Zone1 Let it be said that legalized abortion on demand cheapens/ devalues life.

[Chuz Life]

It seems you want to pick a fight on the issue. Thats not going to change anyones mind.

I want an answer to the question of how something as essential to a person as when their rights BEGIN can "Constitutionally" vary from one State to another.

How is that wanting a "fight?"

 

[alang1216]

Please explain how all of THOSE things you just listed (geography, religion, ethnicity, etc.) "cheapen the value of life" but the actual act of purposefully killing human beings with abortions, by the MILLIONS, has "no affect at all."

Here is how I view the value of life, at least in this case since the two lives are connected:

On one side I'd put the value of the unborn life and on the other I'd put the value of the mother's life. It is obvous that if you place additional value on one side you devalue the other.

 

[Chuz Life]

Here is how I view the value of life, at least in this case since the two lives are connected:

On one side I'd put the value of the unborn life and on the other I'd put the value of the mother's life. It is obvous that if you place additional value on one side you devalue the other.

Using your vernacular, one can hold that both mother and child have equal rights and value and that neither has the right to kill the other, unjustly.

When you give either one the right to kill the other (especially by denying humanity and personhood to the one being killed) you have tipped those scales and cheapened life.

 

[initforme]

I want an answer to the question of how something as essential to a person as when their rights BEGIN can "Constitutionally" vary from one State to another.

How is that wanting a "fight?"

Because the issue has been taken care of.
The majority of americans want access to it in some facets. I dont have a dog in the fight so im good no matter what.

 

[alang1216]

Using your vernacular, one can hold that both mother and child have equal rights and value and that neither has the right to kill the other, unjustly.

'Unjustly' is a VERY subjective idea.

When you give either one the right to kill the other (especially by denying humanity and personhood to the one being killed) you have tipped those scales and cheapened life.

So if doctors determine carrying the fetus to term would endanger the health of the mother, and most likely be fatal to both, are you OK with the woman having an abortion?

 

[Chuz Life]

Because the issue has been taken care of.
The majority of americans want access to it in some facets. I dont have a dog in the fight so im good no matter what.

But you jumped in anyway.

So much for equal justice under the Constitution.

 

[Chuz Life]

'Unjustly' is a VERY subjective idea.


So if doctors determine carrying the fetus to term would endanger the health of the mother, and most likely be fatal to both, are you OK with the woman having an abortion?

Conditionally, yes.

However, In those cases, the law should still recognize equality.

Dr.s should be required to try to save all of the lives they are presented with and forbidden from arbitrarily dismissing or rejecting any of them.

 

[alang1216]

Conditionally, yes.

What 'conditions'?

However, In those cases, the law should still recognize equality.

If killing the fetus saves the mother, is that equality and is OK? If saving the fetus ruins the health of the mother, is that equality.

Dr.s should be required to try to save all of the lives they are presented with and forbidden from arbitrarily dismissing or rejecting any of them.

Should all fetuses, no matter what birth defects are present, be carried to term. Should the mother be forced to care for such babies?

 

[initforme]

But you jumped in anyway.

So much for equal justice under the Constitution.

We wi have to do a better job of promoting contraception to get rid of abortion.

 

[forkup]

Total projection on your part as I have not and do not need to sidestep any of it.

That’s not what projection means, unless you can actually show where I’ve sidestepped anything you’ve said. Go on. Try.


Here’s a tip: don’t bother playing rhetorical games with me. You’ve been losing that battle from the start. Including right now, because you still haven’t addressed how your original claim holds up in light of the fact that anti-abortion policies also result in preventable deaths. Instead of dealing with that, you swerved into a basic truism, 'fetuses are alive and therefore abortion is killing them', as if simply stating that settles the argument. It doesn’t. It dodges the actual issue.


And let’s not pretend this is a one-off. You keep trying to frame pregnancy as some uniquely sacred exception, one so special it justifies overriding the mother’s basic rights. But only until birth. Then, magically, all that moral weight evaporates. Suddenly, there’s no obligation to donate blood, tissue, or even a kidney, even to a born child. Why? Because now the physical connection is gone. Convenient.


You’re not applying a consistent principle. You’re carving out special rules to serve a moral conclusion you’ve already decided on, and calling it justice

It is not a surprise to me that some people can't comprehend (let alone appreciate) the difference between preventing someone from unjustly withdrawing "life support" for a child they created and connected to their body, themself. . And a situation where an UNCONNECTED body "needs life support" or an organ, blood, etc.

You call it "special pleading" as if that is an automatic disqualifier for the consideration. But, justices know fully well that there are cases where "special pleading" is legitimate.

You keep insisting this case is “different,” but you’ve yet to show how in any way that holds up under scrutiny. That’s why it qualifies as special pleading, not the valid kind, but the kind used when someone wants to exempt their view from the standards they apply elsewhere.

You tried “it’s unaware.” So is a comatose adult. Or a newborn. They still don’t have a right to someone else’s organs.

Then you tried “but it’s connected to her body.” That’s not an argument, that’s a description. And it proves nothing. Physical connection doesn't override bodily autonomy in any other context. It doesn’t even create legal obligation between conjoined twins. So why here?

You’re not making a moral case. You’re making an emotional exception and hoping no one notices you can’t justify it. So again: what makes this situation so “special” that it suspends the principle of bodily autonomy you’d defend anywhere else? You’ve dodged that every time. Try answering it.

You keep wanting to wash over the fact that children (human beings) are entitled to the "equal protection" of our laws, no matter where they are or anything else. When you dismiss that fact, you are the one putting some other "cart before the horse."

Spare me the strawman. I have no issue with equal protection for children. What I object to is granting them superior rights, like the legal authority to override another person’s bodily autonomy for nine months. That's not justice. It's compelled sacrifice dressed up as morality.

And let's not pretend your word choice is accidental. You're saying “children” like that magically resolves the debate. Yet even you admit that born "children" can’t legally force their parents to give up organs, blood, or any part of their body, no matter how dire the need. So why does that change the moment they're inside the womb?

Answer: it doesn’t. That’s why your special pleading fails. Because once birth happens, your entire framework collapses. You don’t actually believe in consistent rights, you believe in forcing compliance based on an emotionally charged exception that you can’t justify on principle.

So no, I’m not the one putting the cart before the horse. I’m the one asking why your horse vanishes the second it crosses the delivery room

 

[Chuz Life]

That’s not what projection means, unless you can actually show where I’ve sidestepped anything you’ve said. Go on. Try.


Here’s a tip: don’t bother playing rhetorical games with me. You’ve been losing that battle from the start. Including right now, because you still haven’t addressed how your original claim holds up in light of the fact that anti-abortion policies also result in preventable deaths. Instead of dealing with that, you swerved into a basic truism, 'fetuses are alive and therefore abortion is killing them', as if simply stating that settles the argument. It doesn’t. It dodges the actual issue.


And let’s not pretend this is a one-off. You keep trying to frame pregnancy as some uniquely sacred exception, one so special it justifies overriding the mother’s basic rights. But only until birth. Then, magically, all that moral weight evaporates. Suddenly, there’s no obligation to donate blood, tissue, or even a kidney, even to a born child. Why? Because now the physical connection is gone. Convenient.


You’re not applying a consistent principle. You’re carving out special rules to serve a moral conclusion you’ve already decided on, and calling it justice

You keep insisting this case is “different,” but you’ve yet to show how in any way that holds up under scrutiny. That’s why it qualifies as special pleading, not the valid kind, but the kind used when someone wants to exempt their view from the standards they apply elsewhere.

You tried “it’s unaware.” So is a comatose adult. Or a newborn. They still don’t have a right to someone else’s organs.

Then you tried “but it’s connected to her body.” That’s not an argument, that’s a description. And it proves nothing. Physical connection doesn't override bodily autonomy in any other context. It doesn’t even create legal obligation between conjoined twins. So why here?

You’re not making a moral case. You’re making an emotional exception and hoping no one notices you can’t justify it. So again: what makes this situation so “special” that it suspends the principle of bodily autonomy you’d defend anywhere else? You’ve dodged that every time. Try answering it.


Spare me the strawman. I have no issue with equal protection for children. What I object to is granting them superior rights, like the legal authority to override another person’s bodily autonomy for nine months. That's not justice. It's compelled sacrifice dressed up as morality.

And let's not pretend your word choice is accidental. You're saying “children” like that magically resolves the debate. Yet even you admit that born "children" can’t legally force their parents to give up organs, blood, or any part of their body, no matter how dire the need. So why does that change the moment they're inside the womb?

Answer: it doesn’t. That’s why your special pleading fails. Because once birth happens, your entire framework collapses. You don’t actually believe in consistent rights, you believe in forcing compliance based on an emotionally charged exception that you can’t justify on principle.

So no, I’m not the one putting the cart before the horse. I’m the one asking why your horse vanishes the second it crosses the delivery room

^^^ Your opinions

vs.

Some Supreme Court Justices take on it.



Hmmmm.

Decisions, decisions.

 

[forkup]

^^^ Your opinions

vs.

Some Supreme Court Justices take on it.



Hmmmm.

Decisions, decisions.

Oh goody, you haven’t gone full appeal to authority. Just the convenient kind. Not the one that decided Roe v. Wade, of course. Just the one that disagreed. Funny how that works.

So far, we’ve got:

-Appeal to authority
-Strawman
-Special pleading
-Begging the question
-Red herrings

You're one fallacy away from a collector’s set. Want to go for the bonus round?

I especially enjoy how you keep outsourcing your thinking, first ai, now the justice that agrees with your decision. If you can’t defend your position on principle, just subcontract it out. Seems to be working for you… sort of.

 

[Chuz Life]

Oh goody, you haven’t gone full appeal to authority. Just the convenient kind. Not the one that decided Roe v. Wade, of course. Just the one that disagreed. Funny how that works.

So far, we’ve got:

-Appeal to authority
-Strawman
-Special pleading
-Begging the question
-Red herrings

You're one fallacy away from a collector’s set. Want to go for the bonus round?

I especially enjoy how you keep outsourcing your thinking, first ai, now the justice that agrees with your decision. If you can’t defend your position on principle, just subcontract it out. Seems to be working for you… sort of.

Roe V Wade?


Overturned, on Constitutionality.

Recently, wasn't it?

 

[Chuz Life]

Oh goody, you haven’t gone full appeal to authority. Just the convenient kind. Not the one that decided Roe v. Wade, of course. Just the one that disagreed. Funny how that works.

So far, we’ve got:

-Appeal to authority
-Strawman
-Special pleading
-Begging the question
-Red herrings

You're one fallacy away from a collector’s set. Want to go for the bonus round?

I especially enjoy how you keep outsourcing your thinking, first ai, now the justice that agrees with your decision. If you can’t defend your position on principle, just subcontract it out. Seems to be working for you… sort of.

My conclusions, claims, views, etc. are based upon fact, court decisions, laws, policies, etc.

I'm not sorry it offends you when I link to the things I use to support my conclusions.

 

[forkup]

My conclusions, claims, views, etc. are based upon fact, court decisions, laws, policies, etc.

I'm not sorry it offends you when I link to the things I use to support my conclusions.

No, what offends me isn’t that you link to sources, it's that you rely on them because you can't support your conclusions without them.

I’ve asked you repeatedly, across multiple posts and days, to defend your claims on principle. I even used your own AI-generated conversation, the one you posted, because it supported your conclusion. I continued the logic from that very link and, in doing so, dismantled your premise. You ignored it completely.

It’s not dishonest to cite facts, laws, or court decisions to support your views, hell even using ai I can live with, I just hope I demonstrated it probably shouldn't be used to make the arguments for you. What is dishonest is cherry-picking only the ones that agree with you and pretending the rest don’t exist. Like selectively quoting Supreme Court Justices who support your position while dismissing those who don’t, as if authority only matters when it’s convenient.

If your argument can’t stand without leaning on selective precedent, logical fallacies and emotional framing, maybe it’s time to rethink the foundation.

 

[Chuz Life]

No, what offends me isn’t that you link to sources, it's that you rely on them because you can't support your conclusions without them.

I’ve asked you repeatedly, across multiple posts and days, to defend your claims on principle. I even used your own AI-generated conversation, the one you posted, because it supported your conclusion. I continued the logic from that very link and, in doing so, dismantled your premise. You ignored it completely.

It’s not dishonest to cite facts, laws, or court decisions to support your views, hell even using ai I can live with, I just hope I demonstrated it probably shouldn't be used to make the arguments for you. What is dishonest is cherry-picking only the ones that agree with you and pretending the rest don’t exist. Like selectively quoting Supreme Court Justices who support your position while dismissing those who don’t, as if authority only matters when it’s convenient.

If your argument can’t stand without leaning on selective precedent, logical fallacies and emotional framing, maybe it’s time to rethink the foundation.

Still no specifics, nobody else bitching. And me?

Still not sorry you don't appreciate my efforts.

Cry moar.

 

[initforme]

I don't disagree. . . But to do that while at the same time denying that an abortion kills a child and while claiming abortions are simply a matter of "choice" is fucktarded lunacy.

It is what it is. Again, ive got no issues where its at currently. In s perfect place.

 

[Chuz Life]

 

[forkup]

Still no specifics, nobody else bitching. And me?

Still not sorry you don't appreciate my efforts.

Cry moar.

Bitching? No specifics? Efforts???

You’ve made zero effort to engage with the actual arguments, and I could list every ignored point in excruciating detail, but frankly, I’ve already beaten that horse into molecular dust.

Your refusal to show remorse? That’s the only honest thing you’ve said. Because asking someone who’s shown no integrity to feel guilt is like asking a brick wall to apologize, it’s pointless.

So no, I’m not “crying.” I’m observing. And what I see is someone who’s exposed themselves as incapable of defending their views without deflection, projection, and cheap rhetorical games. You didn’t win this exchange, you fled from it, hoping snark would cover the retreat.

You’ve made it clear you’re not here to engage in good faith. I’ve said what needed saying. That’s all.

 

[Chuz Life]

Bitching? No specifics? Efforts???

You’ve made zero effort to engage with the actual arguments, and I could list every ignored point in excruciating detail, but frankly, I’ve already beaten that horse into molecular dust.

Your refusal to show remorse? That’s the only honest thing you’ve said. Because asking someone who’s shown no integrity to feel guilt is like asking a brick wall to apologize, it’s pointless.

So no, I’m not “crying.” I’m observing. And what I see is someone who’s exposed themselves as incapable of defending their views without deflection, projection, and cheap rhetorical games. You didn’t win this exchange, you fled from it, hoping snark would cover the retreat.

You’ve made it clear you’re not here to engage in good faith. I’ve said what needed saying. That’s all.

Meh.

Still no specifics.

Nothing to engage with or contemplate.

Just more platitudes, opinion and characterizations.

Sad.