious stuff like you need to be dunked to prove you are not a witch.

To speed the conversation along, on the surface, we have some inconsistencies in how we charge those who kill pregnant women with two counts of murder I'll admit. That is apparently the government saying it is up to the mother's faith to determine when the life begins in her, not the murderer, you or I.

Its cool you believe abortion is murder. Personally I may agree but I don't believe I have a right to impose my view on you, or the gal next door, you all being equal in the eyes of the law. You post a lot about it so you obviously either feel very strongly or are paid to do so.

 

[Chuz Life]

Just what the thread title says.

I have participated on a lot of forums and debate sites for nearly 30 years now and though it is very rare, I have in fact encountered abortion proponents who are not afraid to admit that an abortion kills a child. They agree that an abortion denies prenatal children their rights while in the womb. . . etc. Their argument is simply that the rights of the mother trumps the rights of the child.

Strange as it may seem, I actually have a bit more respect for those opponents - because we (at least) have some common ground on the biological facts, when and how life begins, etc.

How about it?

Anybody?

Your belief is fine and logical. But I am a small government guy. Just as others don't want my belief masturbation is a sin imposed on them, they don't want your belief on abortion imposed on them.

Even the smallest of governments have a legitimate role to play in defending human rights. "Sin" doesn't have anything to do with it.

The Constitution clearly says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws." Our supreme court acknowledged that fact (see my sig.)

So, it all comes back to whether or not a person in the first days of their life, growth and development is a human being / person or not.

The science (not religion) tells me that they are.

Huh, I remember what science and religion had to say about what orbits what.

In this case we are protecting those who believe differently than you and those with a strange urge to control what their bodies do.

Your belief is legitimate though. We are not going to force you to have an abortion. I'm also not going to let the government force you to face Mecca a couple times a day.

Does the government have a legitimate role to play in defending human rights from the moment a person's life (and constitutional rights) begin? Or not?

Yes or no?

Yes.

The government is compelled to protect you from what I believe. I might believe crazy religious stuff like you need to be dunked to prove you are not a witch.

To speed the conversation along, on the surface, we have some inconsistencies in how we charge those who kill pregnant women with two counts of murder I'll admit. That is apparently the government saying it is up to the mother's faith to determine when the life begins in her, not the murderer, you or I.

Its cool you believe abortion is murder. Personally I may agree but I don't believe I have a right to impose my view on you, or the gal next door, you all being equal in the eyes of the law. You post a lot about it so you obviously either feel very strongly or are paid to do so.

How can any person say (with a straight face) that a child's PERSONHOOD and Constitutional rights are to be determined by each and every individual woman - case by case - as she becomes pregnant? Then, add to that - that she can REVOKE that previously wanted child's personhood and pay Planned Parenthood to KILL him or her at just about anytime she wants to.... just by changing her mind.

Do you even HEAR yourself?

 

[Toronado3800]

Your belief is fine and logical. But I am a small government guy. Just as others don't want my belief masturbation is a sin imposed on them, they don't want your belief on abortion imposed on them.

Even the smallest of governments have a legitimate role to play in defending human rights. "Sin" doesn't have anything to do with it.

The Constitution clearly says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws." Our supreme court acknowledged that fact (see my sig.)

So, it all comes back to whether or not a person in the first days of their life, growth and development is a human being / person or not.

The science (not religion) tells me that they are.

Huh, I remember what science and religion had to say about what orbits what.

In this case we are protecting those who believe differently than you and those with a strange urge to control what their bodies do.

Your belief is legitimate though. We are not going to force you to have an abortion. I'm also not going to let the government force you to face Mecca a couple times a day.

Does the government have a legitimate role to play in defending human rights from the moment a person's life (and constitutional rights) begin? Or not?

Yes or no?

Yes.

The government is compelled to protect you from what I believe. I might believe crazy religious stuff like you need to be dunked to prove you are not a witch.

To speed the conversation along, on the surface, we have some inconsistencies in how we charge those who kill pregnant women with two counts of murder I'll admit. That is apparently the government saying it is up to the mother's faith to determine when the life begins in her, not the murderer, you or I.

Its cool you believe abortion is murder. Personally I may agree but I don't believe I have a right to impose my view on you, or the gal next door, you all being equal in the eyes of the law. You post a lot about it so you obviously either feel very strongly or are paid to do so.

How can any person say (with a straight face) that a child's PERSONHOOD and Constitutional rights are to be determined by each and every individual woman - case by case - as she becomes pregnant? Then, add to that - that she can REVOKE that previously wanted child's personhood and pay Planned Parenthood to KILL him or her at just about anytime she wants to.... just by changing her mind.

Do you even HEAR yourself?

Yup, you, YOU Chuz Life, have no right according to our law to decide what she believes. Bothers you?

If it makes you feel better, I in all my "glory" have no right to decide what you believe, even if I think you should listen to me

More seriously, I wonder if abortion being legal is a punishment for this sins of our society. Consider the problems we are having with Muslim extremists. Or the problems with Christian extremists which led some of the first colonists to America. Then the problems of Christian extremists IN America. Gotta keep the Muslim, Christian or my church out of government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just what the thread title says.

I have participated on a lot of forums and debate sites for nearly 30 years now and though it is very rare, I have in fact encountered abortion proponents who are not afraid to admit that an abortion kills a child. They agree that an abortion denies prenatal children their rights while in the womb. . . etc. Their argument is simply that the rights of the mother trumps the rights of the child.

Strange as it may seem, I actually have a bit more respect for those opponents - because we (at least) have some common ground on the biological facts, when and how life begins, etc.

How about it?

Anybody?

Prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections:

‘[T]he unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Consequently, abortion is not 'killing a child' – as a settled, accepted fact of law, one is not a child or person until after he is born.

As an aside, it is perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while at the same time recognizing and defending the right to privacy, and to oppose efforts by the states to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

 

[Witchit]

I had an abortion 40 years ago. No regrets.

 

[Coyote]

This is a contentious topic - please remember folks, you are in CDZ. No flaming, insulting, or putting down posters.

 

[Chuz Life]

I guess I had a post deleted from this thread but have no idea which one, so I have no idea which rule (if any) were broken.

 

[Chuz Life]

Prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections:

‘[T]he unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

What then, is the Constitutional basis for all the nearly 40 State and Federal Fetal Homicide laws which make it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" during a criminal act?

Consequently, abortion is not 'killing a child' – as a settled, accepted fact of law, one is not a child or person until after he is born.

Again, that denial has already been defeated by our fetal homicide laws.

As an aside, it is perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while at the same time recognizing and defending the right to privacy, and to oppose efforts by the states to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

No-one has the right to violate the rights of another human being (especially a child) and then to shield that violation behind a so called right to privacy.

The Supreme Court has already indicated as much. See the following quote in my signature.

 

[Chuz Life]

I had an abortion 40 years ago. No regrets.

This thread is not about "regrets."

This thread is about those who accept the fact that an abortion kills a child and support keeping abortions legal anyway.

Do you accept the fact that an abortion kills a child?

 

[Witchit]

I had an abortion 40 years ago. No regrets.

This thread is not about "regrets."

This thread is about those who accept the fact that an abortion kills a child and support keeping abortions legal anyway.

Do you accept the fact that an abortion kills a child?

Then stop using regrets as a talking point.

 

[Toronado3800]

I had an abortion 40 years ago. No regrets.

This thread is not about "regrets."

This thread is about those who accept the fact that an abortion kills a child and support keeping abortions legal anyway.

Do you accept the fact that an abortion kills a child?

I would disagree.

This thread is asking if any USMB pro choice folks will say abortion is murder.

Remember the play on state fetus murder laws we talked about? They are a bit of stretch of logic but consistent I suppose.

Have you found anyone who says, "Abortion is murder but I'm pro choice"? I suppose you can find people who say, "I believe abortion is murder but I don't want to impose my religion on you because I'm scared Toronado's religion will be imposed on me then."

 

[Chuz Life]

I had an abortion 40 years ago. No regrets.

This thread is not about "regrets."

This thread is about those who accept the fact that an abortion kills a child and support keeping abortions legal anyway.

Do you accept the fact that an abortion kills a child?

Then stop using regrets as a talking point.

Where did I use regrets as a talking point in this thread?

You do know why threads have a topic, don't you?

 

[Chuz Life]

I had an abortion 40 years ago. No regrets.

This thread is not about "regrets."

This thread is about those who accept the fact that an abortion kills a child and support keeping abortions legal anyway.

Do you accept the fact that an abortion kills a child?

I would disagree.

This thread is asking if any USMB pro choice folks will say abortion is murder.

Remember the play on state fetus murder laws we talked about? They are a bit of stretch of logic but consistent I suppose.

Have you found anyone who says, "Abortion is murder but I'm pro choice"? I suppose you can find people who say, "I believe abortion is murder but I don't want to impose my religion on you because I'm scared Toronado's religion will be imposed on me then."

Murder is a legal term.

Most abortion proponents will tell you that it's not a murder if the law says it's legal.

I disagree with them on that because an UnConstitutional law is not technically "legal."

I digress.

This thread is not about murder. It's about those who can accept that an abortion kills a child.... but they think abortions should remain legal anyway.

More than a few have already reaffirmed that position in this thread. If you want to accuse them of supporting "murder" just because they accept abortions kill a child and they support the abortions for whatever other reasons they may have in mind?

THAT would be a topic for another thread.

Please stop trying to derail THIS thread with topics other than the OP.

 

[ding]

I read that banning abortion puts the rights of the child over the rights of the woman. Doesn't abortion put the rights of the woman over the rights of the child?

If all life is equal and has equal rights then banning abortion does not put the right of the child over the right of the woman. It puts it equal to the right of the woman.

 

[ding]

150 years from now people will look back on us and see us the same way we look back on people 150 years ago who owned slaves.

 

[Witchit]

Nope. There is only one person.