Zone1 A Question For Pro-Choicers

[alang1216]

Than not being a slave. Do I really need to explain why? Really? What sort of predictable surprises do you believe a slave owner should expect to encounter when he treats another human being as property?

Same as the French king got on the guiotine or the Bourgeois got from the Bolshevics. Neither of them owned slaves.

 

[koshergrl]

Why won't you acknowledge that at conception a new, genetically distinct human being has come into existence?

Because to do so exposes them as the anti human rights kooks they are.

 

[koshergrl]

Bad spelling and logic.

?

 

[alang1216]

Why won't you acknowledge that at conception a new, genetically distinct human being has come into existence?

Because to do so exposes them as the anti human rights kooks they are.

Maybe they don't consider a cell to have more rights than a person.

 

[koshergrl]

Maybe they don't consider a cell to have more rights than

Is that relevant to what we are talking about?
Nope. But don't let that stop you from spouting specious claptrap.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You Republican nut cases are losing one election after another because you have absolutely no respect for the life of anyone.

Says a Godless creature that openly defends the murder of thousands of innocent children every day. What standing do you delusionally imagine that you coulds possibly have to credibly speak of respect for life?

 

[Pellinore]

And this thread is a pretty good indicator of how the abortion argument often goes haywire. It is so often argued from the perspective of "My opinions are correct," which is just what is going on here.

But consider this: Is it the government's job to decide who among us is morally "correct"? Abortion is also a religious issue; do any of us want the US Federal Government to decide which religious view to take? To me, that sounds like the opposite of everything our country was based on.

Neither the US nor any State or regional law can criminalize abortion without first establishing personhood; that is, asking "At what point is this being considered a 'person' in the legal sense, and allowed the full protection of the law?" There are people in this country whose ethical, ideological, and religious views tell them that that personhood begins at the very spark of conception, and there are others who believe just as fervently that that same personhood does not begin until the baby emerges naturally from the womb, and every opinion falls somewhere along that timeline. If we allow Congress to pick one day out of nine months to say "NOW it's a baby!", whatever they choose they will be stepping on the religious beliefs of at least many, and probably most, of the people.

I hope everyone here agrees that the job of the American government is to guarantee the freedoms of as many people as it can. That means they should not only refrain from infringing on our freedoms themselves, but it is their job also to protect us from someone else, some third party, from infringing on those same freedoms. That is, in fact, the technical difference between civil liberties and civil rights; the former restrict the government while the latter are freedoms that the government is tasked to protect. You can look all of this up in any US Government or Poli Sci textbook.

So by following the line of thinking from step to step, we've now established that the government shouldn't force any one stance on us by picking a day for personhood. What, then, should they do? Their job should therefore be to protect the freedom of each individual person among us to make the moral, ideological, and religion decision according to our own conscience. They must guarantee our civil liberties by not outlawing abortion ever, but also to guarantee our civil rights by preventing anyone else — namely, the States — from doing that either. That's their job. That's why we have a Federal Government. Constitution says so.

I realize many of you can feel your blood boil while reading that paragraph, but you have to remember that yours is not the only view on when personhood begins, and the republic is founded upon the idea that everyone else's views are just as valid as yours.

So, from a Constitutional perspective, the answer to the OP is this: I have my opinions which work for me, but regardless of what they are, I should not be allowed to impose them on everyone else. When we're talking federal law, the government's job as laid out in the Constitution should be to protect our civil rights by preventing States from criminalizing abortion.

 

[alang1216]

Is that relevant to what we are talking about?
Nope. But don't let that stop you from spouting specious claptrap.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about people, not organic chemistry.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

pllnr.23.10.13 #389

by following the line of thinking from step to step, we've now established that the government shouldn't force any one stance on us by picking a day for personhood. What, then, should they do? Their job should therefore be to protect the freedom of each individual person among us to make the moral, ideological, and religion decision according to our own conscience. They must guarantee our civil liberties by not outlawing abortion ever, but also to guarantee our civil rights by preventing anyone else — namely, the States — from doing that either. That's their job. That's why we have a Federal Government. Constitution says so.

Excellent is every word you said I’ll just add the Dobbs decision was a violation of what you said by educated persons who should not have given into one specific mostly white religious Christian contingent of Trump voters by granting that minority of the old south confederacy by making ut a states rights issue.

That decision to destroy a fifty year right was traitorous to the court by citing ‘established laws from the late 18th century when women had no vote for or against the establishment of those anti woman laws or the white male politicians who passed them

All the USSC had to do was cite English Common Law at the time of the founding to determine preponderance of law up to that time the Constitution was written that life does not begin at conception. it begins at Quickening which was to say - close enough to RvW’s viability ruling at 28 weeks.

If the six right wing Catholics had to tweak RvW to justify their grifting behaviors then they could have cited modern medicine and technology to move “quickening” up from 28 to 23 weeks which roughs in with the timing when 99 percent of abortions by maternal choice take place.

A strong majority of Women would not have objected to that I believe.

But had they done that the three new Trump Catholics would be hated for being liberals so the six Catholics abandoned originalism for modern political activism. So they really suck on all angles in a free religious or not religious tolerant society. They darkened the bench and the cause of individual liberty when they handed down Dobbs.

 

[ding]

" Comedy Of Baseless Whimpering For A Perfect World "

* Life Is A Bitch *

Not a valid interest when possession is 9/10ths of the law .

Comedy Of Baseless Whimpering For A Perfect World.

Life Is A Bitch.

 

[ding]

Also the most ideological and least realistic.

I disagree. It absolutely is the most realistic and most practical approach, not to mention the best defense against gradualism.

 

[ding]

Same as the French king got on the guiotine or the Bourgeois got from the Bolshevics. Neither of them owned slaves.

Which is non sequitur. Despite your apparent belief that randomness reigns supreme, the real world shows the exact opposite; that every effect had a cause. You apparently cannot see it because you think violating moral laws is like violating physical laws. It isn't. It's statistical in nature. But make no mistake, the consequences one suffers are directly related to their actions. Even if they get away with it for long periods of time.

 

[ding]

Maybe they don't consider a cell to have more rights than a person.

No one is aborting cells. So that's a horrible reason to fail to acknowledge that at conception a new, genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

The real reason is that it's easier for you to dismiss their death if you don't see them as human. It's a form of cognitive dissonance. You can't bear to admit that you support something that is wrong to do, especially something as serious as ending a human life.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You are a nut case.

Says a foolish creature that denies God.

 

[ding]

Not a collection of cells?

Every living being that has ever existed or will ever exist is a collection of cells.

Is it easier for you to kill them if you see them as mere cells rather than what they are; a new, genetically distinct human being in its earliest stage of the human life cycle?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You Republican nut cases are losing one election after another because you have absolutely no respect for the life of anyone.

Says an evil creature that defends the savage, cold-blooded murders of thousands of innocent children every day, more than a million every year.

 

[koshergrl]

And this thread is a pretty good indicator of how the abortion argument often goes haywire. It is so often argued from the perspective of "My opinions are correct," which is just what is going on here.

But consider this: Is it the government's job to decide who among us is morally "correct"? Abortion is also a religious issue; do any of us want the US Federal Government to decide which religious view to take? To me, that sounds like the opposite of everything our country was based on.

Neither the US nor any State or regional law can criminalize abortion without first establishing personhood; that is, asking "At what point is this being considered a 'person' in the legal sense, and allowed the full protection of the law?" There are people in this country whose ethical, ideological, and religious views tell them that that personhood begins at the very spark of conception, and there are others who believe just as fervently that that same personhood does not begin until the baby emerges naturally from the womb, and every opinion falls somewhere along that timeline. If we allow Congress to pick one day out of nine months to say "NOW it's a baby!", whatever they choose they will be stepping on the religious beliefs of at least many, and probably most, of the people.

I hope everyone here agrees that the job of the American government is to guarantee the freedoms of as many people as it can. That means they should not only refrain from infringing on our freedoms themselves, but it is their job also to protect us from someone else, some third party, from infringing on those same freedoms. That is, in fact, the technical difference between civil liberties and civil rights; the former restrict the government while the latter are freedoms that the government is tasked to protect. You can look all of this up in any US Government or Poli Sci textbook.

So by following the line of thinking from step to step, we've now established that the government shouldn't force any one stance on us by picking a day for personhood. What, then, should they do? Their job should therefore be to protect the freedom of each individual person among us to make the moral, ideological, and religion decision according to our own conscience. They must guarantee our civil liberties by not outlawing abortion ever, but also to guarantee our civil rights by preventing anyone else — namely, the States — from doing that either. That's their job. That's why we have a Federal Government. Constitution says so.

I realize many of you can feel your blood boil while reading that paragraph, but you have to remember that yours is not the only view on when personhood begins, and the republic is founded upon the idea that everyone else's views are just as valid as yours.

So, from a Constitutional perspective, the answer to the OP is this: I have my opinions which work for me, but regardless of what they are, I should not be allowed to impose them on everyone else. When we're talking federal law, the government's job as laid out in the Constitution should be to protect our civil rights by preventing States from criminalizing abortion.

The ONLY authority of force the government has is the authority to protect vulnerable humans from being butchered by those who are stronger or who want the resources their victims are sitting on.
The law doesn't exist to protect the rights of the strong from their dependents. It exists to protect the vulnerable, the weak, the minority from being killed.

 

[Flash]

Only a sicko Libtard Feminazi would not see anything wrong with killing a child as a birth control method.

 

[ding]

You are a nut case.

Wealthy people who could afford eugenics to begin with are a very small number of the population.

You do not have the foggiest idea of what it means and are piling it up to abortions.

I know what the definition of the word is, and that you do not know or care what it really means and how many people really take advantage of that.

You are a Christian extremist nut, who believes what you want to believe and are very dangerous to other women in real life. That is if you are even a female.


Criminalize abortion in red states all you like. The people are not putting up with it and are voting their right to Choose if they want to have an abortion or not.


You Republican nut cases are losing one election after another because you have absolutely no respect for the life of anyone.

Stay lost.

You would think that a Jew would be the last person on earth to dehumanize a human life so that its life could be ended.

Remind me again why the Nazis dehumanized Jews so they could end their lives. Was it so they could do an unspeakable act with a clear conscience? Is that why you won't acknowledge that at conception a new, genetically distinct human being has come into existence? So that you can have a clear conscience like the Nazis did too?

You can avoid responding to my comments but you can't run from your own conscience.

 

[ding]

You are all a cult of the filthiest thinking on the planet.

It's easier for you to see it this way than it is for you to face the fact that you dehumanize human life for the express purpose of having a clear conscience. God forbid you take accountability for anything.

Adam, did you eat the apple?

The woman you made gave it to me.