Zone1 Abortion is murder and I can't find any way to show otherwise.

[Votto]

Oh wait! You tried sounding educated and informed, intelligent. The DNC? Is not the GOP asking states to address government rights over everyone in their respective states?

Here is a little history lesson for you since you don't seem to know.

The idea of natural rights is the concept used in philosophy and legal studies that a person has certain rights from birth and which, because they were not awarded by a particular state or legal authority, cannot be removed, that is, they are inalienable. Such rights may include the right to life, liberty, equality, property, justice, and happiness.




Writing the Declaration of Independence
Jean Leon Gerome Ferris (Public Domain)



Collectively, natural rights may be referred to as natural law, a subject of particular interest to philosophers of the Enlightenment. Natural rights can be contrasted with legal rights, those rights awarded to a citizen by the legal system of the state in which they are born or live (for example, the right to vote). There is much debate as to exactly which rights may be considered natural rights and, indeed, if there are any such rights independent of a given legal system. The acceptance of natural rights has often led to the formal protection of certain universal rights – what have become known as 'human rights' since they apply to everyone everywhere – in formal documents ranging from the United States Bill of Rights (1791) to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). As S. Blackburn states:

As of right now, those not born yet have no rights, but back when natural rights were first thought of, abortion was not really an issue so it was never addressed.

The state should make a ruling now that abortion is such an issue.

Does the act of birth make one human with accompanying natural rights or is it the viability of the unborn? Or is it something else?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here is a little history lesson for you since you don't seem to know.

The idea of natural rights is the concept used in philosophy and legal studies that a person has certain rights from birth and which, because they were not awarded by a particular state or legal authority, cannot be removed, that is, they are inalienable. Such rights may include the right to life, liberty, equality, property, justice, and happiness.




Writing the Declaration of Independence
Jean Leon Gerome Ferris (Public Domain)



Collectively, natural rights may be referred to as natural law, a subject of particular interest to philosophers of the Enlightenment. Natural rights can be contrasted with legal rights, those rights awarded to a citizen by the legal system of the state in which they are born or live (for example, the right to vote). There is much debate as to exactly which rights may be considered natural rights and, indeed, if there are any such rights independent of a given legal system. The acceptance of natural rights has often led to the formal protection of certain universal rights – what have become known as 'human rights' since they apply to everyone everywhere – in formal documents ranging from the United States Bill of Rights (1791) to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). As S. Blackburn states:

As of right now, those not born yet have no rights, but back when natural rights were first thought of, abortion was not really an issue so it was never addressed.

The state should make a ruling now that abortion is such an issue.

Does the act of birth make one human with accompanying natural rights or is it the viability of the unborn? Or is it something else?

I've already mentioned D'Oh that it is a philosophical concept. You post like a disgraced, pretend Liability lawyer. You've added nothing.

Your post is responding to "Is not the GOP asking states to address government rights over everyone in their respective states?" while ignoring:

Philosophical questions and discussions.

You here have me thinking of an article I read earlier this morning. An excerpt:

Then, in mid-convention, came something wholly startling. During a particularly bitter June impasse, Franklin ventured to observe that five weeks’ work had yielded lamentably little. At that same Philadelphia address the Continental Congress had appealed for divine illumination. Should this new assembly do the same? The full Congress consisted of 53 Protestants, the majority of them Episcopalians. Two Catholics rounded out the ranks. Many of them were men of deep piety. If they were founding an American Christian nation when they wrote the Constitution it was not obvious: Franklin’s proposal met with a deafening silence. Hamilton gamely weighed in, to comment that an appeal to heaven would likely alarm the country. It reeked of desperation. A North Carolinian objected that Congress was without the funds to pay a cleric. Only three or four delegates, Franklin noted with what sounds like astonishment, thought prayer essential!

What jumps out at you?

Opinion | The Founders Saw This Insane Political Moment Coming 237 Years Ago

They were worried about what we would do with democracy. They had good reason to be.

www.nytimes.com

If natural rights exist, and America's founders addressed the philosophical concept of natural rights -- are they last word on what are and are not natural rights?

Were the framers (not the founders) vague in describing what natural rights actually are?

 

[Votto]

I've already mentioned D'Oh that it is a philosophical concept. You post like a disgraced, pretend Liability lawyer. You've added nothing.

Your post is responding to "Is not the GOP asking states to address government rights over everyone in their respective states?" while ignoring:

Philosophical questions and discussions.

You here have me thinking of an article I read earlier this morning. An excerpt:

Then, in mid-convention, came something wholly startling. During a particularly bitter June impasse, Franklin ventured to observe that five weeks’ work had yielded lamentably little. At that same Philadelphia address the Continental Congress had appealed for divine illumination. Should this new assembly do the same? The full Congress consisted of 53 Protestants, the majority of them Episcopalians. Two Catholics rounded out the ranks. Many of them were men of deep piety. If they were founding an American Christian nation when they wrote the Constitution it was not obvious: Franklin’s proposal met with a deafening silence. Hamilton gamely weighed in, to comment that an appeal to heaven would likely alarm the country. It reeked of desperation. A North Carolinian objected that Congress was without the funds to pay a cleric. Only three or four delegates, Franklin noted with what sounds like astonishment, thought prayer essential!

What jumps out at you?

Opinion | The Founders Saw This Insane Political Moment Coming 237 Years Ago

They were worried about what we would do with democracy. They had good reason to be.

www.nytimes.com

If natural rights exist, and America's founders addressed the philosophical concept of natural rights -- are they last word on what are and are not natural rights?

Were the framers (not the founders) vague in describing what natural rights actually are?

The question of natural rights is not a question of theocracy.

There is no doubt that the Republic set up was not a theocracy, but one based on the premise of natural rights.

One need not embrace theocracy to embrace the notion that man has rights given to him by his Creator.

The Left has their own ideas about rights, and could care less what a conservative Supreme court has to say about it and could care less what a Republican President has to say about it either, even if put there by "the voters".

It's just that you don't identify as God giving you these rights that you just magically pull out of thin air as if they were.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The question of natural rights is not a question of theocracy.

Theocracy?

Have you fully waken up yet?

 

[Votto]

I've already mentioned D'Oh that it is a philosophical concept. You post like a disgraced, pretend Liability lawyer. You've added nothing.

Your post is responding to "Is not the GOP asking states to address government rights over everyone in their respective states?" while ignoring:

Philosophical questions and discussions.

You here have me thinking of an article I read earlier this morning. An excerpt:

Then, in mid-convention, came something wholly startling. During a particularly bitter June impasse, Franklin ventured to observe that five weeks’ work had yielded lamentably little. At that same Philadelphia address the Continental Congress had appealed for divine illumination. Should this new assembly do the same? The full Congress consisted of 53 Protestants, the majority of them Episcopalians. Two Catholics rounded out the ranks. Many of them were men of deep piety. If they were founding an American Christian nation when they wrote the Constitution it was not obvious: Franklin’s proposal met with a deafening silence. Hamilton gamely weighed in, to comment that an appeal to heaven would likely alarm the country. It reeked of desperation. A North Carolinian objected that Congress was without the funds to pay a cleric. Only three or four delegates, Franklin noted with what sounds like astonishment, thought prayer essential!

What jumps out at you?

Opinion | The Founders Saw This Insane Political Moment Coming 237 Years Ago

They were worried about what we would do with democracy. They had good reason to be.

www.nytimes.com

If natural rights exist, and America's founders addressed the philosophical concept of natural rights -- are they last word on what are and are not natural rights?

Were the framers (not the founders) vague in describing what natural rights actually are?

Do you not agree with the Bill of Rights?

If so, then why should the unborn be excluded? You must present your case.

It really is that simple.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The question of natural rights is not a question of theocracy.

There is no doubt that the Republic set up was not a theocracy, but one based on the premise of natural rights.

One need not embrace theocracy to embrace the notion that man has rights given to him by his Creator.

The Left has their own ideas about rights, and could care less what a conservative Supreme court has to say about it and could care less what a Republican President has to say about it either, even if put there by "the voters".

It's just that you don't identify as God giving you these rights that you just magically pull out of thin air as if they were.

The republic was set up on the premise that the colonists were insisting on their rights as British subjects.

People like you focus on the (is it 55 words?) in the declaration of independence that preceded the listing of grievances. You mentioned history earlier? Do you even know the history of the debates during the 1770s?

and there you go out into cuckoo-land with shit about "the left" -- The right has been arguing against the Court decisions forever, but now all of a sudden..?

okay.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Do you not agree with the Bill of Rights?

If so, then why should the unborn be excluded? You must present your case.

It really is that simple.

The Bill of Rights? You do know exists because of the anti-federalists who were against the Constitution?

Does the Bill of Rights apply to all people, not just US citizens? You do know there are issues with people being "natural born" citizens? If a child is born outside of the US can it later run for President? Why not?

The unborn? D'Oh! They are unborn. Fetuses are not people or citizens.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You must present your case.

Do you ever? Make a case for an argument?

 

[Votto]

The republic was set up on the premise that the colonists were insisting on their rights as British subjects.

People like you focus on the (is it 55 words?) in the declaration of independence that preceded the listing of grievances. You mentioned history earlier? Do you even know the history of the debates during the 1770s?

and there you go out into cuckoo-land with shit about "the left" -- The right has been arguing against the Court decisions forever, but now all of a sudden..?

okay.

I don't expect you to agree with me. Like the childless Kamala, you think having an abortion is comparable to going to the toilet and having a bowel movement.

You value animals more than people.

But the question must be asked, what happens during birth that all of a sudden gives them rights under the law?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I don't expect you to agree with me. Like the childless Kamala, you think having an abortion is comparable to going to the toilet and having a bowel movement.

You value animals more than people.

View attachment 988109

But the question must be asked, what happens during birth that all of a sudden gives them rights under the law?

The VP?

You couldn't help yourself.

Now, few people think of an abortion as what you have portrayed them believing. Women who have had them often speak of how painful a decisions it was or... But you're close minded. Religion blinds you.

and your shit about other animals vs humans -- you believe humans are not animals, yet share how much dna with all those animals?

 

[Frankenstein]

Now, it's just a reality that if a man has any stamina, his involvement in making Globby the Fetus takes about 10 minutes.

A woman's part in that is Nine months, or 275 days, or 6588 Hours, or 395,280 minutes.

That's why she gets more of a say.

B.S, both knew the risks, if he has to pay when she decides to keep it, he gets a say full equal rights anything else is a special right for one person!

 

[JoeB131]

B.S, both knew the risks, if he has to pay when she decides to keep it, he gets a say full equal rights anything else is a special right for one person!

Nope. Law doesn't work that way. Women aren't property anymore.

 

[Frankenstein]

Nope. Law doesn't work that way. Women aren't property anymore.

She isn't killing property either idiot!

 

[JoeB131]

She isn't killing property either idiot!

No, she's killing an unwanted glob of tissue in her body that isn't viable or considered a person under the law.

 

[Frankenstein]

No, she's killing an unwanted glob of tissue in her body that isn't viable or considered a person under the law.

No she is killing a developing human still a human you barbaric piece of human shiite. Let the father have a choice in the matter abortion goes down!

 

[JoeB131]

No she is killing a developing human still a human you barbaric piece of human shiite. Let the father have a choice in the matter abortion goes down!

He had a say when he shot his load and didn't wear a rubber.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Now, it's just a reality that if a man has any stamina, his involvement in making Globby the Fetus takes about 10 minutes.

OOOPS!... Freudian slip?

A woman's part in that is Nine months, or 275 days, or 6588 Hours, or 395,280 minutes.
That's why she gets more of a say.

That's just an explanation [as well as proof] as to why its a privilege.

 

[initforme]

Ok so Roe is gone. There was celebration from the pro lifers. Now they're still upset? Why? I wonder if every woman in the nation never had a kid if they'd still complain there's not enough kids being born.

 

[Frankenstein]

He had a say when he shot his load and didn't wear a rubber.

So she was just unaware, did he trip into her vagina you tool!

 

[JoeB131]

So she was just unaware, did he trip into her vagina you tool!

Nope. But it's her body and her choice, at the end of the day, and there's not much you can about it.