CDZ Any Government, no matter how large or small. . .

[Chuz Life]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Sure,

Lets feed the children, protect LGBT people and treat people with respect.

Hell, lets feed the homeless and give them a place to stay. Now that is pro-life.

 

[forkup]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Agree, now here's the problem. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition, so which life takes precedence?Can you demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fetuses are not persons.

 

[Chuz Life]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Agree, now here's the problem. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition, so which life takes precedence?Can you demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live?

I agree that every pregnancy carries some risks.

As for your comment about "precedence?" I don't see how the concepts of "equal rights" or "equal protections" leaves any room for any one group of persons to legislatively be given "precedence" over any other. And, no. . . I don't think we can "demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live."

However, we can reasonably expect a person who has already assumed those risks in a consensual act - to respect the lives and the rights they created for as long as those risks can be managed by herself and medical professionals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fetus does not have equal rights with the mother.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The child once born the government shall make sure it eats, is dry and is well educated. That my friend is protecting life.

The old guy on the street also deserves this...

Why is one batch of cells more worthy of government help then a fully developed person?

 

[forkup]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Agree, now here's the problem. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition, so which life takes precedence?Can you demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live?

I agree that every pregnancy carries some risks.

As for your comment about "precedence?" I don't see how the concepts of "equal rights" or "equal protections" leaves any room for any one group of persons to legislatively be given "precedence" over any other. And, no. . . I don't think we can "demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live."

However, we can reasonably expect a person who has already assumed those risks in a consensual act - to respect the lives and the rights they created for as long as those risks can be managed by herself and medical professionals.

Pregnancy isn't always a result of a consensual act and neither does the act of sex necessarily means that person wants to become pregnant. In the light of those facts how is the government supposed to legislate and force people to risk their lives? Sex only if the intention is too bear children? Abortion allowed in cases of non-consensual sex? What when the person uses birth control and still becomes pregnant? These are not straightforward questions. I just have serious feasibility questions.

 

[Chuz Life]

Pregnancy isn't always a result of a consensual act and

True

... neither does the act of sex necessarily means that person wants to become pregnant.

Again, true

In the light of those facts how is the government supposed to legislate and force people to risk their lives?

As it pertains to pregnancy, unless the woman is raped, her assumption of any risks is voluntary. . The government is not forcing her to assume any risks at all.

Sex only if the intention is too bear children?

Nope.

Abortion allowed in cases of non-consensual sex?

Can a Constitutional basis be made for that? I (for one) believe it can be.

These are not straightforward questions.

I disagree.

These are very straight forward questions.

I just have serious feasibility questions.

Still not that difficult to answer, so long as we adhere to the Constitution and it's principles.

 

[forkup]

Pregnancy isn't always a result of a consensual act and

True

... neither does the act of sex necessarily means that person wants to become pregnant.

Again, true

In the light of those facts how is the government supposed to legislate and force people to risk their lives?

As it pertains to pregnancy, unless the woman is raped, her assumption of any risks is voluntary. . The government is not forcing her to assume any risks at all.

Sex only if the intention is too bear children?

Nope.

Abortion allowed in cases of non-consensual sex?

Can a Constitutional basis be made for that? I (for one) believe it can be.

These are not straightforward questions.

I disagree.

These are very straight forward questions.

I just have serious feasibility questions.

Still not that difficult to answer, so long as we adhere to the Constitution and it's principles.

What when the person uses birth control and still becomes pregnant?

This kind of blows your argument that a person voluntary assumes the risk for pregnancies doesn't it? After all the use of birth control implies clearly that she didn't want to become pregnant. So the only thing a person who wants to get an abortion has to say, is the condom ripped and viola. Hence my feasibility question.

As it pertains to pregnancy, unless the woman is raped, her assumption of any risks is voluntary. . The government is not forcing her to assume any risks at all.

I also want to point out that as I said, if you force a person to carry a baby to term against her will. You are de facto asking her to risk her life against her will.
Personally I don't like abortions because I, like you feel it's running away from responsibility in most cases. On the other hand I have a problem with assuming that my viewpoint should be more important then the people who, I have to assume take that difficult decision. Therefore I find it important to leave people the freedom too make that decision.

 

[Chuz Life]

This kind of blows your argument that a person voluntary assumes the risk for pregnancies doesn't it? After all the use of birth control implies clearly that she didn't want to become pregnant. So the only thing a person who wants to get an abortion has to say, is the condom ripped and viola. Hence my feasibility question.

A person who has a swimming pool in their back yard might responsibly remove the ladders, put up a fence and turn the pool heater off to discourage any kids from playing in it. They clearly don't want any children in the pool - uninvited.

Then, one day, despite all their barriers and other efforts, they look out and see a child in the water, fighting to survive. . .

Are you seeing the point yet?

I also want to point out that as I said, if you force a person to carry a baby to term against her will. You are de facto asking her to risk her life against her will.

1. Do baby's have rights to the equal protections of our laws, or not?
2. Asking someone to live with a risk they have already assumed is not tantamount to asking them to assume the risk in the first place.

Personally I don't like abortions because I, like you feel it's running away from responsibility in most cases.

While I agree with that comment in general, that's not the reason for my opposition to abortion. My basis is that children are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws. Period.

On the other hand I have a problem with assuming that my viewpoint should be more important then the people who, I have to assume take that difficult decision. Therefore I find it important to leave people the freedom too make that decision.

I think your views might change when (if) you start with the premise that a child's right to the equal protections of our laws from the moment their life begins and not just when we as a society can't stomach or justify the denial of their rights anymore.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz Life is never going to be able to argue that a fetus has priority or parity with the mother.

 

[DarkFury]

Fetuses are not persons.

Can you provide a link showing a human fetus has ever become ANYTHING other than human?

 

[DarkFury]

Chuz Life is never going to be able to argue that a fetus has priority or parity with the mother.

Jake Starkey will never be able to argue why one gender has the right to kill!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fetuses are not persons.

Can you provide a link showing a human fetus has ever become ANYTHING other than human?

Can you show a link in law that a fetus is a person?

Can you show a link in law that a fetus has any parity or priority over its mother?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz Life is never going to be able to argue that a fetus has priority or parity with the mother.

Jake Starkey will never be able to argue why one gender has the right to kill!

That makes no sense.

 

[DarkFury]

Chuz Life is never going to be able to argue that a fetus has priority or parity with the mother.

Jake Starkey will never be able to argue why one gender has the right to kill!

That makes no sense.

What gender has the legal right to decide?

 

[forkup]

This kind of blows your argument that a person voluntary assumes the risk for pregnancies doesn't it? After all the use of birth control implies clearly that she didn't want to become pregnant. So the only thing a person who wants to get an abortion has to say, is the condom ripped and viola. Hence my feasibility question.

A person who has a swimming pool in their back yard might responsibly remove the ladders, put up a fence and turn the pool heater off to discourage any kids from playing in it. They clearly don't want any children in the pool - uninvited.

Then, one day, despite all their barriers and other efforts, they look out and see a child in the water, fighting to survive. . .

Are you seeing the point yet?

I also want to point out that as I said, if you force a person to carry a baby to term against her will. You are de facto asking her to risk her life against her will.

1. Do baby's have rights to the equal protections of our laws, or not?
2. Asking someone to live with a risk they have already assumed is not tantamount to asking them to assume the risk in the first place.

Personally I don't like abortions because I, like you feel it's running away from responsibility in most cases.

While I agree with that comment in general, that's not the reason for my opposition to abortion. My basis is that children are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws. Period.

On the other hand I have a problem with assuming that my viewpoint should be more important then the people who, I have to assume take that difficult decision. Therefore I find it important to leave people the freedom too make that decision.

I think your views might change when (if) you start with the premise that a child's right to the equal protections of our laws from the moment their life begins and not just when we as a society can't stomach or justify the denial of their rights anymore.

Are you seeing the point yet?

-Not really. Cause in your analogy the person who owns the swimming pool would be responsible for the drowning kid. If you take every reasonable precaution so the kid can't drown, and an accident does occur, very doubtful you will be held responsible.
-As to the equal protection under the law, I already addressed that. Unless you can convince me that somebody who becomes pregnant VOLUNTARILY assumed responsibility in ALL cases that aren't rape, it still boils down to asking one person to risk her life for another, something you conceded you shouldn't be allowed to do.

 

[Chuz Life]

This kind of blows your argument that a person voluntary assumes the risk for pregnancies doesn't it? After all the use of birth control implies clearly that she didn't want to become pregnant. So the only thing a person who wants to get an abortion has to say, is the condom ripped and viola. Hence my feasibility question.

A person who has a swimming pool in their back yard might responsibly remove the ladders, put up a fence and turn the pool heater off to discourage any kids from playing in it. They clearly don't want any children in the pool - uninvited.

Then, one day, despite all their barriers and other efforts, they look out and see a child in the water, fighting to survive. . .

Are you seeing the point yet?

I also want to point out that as I said, if you force a person to carry a baby to term against her will. You are de facto asking her to risk her life against her will.

1. Do baby's have rights to the equal protections of our laws, or not?
2. Asking someone to live with a risk they have already assumed is not tantamount to asking them to assume the risk in the first place.

Personally I don't like abortions because I, like you feel it's running away from responsibility in most cases.

While I agree with that comment in general, that's not the reason for my opposition to abortion. My basis is that children are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws. Period.

On the other hand I have a problem with assuming that my viewpoint should be more important then the people who, I have to assume take that difficult decision. Therefore I find it important to leave people the freedom too make that decision.

I think your views might change when (if) you start with the premise that a child's right to the equal protections of our laws from the moment their life begins and not just when we as a society can't stomach or justify the denial of their rights anymore.

Are you seeing the point yet?

-Not really. Cause in your analogy the person who owns the swimming pool would be responsible for the drowning kid. If you take every reasonable precaution so the kid can't drown, and an accident does occur, very doubtful you will be held responsible.
-As to the equal protection under the law, I already addressed that. Unless you can convince me that somebody who becomes pregnant VOLUNTARILY assumed responsibility in ALL cases that aren't rape, it still boils down to asking on person to risk her life for another, something you conceded you shouldn't be allowed to do.

Wow. You completely missed the point of the allegory.

If you look out the window and an un-invited child is in your pool and fighting to survive.... do you have a duty to respect their other basic human rights or should you have the right to just chuck the toaster oven in their and kill em off?

 

[forkup]

This kind of blows your argument that a person voluntary assumes the risk for pregnancies doesn't it? After all the use of birth control implies clearly that she didn't want to become pregnant. So the only thing a person who wants to get an abortion has to say, is the condom ripped and viola. Hence my feasibility question.

A person who has a swimming pool in their back yard might responsibly remove the ladders, put up a fence and turn the pool heater off to discourage any kids from playing in it. They clearly don't want any children in the pool - uninvited.

Then, one day, despite all their barriers and other efforts, they look out and see a child in the water, fighting to survive. . .

Are you seeing the point yet?

I also want to point out that as I said, if you force a person to carry a baby to term against her will. You are de facto asking her to risk her life against her will.

1. Do baby's have rights to the equal protections of our laws, or not?
2. Asking someone to live with a risk they have already assumed is not tantamount to asking them to assume the risk in the first place.

Personally I don't like abortions because I, like you feel it's running away from responsibility in most cases.

While I agree with that comment in general, that's not the reason for my opposition to abortion. My basis is that children are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws. Period.

On the other hand I have a problem with assuming that my viewpoint should be more important then the people who, I have to assume take that difficult decision. Therefore I find it important to leave people the freedom too make that decision.

I think your views might change when (if) you start with the premise that a child's right to the equal protections of our laws from the moment their life begins and not just when we as a society can't stomach or justify the denial of their rights anymore.

Are you seeing the point yet?

-Not really. Cause in your analogy the person who owns the swimming pool would be responsible for the drowning kid. If you take every reasonable precaution so the kid can't drown, and an accident does occur, very doubtful you will be held responsible.
-As to the equal protection under the law, I already addressed that. Unless you can convince me that somebody who becomes pregnant VOLUNTARILY assumed responsibility in ALL cases that aren't rape, it still boils down to asking on person to risk her life for another, something you conceded you shouldn't be allowed to do.

Wow. You completely missed the point of the allegory.

If you look out the window and an un-invited child is in your pool and fighting to survive.... do you have a duty to respect their other basic human rights or should you have the right to just chuck the toaster oven in their and kill em off?

The question would be, do you have to jump after the kid to save it's life? That's the point I've been making. In how you use the allegory their is no risk to the person who owns the pool. In the case of pregnancy you have conceded that isn't the case.