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

[JoeB131]

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

A little selective editing there, buddy. One might think you were being dishonest.

Here's the WHOLE Section.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

One might think you were trying to pull a fast one here.

 

[Chuz Life]

A little selective editing there, buddy. One might think you were being dishonest.

Here's the WHOLE Section.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

One might think you were trying to pull a fast one here.

Yeah, that part applies to citizens.

How did you get so confused that you think the part that defines what a citizen is somehow decides what a PERSON is?

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, that part applies to citizens.

How did you get so confused that you think the part that defines what a citizen is somehow decides what a PERSON is?

Gee, it seems to me they are defining persons as people who are born. Not fetuses, because that would be stupid.

(In 19th century, they called abortion "restoring the menses", that's how little they thought of it.)

Abortion Used to Be No Big Deal. A Few Angry Men Made It One.

In the 1830s, lad mags and crime rags hungry for scandal landed on a new outrage: women’s autonomy.

slate.com

But restoring the menses before quickening was neither immoral nor illegal. The failure to menstruate was understood as a problem in itself: Something had “obstructed” or “suppressed” the blood flow. Women attended that sickness with treatments, herbal mixtures, and teas that they had long shared among themselves. Published home health guides written by doctors offered similar advice.

It was not until the 1860s and 1870s that abortion at any point in pregnancy, including before quickening, became a crime throughout the states. The attacks on the traditional female practice of restoring the menses, which ultimately led to a dramatic revision of the law, came from two main sources: the men’s “sporting press” of the 1840s and a small group of elite medical men who had newly organized themselves as the American Medical Association. They shared an animosity toward female medical practitioners and the growing women’s rights movement.



Even back then, anti-Abortion meant being a misogynist.

 

[Chuz Life]

Gee, it seems to me they are defining persons as people who are born. Not fetuses, because that would be stupid.

(In 19th century, they called abortion "restoring the menses", that's how little they thought of it.)

Abortion Used to Be No Big Deal. A Few Angry Men Made It One.

In the 1830s, lad mags and crime rags hungry for scandal landed on a new outrage: women’s autonomy.

slate.com

But restoring the menses before quickening was neither immoral nor illegal. The failure to menstruate was understood as a problem in itself: Something had “obstructed” or “suppressed” the blood flow. Women attended that sickness with treatments, herbal mixtures, and teas that they had long shared among themselves. Published home health guides written by doctors offered similar advice.

It was not until the 1860s and 1870s that abortion at any point in pregnancy, including before quickening, became a crime throughout the states. The attacks on the traditional female practice of restoring the menses, which ultimately led to a dramatic revision of the law, came from two main sources: the men’s “sporting press” of the 1840s and a small group of elite medical men who had newly organized themselves as the American Medical Association. They shared an animosity toward female medical practitioners and the growing women’s rights movement.



Even back then, anti-Abortion meant being a misogynist.

Yeah, some of us have learned from the mistakes of the past.

Obviously, and unfortunately, some others (You?) likely never will.

I remind you again of the reality of the fact that we now have fetal HOMICIDE laws that at least somewhat establish personhood for "children in the womb."

Let me know when you can use the ignorance of past history like the Slate article you linked to - to overturn those fetal homicide laws.

Don't expect that effort to be unopposed though.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A glob of tissue shouldn't have more rights than the woman it is inside.

That 'glob of tissue' has human DNA. On the very face of that alone, it is human and should be treated as such.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, some of us have learned from the mistakes of the past.

Obviously, and unfortunately, some others (You?) likely never will.

I think you are confused to where the mistake came in. Prior to the misogynists taking over women's health, women took care of these things, usually in the first trimester.

Then you got all the awful abortion laws. Of course, these laws were nonsense, and they were almost never enforced. Women still found ways to quietly end their unwanted pregnancies.

The untold story of Roe was not how SCOTUS unleashed abortion. Abortions were happening. That's why the birth rate didn't drop in 1973 or 1974, and was going up again in 1975. The real story of Roe is how unworkable, unenforceable, and idioitic laws were strucken from the books.

As long as you are not learning from the past, I give you Prohibition. Another case where moral scolds got their way, but their efforts failed miserably.

I remind you again of the reality of the fact that we now have fetal HOMICIDE laws that at least somewhat establish personhood for "children in the womb."

Let me know when you can use the ignorance of past history like the Slate article you linked to - to overturn those fetal homicide laws.

Don't expect that effort to be unopposed though.

I doubt fetal homicide laws would be overturned, because the one thing women and misogynists probably agree upon is that guys who beat on pregnant women need to be punished.

Sometimes letting the Nazis march isn't a good idea, even in principle.

The problem is, of course, when you nutters use these well-intentioned laws to go after women, like you did with Purvi Patel and Bei Bei Shaiu. (Of course, when they want to see what they can get away with, go after women of color first, because white women aren't going to put up with that at all.)

That 'glob of tissue' has human DNA. On the very face of that alone, it is human and should be treated as such.

So do my toenails, and they shouldn't get rights, either.

 

[JoeB131]

Circling back to Chuzzy's misquoting the 14th Amendment, where he left out the part about rights being restricted to people born or naturalized.

Is he arguing that a fetus is a person when it is in the womb, but not a citizen until it's born? That seems to be a bizarre argument. But let's take that at face value, then. A pregnant woman is most definitely a citizen, and if you argue that citizens have more rights than non-citizens, then by that logic, the woman's right to choose outweighs the fetus's right to continue being an unwanted parasite.

 

[Chuz Life]

Circling back to Chuzzy's misquoting the 14th Amendment, where he left out the part about rights being restricted to people born or naturalized.

Is he arguing that a fetus is a person when it is in the womb, but not a citizen until it's born? That seems to be a bizarre argument. But let's take that at face value, then. A pregnant woman is most definitely a citizen, and if you argue that citizens have more rights than non-citizens, then by that logic, the woman's right to choose outweighs the fetus's right to continue being an unwanted parasite.

So, let me see if I understand this point of yours entirely.

Using your logic, if a citizen shoots and kills a non citizen (crossing the border, let's say). . . that would be less of a murder than if the victim were in fact a citizen of the U.S.?

Interesting.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think you are confused to where the mistake came in. Prior to the misogynists taking over women's health, women took care of these things, usually in the first trimester.

Then you got all the awful abortion laws. Of course, these laws were bullshit, and they were almost never enforced. Women still found ways to quietly end their unwanted pregnancies.

The untold story of Roe was not how SCOTUS unleashed abortion. Abortions were happening. That's why the birth rate didn't drop in 1973 or 1974, and was going up again in 1975. The real story of Roe is how unworkable, unenforceable, and idioitic laws were strucken from the books.

As long as you are not learning from the past, I give you Prohibition. Another case where moral scolds got their way, but their efforts failed miserably.




I doubt fetal homicide laws would be overturned, because the one thing women and misogynists probably agree upon is that guys who beat on pregnant women need to be punished.

Sometimes letting the Nazis march isn't a good idea, even in principle.

The problem is, of course, when you nutters use these well-intentioned laws to go after women, like you did with Purvi Patel and Bei Bei Shaiu. (Of course, when they want to see what they can get away with, go after women of color first, because white women aren't going to put up with that at all.)



So do my toenails, and they shouldn't get rights, either.

Careful. This is still Zone 1.

Clean it up, if you want a respectful response.

 

[JoeB131]

So, let me see if I understand this point of yours entirely.

Using your logic, if a citizen shoots and kills a non citizen (crossing the border, let's say). . . that would be less of a murder than if the victim were in fact a citizen of the U.S.?

Interesting.

Are you kidding me? Given the current political climate, they'd probably give him a medal.

Careful. This is still Zone 1.

Clean it up, if you want a respectful response.

Um, sorry, pointing out misogyny isn't disrespectful.

and clearly you can't really respond, because you know that the "pro-life" movement cares more about oppressing women than taking care of children.

 

[Chuz Life]

Are you kidding me? Given the current political climate, they'd probably give him a medal.

That doesn't answer the question, though. Does it.

Um, sorry, pointing out misogyny isn't disrespectful.

Do I have to hit report to get a @mods input on this?

 

[JoeB131]

That doesn't answer the question, though. Does it.

Do I have to hit report to get a @mods input on this?

If you have to go whining to the mods because you are losing an argument, there's not much point talking to you.

Seems to me that you want to have a debate on abortion, but not really.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course, you could try challenging me in the Bull Ring again.

 

[Chuz Life]

If you have to go whining to the mods because you are losing an argument, there's not much point talking to you.

Seems to me that you want to have a debate on abortion, but not really.

Zone 1 rules are what they are for preventing the escalation you are trying to initiate now. Aren't they?

 

[Chuz Life]

Of course, you could try challenging me in the Bull Ring again.

What a great idea!

Wait.

 

[Unkotare]

...



Some day, ...you will contribute something meaningful to a conversation.

Today isn't that day. Tomorrow isn't looking promising.

Still ready to compare threads started any time, big mouth.

 

[Unkotare]

...



So do my toenails, and they shouldn't get rights, either.

Illogical nonsense from a desperate ghoul.

 

[JoeB131]

What a great idea!

Wait.

View attachment 1158797

If I recall that debate, you scampered off and didn't come back for years.

I'd happily do that again.

 

[Chuz Life]

If I recall that debate, you scampered off and didn't come back for years.

I'd happily do that again.

The poll shows it wasn't necessary.

It still shows that it's not necessary.

Do you want me to pick up where I left off, anyway?

 

[Unkotare]

Naw, it just shows this board has too many right wingers on it, not that you made a particularly good point about Globby being a person before you scampered off.

The fact that you hide in Zone 1 now shows you are afraid of real debate.

What did you say, Globby?