Another discussion about abortion

[BackAgain]

Yes it does because its part of the mother and has no personality. It shares the mothers body and mind. Its her life and her choice

You’re bloviating your unsupported mere opinion as if it were a dispositive fact. It isn’t.

 

[Hafar1014]

You’re bloviating your unsupported mere opinion as if it were a dispositive fact. It isn’t.

A fetus is part of the mothers body and shares her psychology. Its not an individual or a person. It sure as hell isnt part of you so you really dont have any say in what a woman does. We have standards for abortion and they work well and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it

 

[BackAgain]

A fetus is part of the mothers body

No. It isn’t. It is an obviously and undeniably separate human being.

Your claim is akin to saying that a ventilator is part of the patient’s body. No. It isn’t.

and shares her psychology.

A silly and unsupported claim.

It’s not an individual or a person.

Of course it’s an individual. Separate DNA.

It sure as hell isnt part of you so you really dont have any say in what a woman does.

YOU’RE SURE AS HELL not a “part” of me either. But, I do get a say in any law that denies anybody else the authority to murder you. I suspect you don’t get that.

We have standards for abortion

Not really. We even have had laws which tell doctors not to take any measures to spare the life of a child born into this world despite an attempted abortion. There are no “standards” for the slaughter of the innocent.

and they work well

No. They don’t.

and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it

Maybe. Maybe not. But even there you are most likely wrong. Apparently you don’t grasp that in our Constitutional republic, we all get a say and … we can sometimes effectively change laws.

We used to allow slavery. We changed that law. We can change the abortion laws, too.

 

[Eman623]

A fetus does not. Killing a fetus is not murder.

Scott Peterson would disagree with you.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The point is that the Constitution says that we have a guarantee of our right to life.

That the preborn life is within the mother (your life within a life) does not make the preborn life any less than f a life. That means that it ought to be protected.

You are out on a limb and are sawing it off between yourself and the trunk of the tree


The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to life for the unborn.
The 14th Amendment guarantees “due process” and “equal protection” to “persons,” but the Supreme Court historically held in Roe v. Wade that “person” did not include the unborn. .

Current Legal Status: As of now, the Constitution does not define “person” to include the unborn.

Legislative Efforts: The “Life at Conception Act“ has been introduced in various sessions of Congress, aiming to declare that the 14th Amendment’s right to life vests at fertilization, thereby defining unborn children as “persons”.

Supreme Court Position: Roe v. Wade (1973) held that the unborn are not “persons” in the constitutional sense. While Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned Roe, it did not establish fetal personhood, leaving the matter of abortion legality to the states

Therefore, the recognition of a constitutional right to life for the unborn is a matter of legal debate and ongoing legislative effort rather than explicit, current constitutional text.

Sam Alito wrote in summary of the Dobbs Decision …~… “For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,”

what Sam Alito is telling you Back Again is that a genetically distinct human being in the womb does not have a right of protection from the potential birth mother if she herself refuses to take the risks of full term gestation until natural live birth as her right., Do you think Sam Alito knows more about the Constitution than you do?

You won’t get “Life at Conception Act“ without the political power in voting booths from religious zealots who make up about 60 million of the Republican Party base who voted for Trump and Melania. That makes you a religious zealot sympathizer

 

[BackAgain]

You are out on a limb and are sawing it off between yourself and the trunk of the tree

No. That’s just your trite declaration that you’re “right.” You’re not.

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to life for the unborn.

No shit. Of course, a human life is a human life.

The 14th Amendment guarantees “due process” and “equal protection” to “persons,” but the Supreme Court historically held in Roe v. Wade that “person” did not include the unborn. .

This is not a due process issue. It is largely a matter involving a denial of equal protection. However, my focus remains on the right to LIFE. That word appears to mystify you.

Current Legal Status: As of now, the Constitution does not define “person” to include the unborn.

The Constitution doesn’t define “person” at all.

Legislative Efforts: The “Life at Conception Act“ has been introduced in various sessions of Congress, aiming to declare that the 14th Amendment’s right to life vests at fertilization, thereby defining unborn children as “persons”.

Irrelevant. We all know that the abortion mill lobby is strong. That doesn’t alter the claim that so-called abortion “rights” need to be changed.

Supreme Court Position: Roe v. Wade (1973) held that the unborn are not “persons” in the constitutional sense. While Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned Roe, it did not establish fetal personhood, leaving the matter of abortion legality to the states

No court decision has said that a fetus is a person. No case law insists, as a Constitutional matter, that a fetus should not receive protection for its life.

Therefore, the recognition of a constitutional right to life for the unborn is a matter of legal debate and ongoing legislative effort rather than explicit, current constitutional text.

We know. You just took a long meandering verbal ramble to state what I already said.

Not exactly a rocket scientist, are you?

Sam Alito wrote in summary of the Dobbs Decision …~… “For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,”

And? What does that obvious truth have to do with the discussion?

what Sam Alito is telling you Back Again is that a genetically distinct human being in the womb does not have a right of protection from the potential birth mother

Hey. Try to come out of your coma. Maybe if I repeat it in bold, you’ll catch on. THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW SHOULD SAY AND DO. it’s not about what it currently “says.”

if she herself refuses to take the risks of full term gestation until natural live birth as her right., Do you think Sam Alito knows more about the Constitution than you do?

Your first sentence doesn’t qualify as a sentence. And the legal acumen of Alito isn’t under discussion. For **** sake, I even agree about what Alito said about not questioning motives. wtf are you babbling about?

You won’t get “Life at Conception Act“ without the political power in voting booths from religious zealots who make up about 60 million of the Republican Party base who voted for Trump and Melania. That makes you a religious zealot sympathizer

Wrong. It doesn’t require any religious fervor at all.

Also, your ignorance and presumptiveness is on full clear display. I’m not even religious.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Scott Peterson would disagree with you.

No. That’s just your trite declaration that you’re “right.” You’re not.

What facts are you citing to tell me I am not right. I have stated nothing but the truth when I say “The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to life for the unborn” Your argument that “a human is a human life” is erroneous by omission of the reality that you must drop the distinction between the born and the unborn. When a life is inside another life there is competing interests in rights. The truth is the Constitution is factually and morally and civilly on the side of born persons because the unborn need the born persons body to survive. The government has no legal or moral or civil argument to make that decision that could result in harm including dearh. You have no standing that gives you the right to have the government force another person to get a potentially dearth penalty because she made a mistake that does not fit whatever moral structure you have decided to believe in.

 

[BackAgain]

What facts are you citing to tell me I am not right.

I pointed out to you (more than once) that the question isn’t what you’re addressing. Your “facts” are irrelevant to the discussion

Again, my position is about what the law ought to hold. It is not a claim about what the current state of the law is.

Not sure why you have so much difficulty getting this.

I have stated nothing but the truth when I say “The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to life for the unborn”

Still irrelevant to the discussion. I’m not making a claim about what it explicitly says or doesn’t say. I’m stating my position on how it should be interpreted.

Your argument that “a human is a human life”

Unless the human happens to have already died, that claim is obviously true. It’s called a tautology. But you’re wrong. That’s not the argument I made.

Let’s state it slowly for you: human life deserves to be protected under the Constitution.

is erroneous by omission of the reality that you must drop the distinction between the born and the unborn.

No. You’re wrong. When it comes to “life,” there is no valid distinction at all between the life of the preborn human and the post birth human. You wish to pretend otherwise. That’s a you problem. But the FACT that a human life is in fact a life from the moment of conception is indisputable.

You merely seek to evade the logical consequences of that fact.

When a life is inside another life there is competing interests in rights.

Up to a point, sure. You appear to be arguing against a position I haven’t espoused. Let’s simmer you down. There can certainly be some cases where a pregnant woman may physically need to have an abortion performed.

But since there is another human life under consideration, that need ought to be very compelling.

The truth is the Constitution is factually and morally and civilly on the side of born persons because the unborn need the born persons body to survive.

Empty words. And the Constitution does not stand for any such thing.

The government has no legal or moral or civil argument to make that decision that could result in harm including dearh.

Wrong. And stubbornly and stupidly wrong, at that. Of course we all have a legal and a moral and a civil argument to make regarding the topic of abortion — regardless of which side of the debate we are on. This, the government has perfect validity in making such comments, too.

You have no standing that gives you the right to have the government force another person to get a potentially dearth penalty

That’s twice. It’s death. No “r.”

And your claim is completely baseless. I have every bit of standing needed to speak out to save lives. We all do and your permission or approval is of no significance

because she made a mistake that does not fit whatever moral structure you have decided to believe in.

Your studious denial of the right of a human being to live is a position you should have no actual standing to make.

In any event, all your arguments are pathetic and weak.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Let’s state it slowly for you: human life deserves to be protected under the Constitution.

Then why do you oppose freedom of choice for women. There is no ambiguity that a born person’s life should be protected and a gestating life should be protected by the government from every source of harm by others,

but gestating life cannot be protected by the government from the woman who is the one taking the risk of giving birth, because her rights come first. Why do you want to change

Your argument is a failure because you refuse to recognize there is a conflict of rights that government cannot resolve.

Why do you want to sentence a woman to potential death penalty just because you think she communicated a sin of some sort. Are youb Catholic or something.

 

[BackAgain]

Then why do you oppose freedom of choice for women.

First off, I deny your slur. You’re brainless, so you cannot speak for me or anyone else.

Secondly, there is more to human life than choice. What does your faux question have to do with our conversation. In the best light, you committed your fallacy in order to deflect.

Thirdly, in the all but doomed hope that I might educate you, I will say this much. Your dichotomy is deliberately false. Just as we all have certain lawfully imposed limitations on our physical behaviors ((You aren’t free to swing your fists around, for example, if you’d be close to hitting anyone’s nose)) it can also be true that the law can deny a woman the legal right to “right” to snuff out another human life unless circumstances demand it.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

First off, I deny your slur.

what was the slur? you’re writing tells me you’re a Puritan. Why would that be a slur if you are a Puritan?

 

[Hafar1014]

No. It isn’t. It is an obviously and undeniably separate human being.

Your claim is akin to saying that a ventilator is part of the patient’s body. No. It isn’t.

A silly and unsupported claim.


Of course it’s an individual. Separate DNA.

YOU’RE SURE AS HELL not a “part” of me either. But, I do get a say in any law that denies anybody else the authority to murder you. I suspect you don’t get that.

Not really. We even have had laws which tell doctors not to take any measures to spare the life of a child born into this world despite an attempted abortion. There are no “standards” for the slaughter of the innocent.


No. They don’t.

Maybe. Maybe not. But even there you are most likely wrong. Apparently you don’t grasp that in our Constitutional republic, we all get a say and … we can sometimes effectively change laws.

We used to allow slavery. We changed that law. We can change the abortion laws, too.

Your response shows you know nothing about human development.
Separate a fetus from the mother and it dies. They are in a symbiotic relationship.
An infant needs 6 months of brain development to become an individual

Margaret S. Mahler and her collaborators break new ground in developmental psychology and present the first complete theoretical statement of Dr. Mahler's observations on the normal separation-individuation process.Separation and individuation are presented in this major work as two complementary developments. Separation is described as the child's emergence from a symbiotic fusion with the mother, while individuation consists of those achievements marking the child's assumption of his own individual characteristics. Each of the subphases of separation-individuation is described in detail, supported by a wealth of clinical observations which trace the tasks confronting the infant and his mother as he progresses toward achieving his own individuality.A number of chapters are devoted to following five children epigenetically through their subphase development. A separate section describes the authors' methodology, the importance of the research setting, and the effects of changes in the setting. The extensive appendices by Fred Pine discuss the uniqueness of the data-gathering techniques used by the authors. In addition, a useful glossary of concepts defines the new terms that Dr. Mahler has introduced.This book represents an important breakthrough in

 

[BackAgain]

what was the slur? you’re writing tells me you’re a Puritan. Why would that be a slur if you are a Puritan?

You’re an idiot. My writing says nothing about me supposedly being a “Puritan” whatever the **** that might mean in your mind.

Words have actual meanings — except when you use them.

 

[BackAgain]

Your response shows you know nothing about human development.

Wrong. Between the two of us, I’m the only one who grasps it.

Separate a very sick patient from his heart/lung machine and … he dies.

I am not addressing (as you seem to be) any question about “stages of development” of a conceived ovum.

Try to follow along, you abysmally ignorant twit.

I spoke about LIFE. Biologically it unquestionably begins AT conception.

Get some intelligent adult in your asylum to assist you with the big words.

 

[Hafar1014]

Wrong. Between the two of us, I’m the only one who grasps it.

Separate a very sick patient from his heart/lung machine and … he dies.

I am not addressing (as you seem to be) any question about “stages of development” of a conceived ovum.

Try to follow along, you abysmally ignorant twit.

I spoke about LIFE. Biologically it unquestionably begins AT conception.

Get some intelligent adult in your asylum to assist you with the big words.

A bacteria is life in your context so what. Since a sperm is alive then it begins before conception. So what.
A sick patient doesnt equate to a mother fetus symbiosis. You do know that often we shut off those machines and allow the person to die. Glad you brought that up

 

[BackAgain]

A bacteria is life in your context so what.

Learn punctuation and grammar.

A bacteria, you imbecile, is not a human life.

Since a sperm is alive then it begins before conception.

Nope. A spermatozoa is not alive. Neither is an ovum.

So what.
A sick patient doesnt equate to a mother fetus symbiosis.

You’re the idiot who said shit about removing a life’s vital support. I merely gave you another example of the removal of a life support system. You don’t like it? Tough shit.

You do know that often we shut off those machines and allow the person to die. Glad you brought that up

We often don’t. Glad to see that you’re still deliberately missing the point.

Yes. Remove life support and the life which depends on it does indeed die. You’re maybe beginning to catch on.

You’ll never catch up.

 

[Hafar1014]

Learn punctuation and grammar.

A bacteria, you imbecile, is not a human life.


Nope. A spermatozoa is not alive. Neither is an ovum.

You’re the idiot who said shit about removing a life’s vital support. I merely gave you another example of the removal of a life support system. You don’t like it? Tough shit.

We often don’t. Glad to see that you’re still deliberately missing the point.

Yes. Remove life support and the life which depends on it does indeed die. You’re maybe beginning to catch on.

You’ll never catch up.

A sperm can be alive or dead. You flunked biology didnt you
Sperm are technically alive in that they are living cells with metabolizing energy and motility, but they are not considered independent, living organisms. They function as specialized, short-lived cells (5 days inside the female body, minutes to hours outside) that carry genetic material.

Key Details Regarding Sperm Vitality:

• Biological Status: Sperm are living cells that metabolize sugar for energy and move to respond to their environment.

So a woman is a life support system that compares to a machine. Is the machine emotional spiritually and hormonally bonded to a patient like a mother is to her fetus. Thats some machine you have there.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

My writing says nothing about me supposedly being a “Puritan”

do you or do you not think that abortion is a sin?’

The Puritans viewed abortion as a grave sin and a violation of God's commandments. They believed that individuals should take responsibility for their actions rather than resorting to abortion as a solution. This perspective was rooted in their religious beliefs, which emphasized the sanctity of life and the moral implications of terminating a pregnancy. While there were instances of abortion in colonial America, it was generally frowned upon in Puritan society, and religious leaders often condemned the practice.

Legal and Social Implications
During the colonial period, while abortion before quickening (the first noticeable movement of the fetus) was sometimes tolerated, it was still met with significant moral scrutiny. The Puritans' strict moral code meant that any action perceived as undermining family and societal values was heavily criticized

 

[Quasar44]

Abortion should be up to the women

Too many damn people in the world

really don’t care

 

[Hafar1014]

do you or do you not think that abortion is a sin?’

The Puritans viewed abortion as a grave sin and a violation of God's commandments. They believed that individuals should take responsibility for their actions rather than resorting to abortion as a solution. This perspective was rooted in their religious beliefs, which emphasized the sanctity of life and the moral implications of terminating a pregnancy. While there were instances of abortion in colonial America, it was generally frowned upon in Puritan society, and religious leaders often condemned the practice.

Legal and Social Implications
During the colonial period, while abortion before quickening (the first noticeable movement of the fetus) was sometimes tolerated, it was still met with significant moral scrutiny. The Puritans' strict moral code meant that any action perceived as undermining family and societal values was heavily criticized

Some abortions are wrong and some are right