Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[Chuz Life]

Concerning pregnancy, I am a proponent of personal choice before gestational viability is achieved.

I am opposed to the State dictating one way or the other.

If Abortion is on the ballot and you vote to keep it "legal." You are a proponent of that which you voted for.

You would be "pro" on abortion.

 

[JoeB131]

If Abortion is on the ballot and you vote to keep it "legal." You are a proponent of that which you voted for.

You would be "pro" on abortion.

No, we just recognize that the state shouldn't make such choices.

I personally don't drink anymore. I still think prohibition is a stupid idea.

 

[schmidlap]

If Abortion is on the ballot and you vote to keep it "legal." You are a proponent of that which you voted for.

You would be "pro" on abortion.

Like most Americans, I am "pro-choice."

It is neither the State's nor my right to dictate either way.

 

[Chuz Life]

Like most Americans, I am "pro-choice."

It is neither the State's nor my right to dictate either way.

Are you a proponent for keeping abortions legal - regardless of whether an abortion kills a child?

Yes or no?

Why can't you just own it?

 

[Eman623]

You're caught up on what I say. This isn't about what I think.. are you projecting a tyrannical progressive desire here? I'm saying follow the rules of the Constitution. They aren't my rules.

Really? Can you show me in the Constitution where it says a newly fertilized ovum in a person? Spoiler alert, no you cannot.

But your prescription of pure democracy is completely immoral. You'd have to own that if 75% of your population wanted murder, rape, and theft to be legal, you'd have to allow it and support it. My society wouldn't. We have an ethical framework. You don't. We are morally superior to you.

False choice. We have a republic and Constitution. God willing, people like you on either fringe will never be empowered to decide what it means.

The current court got it right. Abortion is a state issue,

 

[Eman623]

View attachment 1220366
View attachment 1220370
View attachment 1220371

Reconciling Definitions of Personhood

Shared via Copilot

copilot.microsoft.com

Interesting. Even AI cannot say definitively whether personhood is natural or acquired. Or whether the constitution grants personhood to the unborn.

 

[Eman623]

Please explain why the simplest (most inclusive) meaning for what a "person" is would not be the "correct one."

Be detailed and specific.

Please explain why it is the "correct one"?

Other than, "I say so".

 

[schmidlap]

Are you a proponent for keeping abortions legal - regardless of whether an abortion kills a child?

Yes or no?

Why can't you just own it?

The state has a duty to protect a person after gestational development has resulted in personhood, not before. A microscopic, mindless entity is not a person.

 

[Chuz Life]

Interesting. Even AI cannot say definitively whether personhood is natural or acquired. Or whether the constitution grants personhood to the unborn.

It kind of did though.

Based on existing definitions that do NOT exclude. . .

 

[Chuz Life]

Please explain why it is the "correct one"?

Other than, "I say so".

This is why I (often) ask the question.

Were YOU conceived?

I know that I was.

 

[Chuz Life]

False choice. We have a republic and Constitution. God willing, people like you on either fringe will never be empowered to decide what it means.

The current court got it right. Abortion is a state issue,

I know that you won't do it. . . However, I want the SCOTUS to explain how it is Constitutional for something as fundamental to society as "personhood" to vary from one State's border to any other.

 

[schmidlap]

Are you a proponent for keeping abortions legal - regardless of whether an abortion kills a child?

Yes or no?

Why can't you just own it?

If I supported your right to decide for yourself whether to wear a blue or a grey suit, and authoritarians were insisting that everyone MUST wear blue, would you insist that I must be "pro-grey"?

I just respect that it should be your decision, and no one else's.

 

[Chuz Life]

No, we just recognize that the state shouldn't make such choices.

I personally don't drink anymore. I still think prohibition is a stupid idea.

Yeah. . . cause drinking booze automatically by design entails the taking of a child's life. . .

I get it.

 

[Eman623]

It kind of did though.

Based on existing definitions that do NOT exclude. . .

Based on your definitions...,

 

[Eman623]

This is why I (often) ask the question.

Were YOU conceived?

I know that I was.

Non answer answer

 

[schmidlap]

This is why I (often) ask the question.

Were YOU conceived?

I know that I was.

I hope that it was not because the State ordered it.

 

[Chuz Life]

If I supported your right to decide for yourself whether to wear a blue or a grey suit, and authoritarians were insisting that everyone MUST wear blue, would you insist that I must be "pro-grey"?

I just respect that it should be your decision, and no one else's.

You are dodging the point.

If "wearing a grey suit" was being considered for being banned, if you opposed that banning - you would be "pro-grey suit."

 

[Eman623]

I know that you won't do it. . . However, I want the SCOTUS to explain how it is Constitutional for something as fundamental to society as "personhood" to vary from one State's border to any other.

Have you read the Dobbs decision?

 

[Chuz Life]

I hope that it was not because the State ordered it.

It's a question of biology.

Not State policy.

Were YOU "conceived?"

In what way were you YOU, when YOU were conceived?

It's one of the key parts of the whole (beginning of life and personhood) question and understanding.

It's not a ******* trick question.

 

[Chuz Life]

Have you read the Dobbs decision?

Word for word.

Yes.

And the SCOTUS stepped on its dick.

I said it then, and I say it now.

For the reason I said.

It can't possibly be Constitutional for something as critical as personhood to vary - State by State.