Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[Eman623]

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.

Hmm. who to believe? The finest legal minds in the country? On an anonymous pro-lifer on a message board? Wow, that is a conundrum.

Spoiler alert. I don't follow anyone's logic here. I use my own judgement. But in this case the SCOTUS got it right. They don't always but they did this time. Abortion is a state issue, So sorry if that upsets you.

(just kidding. I'm not sorry.)

 

[Chuz Life]

Hmm. who to believe? The finest legal minds in the country? On an anonymous pro-lifer on a message board? Wow, that is a conundrum.

Spoiler alert. I don't follow anyone's logic here. I use my own judgement. But in this case the SCOTUS got it right. They don't always but they did this time. Abortion is a state issue, So sorry if that upsets you.

(just kidding. I'm not sorry.)

Very Revealing.

Riddle me this - because the same SCOTUS decided that "marriage" (a completely legal construct) can NOT vary State by State (according to the same Constitution). . . .

But, "personhood" (a biologically natural AND legal construct) ******* can?

Make it make sense.

 

[Chuz Life]

Based on your definitions...,

How are they "my definitions" when all I did was ask Copilot for the definition and it provided the answer.

Same as you ******* did.

 

[Chuz Life]

Non answer answer

Only because you refuse to answer the questions.

"Were you conceived?"

And "In what way were you YOU when YOU were conceived?"

Honest answers to those will shed a whole lot of light on your ******* denials.

 

[Eman623]

Very Revealing.

Riddle me this - because the same SCOTUS decided that "marriage" (a completely legal construct) can NOT vary State by State (according to the same Constitution). . . .

But, "personhood" (a biologically natural AND legal construct) ******* can?

Make it make sense.

Because marriage is an ongoing condition. If people who get married move to other states , the question arises if they are still married.

Abortions are a one-time event. People who get abortions in one state don't need to get an abortion in another state.

 

[Eman623]

How are they "my definitions" when all I did was ask Copilot for the definition and it provided the answer.

Same as you ******* did.

Indeed. We both supply out own definitions and Copilot dutifully runs with that.

 

[Eman623]

Only because you refuse to answer the questions.

"Were you conceived?"

And "In what way were you YOU when YOU were conceived?"

Honest answers to those will shed a whole lot of light on your ******* denials.

After you explain why it [the simplest (most inclusive) meaning for what a "person" is would not be the "correct one."] is the "correct one"?

Other than, "I say so".

 

[Chuz Life]

Because marriage is an ongoing condition. If people who get married move to other states , the question arises if they are still married.

Abortions are a one-time event. People who get abortions in one state don't need to get an abortion in another state.

So. . .

Personhood is something less than an "ongoing condition?"

Now I see why you defer to the wisdom of others.

 

[Chuz Life]

After you explain why it [the simplest (most inclusive) meaning for what a "person" is would not be the "correct one."] is the "correct one"?

Other than, "I say so".

Here's an idea. . . let's ask Co-Pilot

My opponent is demanding that I explain what I believe the "correct" definition is for a "person" and explain why I think it is the "correct" definition to u...

Shared via Copilot

copilot.microsoft.com

 

[Eman623]

So. . .

Personhood is something less than an "ongoing condition?"

Now I see why you defer to the wisdom of others.

As usual you are 100% wrong. I do not defer to others, instead forming my own opinions.

 

[Eman623]

Here's an idea. . . let's ask Co-Pilot

View attachment 1220397

/5aBaBUP7Qsq2ha6kq42Bnhttps://copilot.microsoft.com/shares

Yes, let's.

Defining "Person" in Ethical and Legal Contexts

Shared via Copilot

copilot.microsoft.com

 

[Chuz Life]

As usual you are 100% wrong. I do not defer to others, instead forming my own opinions.

 

[Chuz Life]

Here's an idea. . . let's ask Co-Pilot

View attachment 1220397

My opponent is demanding that I explain what I believe the "correct" definition is for a "person" and explain why I think it is the "correct" definition to u...

Shared via Copilot

copilot.microsoft.com

Great.

Now ask it to reconcile your cherry picking with the definition for what a "natural person" is.

You know. . . the definition you keep dodging and omitting.

 

[schmidlap]

There are apparently some who prefer the authoritarianism of El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua where reproductive freedom is forbidden by the regime.

So be it.

 

[Chuz Life]

There are apparently some who prefer the authoritarianism of El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua where reproductive freedom is forbidden by the regime.

So be it.

So, killing unwanted children is in the realm of "reproductive freedom" in your view.

Huh.

Good to know.

 

[JoeB131]

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

I get it.

Well, let's look at that.

Once you've declared Globby has more rights than the woman he is inside, it doesn't stop at abortion, does it.

Can you charge a pregnant woman with assault if she has a glass of wine while pregnant?

How about if she smokes?

Or eating the wrong kinds of food?

If a woman has a miscarriage, do you now investigate that like it was a potential homicide?

Does habeas corpus now apply to embryos frozen in fertility centers?

 

[JoeB131]

Hmm. who to believe? The finest legal minds in the country? On an anonymous pro-lifer on a message board? Wow, that is a conundrum.

Spoiler alert. I don't follow anyone's logic here. I use my own judgement. But in this case the SCOTUS got it right. They don't always but they did this time. Abortion is a state issue, So sorry if that upsets you.

(just kidding. I'm not sorry.)

Meh, here's the thing.

I actually don't think Roe was a good decision. First, it failed to define when life begins, which Chuzy and his side have a point, it probably should have. (and with some dickery about viability in Roe was immediately rendered moot by the companion decision of Doe v. Bolton, issued on the same day, which allowed abortion at any time based on health reasons.)

The other problem with Roe was that it found a "right to privacy" that simply isn't in the Constitution. If it were, you could throw out all the drug laws and prostitution laws. (These laws should be thrown out, but they are still constitutional, because there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution.)

So why did SCOTUS rule the way it did in Roe? Well, they probably didn't think Roe was any more controversial than Griswold v. Connecticut, where they found that birth control was legal for married couples (later expanded to unmarried couples). They were just legalizing what was common practice.

Dobbs, on the other hand, is a complete clusterfuck. You don't undo 50 years of precedent because you've stacked the court with Catholic Fanatics.

Now, final point. The Democrats could have (and should have) codified Roe during any of the periods they had complete control of Congress and the Presidency. (The first two years of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations, respectively.) They didn't, because they wanted the threat of Roe being overturned in their back pocket to drive out the women's vote.

Meanwhile, in sensible democracies in Europe, abortion is legal and the government pays for it. Amazing.

 

[Hafar1014]

You've skipped the question.

Does that abortion entail the killing of a child, person, human being?

Yes or no.

Why not own your own damn position?

Yes under certain circumstance just like all killing is not murder
Two examples;
The fetus has anencephaly no fore brain therefore is not a person
The mother has terminal cancer and the chemo to save her life will kill the fetus. True story

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Cues Missing Clues "

* Nature Versus Nurture Of Sex Versus Gender *

Intersex doesnt exist this is a term used to describe abnormal secondary sexual development not gender. They are still either male or female.

The convention of describing genetic composition of sex codons is sex , and intersex relates the ranges of sex codon compositions which inludes deviations from endosex characteristics in hormones and phenotype .

The nature and nurture in intrapersonal and interpersonal relationships between individuals and environment , and subjective perspectives on social norms , are integrated into the introspection of individuals , while gender dysphoria relates where genetic sex of an individual differs from social roles associated with norms of behavior for male or female sexes .

. Intersex - Wikipedia .
Intersex people are those born with any of several sex characteristics, including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies".[1][2] The opposite of intersex is endosex, which describes persons born with sex characteristics that are seen as typically male or female at birth.[3]

. Sex-determination system - Wikipedia .
. Gender dysphoria - Wikipedia .
. XX male syndrome - Wikipedia .

. XO sex-determination system - Wikipedia .
Parthenogenesis with XO sex-determination can occur by different mechanisms to produce either male or female offspring.[12]
Males only have one X chromosome (XO), while females have two (XX). The letter O (sometimes a zero) signifies the lack of a Y chromosome.[1]

* No Evidence Of Parthenogenesis Producing Males *

Parthenogenesis, or "virgin birth," is a form of asexual reproduction where embryos develop from unfertilized eggs, common in invertebrates (bees, aphids) and some vertebrates like sharks, Komodo dragons, and whiptail lizards. It allows single females to colonize new environments and reproduce without a mate, though it creates clones, reducing genetic diversity and adaptation.
Key Aspects of Parthenogenesis

• Animals that reproduce via Parthenogenesis: Various invertebrates (rotifers, aphids, ants, bees, wasps) and vertebrates, including over 80 species of reptiles, amphibians, and fish (e.g., Komodo dragons, hammerhead sharks, Brahminy blind snakes).

A female student commented in an introduction to philosophy class the parthenogenesis is exclusively female and supposed that were virgin mary to have completed such a feet that jesus would have to have been a female .

Parthenogenesis—asexual reproduction from an unfertilized egg—is almost exclusively a female-driven process. No evidence exists for male mammals, including humans, to naturally produce offspring alone.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

As usual you are 100% wrong. I do not defer to others, instead forming my own opinions.

You literally just referred to the legal minds of our society as your source. LOL.