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

[forkup]

Do you know why I marked your post "funny?"

It appears you don't know, don't care, and are not taking into any account, what an abortion is.

You know why I don’t care that you marked my post as 'funny'?
Because it’s obvious you’ve got no real counter, just deflection, bluster, and hope that nobody notices rethorical tricks. When someone can't respond with a coherent argument, they either try to laugh it off or, in your case, hope AI can bail them out. That’s not clever. That’s just lazy.

 

[Chuz Life]

Well, it's debatable if the heartbeat develops that early, it might just be the mother's blood ciruclation pushing the blood around between teh fetus and the placenta.

But still, not viable and therefore not a person.

Bahahahahaha!

Just. .

Bwahahahahaha!

Biology fail, Joe.

Fact: The child's heart pumps only the child's blood through the umbilical cord and the placenta (made up of the CHILD's cells.

If the mother's blood enters the child's body during pregnancy, it will in all likelyhood kill the child and possibly (sepsis) the mother too.

You really need to learn how to fact check your shit.

Pay close ******* attention to the time of 2:04

 

[Chuz Life]

You know why I don’t care that you marked my post as 'funny'?
Because it’s obvious you’ve got no real counter, just deflection, bluster, and hope that nobody notices rethorical tricks. When someone can't respond with a coherent argument, they either try to laugh it off or, in your case, hope AI can bail them out. That’s not clever. That’s just lazy.

Does a human abortion end a human life? Yes or No?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/722

When did that bill pass both House and Senate and when did Trump sign it into law? When was the Constitution amended to reflect this?

I'll say one thing. You certainly are dedicated to proving your IQ is in the room temperature range.

 

[Chuz Life]

When did that bill pass both House and Senate and when did Trump sign it into law? When was the Constitution amended to reflect this?

I'll say one thing. You certainly are dedicated to proving your IQ is in the room temperature range.

Did I say it has already been passed? Or did I post it to support my claim that efforts will be ongoing and pretty much unrelenting?

 

[forkup]

Does a human abortion end a human life? Yes or No?

Yes.

Now you answer this: Does saving one human life justify violating the bodily autonomy of another? Yes or no.

And before you dodge — no, you don’t get to sidestep it with “but pregnancy is different.” That’s the very thing in question. Either you believe bodily autonomy is fundamental, or you believe it’s negotiable depending on who benefits. Which is it?

That’s the difference between me and you.
I don’t need to dodge or mark people’s posts as “funny” to avoid the moral weight of my position. I don’t need to like abortion. I just need to be consistent.
You’re defending a view that demands forced use of another person’s body, or even denying medical care, and you can’t even say that out loud without flinching.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yes.

Now you answer this: Does saving one human life justify violating the bodily autonomy of another? Yes or no.

And before you dodge — no, you don’t get to sidestep it with “but pregnancy is different.” That’s the very thing in question. Either you believe bodily autonomy is fundamental, or you believe it’s negotiable depending on who benefits. Which is it?

That’s the difference between me and you.
I don’t need to dodge or mark people’s posts as “funny” to avoid the moral weight of my position. I don’t need to like abortion. I just need to be consistent.
You’re defending a view that demands forced use of another person’s body — and you can’t even say that out loud without flinching.

The answer to that is simple. Nobody has the right to trap, lure or create a physical relationship with their risk-taking or recklessness, to bring another human being into a situation they have no say in and then KILL that trapped human being and claim it was self defense.

 

[forkup]

The answer to that is simple. Nobody has the right to trap, lure or create a physical relationship with their risk-taking or recklessness, to bring another human being into a situation they have no say in and then KILL that trapped human being and claim it was self defense.

No that's not an answer, it's a dodge. Which is why you think it's simple.
“Oh, but pregnancy is different,” and “they had sex, so they have to live with the consequences.”

That’s textbook special pleading. And no, it isn’t different. Because by that logic, the same mother, with the same baby, should be strapped down and forced to give up a kidney to save her now undeniably alive, undeniably autonomous child.
Most people would find that abhorrent.

As I said, that’s the difference between us.
I know the implications of my position, and I accept them.
You pretend yours don’t exist.

 

[Chuz Life]

No that's not an answer, it's a dodge. Which is why you think it's simple.
“Oh, but pregnancy is different,” and “they had sex, so they have to live with the consequences.”

That’s textbook special pleading. And no, it isn’t different. Because by that logic, the same mother, with the same baby, should be strapped down and forced to give up a kidney to save her now undeniably alive, undeniably autonomous child.
Most people would find that abhorrent.

As I said, that’s the difference between us.
I know the implications of my position, and I accept them.
You pretend yours don’t exist.

If someone were to connect my body to theirs in a situation where I was completely unaware, and then they intended to disconnect me before I'm able to survive? In my view, they have given me the right to expect that connection to be maintained.

Call it whatever you want. As a human being, I have a right to my life, and I have a right to the equal protection of our laws.

Don't like the argument? That's fine.

That's pretty much how it will be presented to the SCOTUS, though.

So, no sweat off mine, regardless.

 

[forkup]

If someone were to connect my body to theirs in a situation where I was completely unaware, and then they intended to disconnect me before I'm able to survive? In my view, they have given me the right to expect that connection to be maintained.

Call it whatever you want. As a human being, I have a right to my life, and I have a right to the equal protection of our laws.

Don't like the argument? That's fine.

That's pretty much how it will be presented to the SCOTUS, though.

So, no sweat off mine, regardless.

Your view says your expectation overrides someone else’s right to control their own body but only, I assume, for the time the other person is pregnant. After birth, that same helpless, unaware human no longer has the right to someone else’s organs.

Unless, as I said, you believe parenthood demands kidney donations too.

And it’s not just “how I call it.” It’s how the argument functions rhetorically. You’re making a special pleading, carving out a unique exception, without ever explaining why pregnancy should be the one case where bodily autonomy no longer applies.

What strikes me most is this:

I’m willing to argue within the ethical framework you prefer. I’ve granted your premise, that a fetus is a human life. I’m not leaning on edge cases like failed contraception, rape, or incest, even though those raise their own valid and complex moral questions.

But even with that head start, you still can’t justify your position, not without sidestepping the central issue or ignoring the implications it carries.

That’s the difference: I’m willing to face the cost of my argument. You keep pretending yours comes without one.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" An Actual Legal Victim Versus Conjectural Legal Nonsense "

* Nothing To See Here *

Why is section C there?

What do you suppose the purpose for section C is?

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

www.law.cornell.edu

No constitutional rite exists , and none is construed to affirm , deny , expand , or contract any legal status or legal right .

All related offenses are against the mother and applicable penalties should apply .

The purpose of section c has been answered in another thread you trolled two days ago - . Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Admire All Fossil Folk And The Witless Paw Troll Censors "

* Pathetic Inept Cowardice Is More Appropriate *

I have you on ignore for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty. This only confirms I made the right decision.

That you used the term right in such a vapidly idiotic way is indicative of how you embrace ignorance and stupidity as a justification for your position against the enumerated rite to equal protection .

. Applying THe Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction .

. Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is In A State Of Sedition Because Of Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion .

 

[alang1216]

Do you agree that legalized abortion has an effect of devaluing life in a society that sees abortions as anything less than a violation of the basic human rights of the children that are denied and killed?

Here is a link to a news story that I feel illustrates the point very well.

MSN

View attachment 1142978

Feel free to provide other examples and discuss (Zone 1 style.)

Lots of things 'cheapen' life: war, poverty, geography, religion, ethnicity, age, sex, and politics, Face it, humans generally consider all life to be cheap. That is why so many get killed and it has always been that way.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Did I say it has already been passed? Or did I post it to support my claim that efforts will be ongoing and pretty much unrelenting?

It will go nowhere because of the SCOTUS decision. You just don't get it. You cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional. Flunked your civics class in school just like that moron Congressman. Right?

 

[initforme]

The issue has been settled. Simply move to a state where its restricted. Let the other states do as the voters in each state have decided.

 

[Chuz Life]

Your view says your expectation overrides someone else’s right to control their own body but only, I assume, for the time the other person is pregnant. After birth, that same helpless, unaware human no longer has the right to someone else’s organs.

Unless, as I said, you believe parenthood demands kidney donations too.

And it’s not just “how I call it.” It’s how the argument functions rhetorically. You’re making a special pleading, carving out a unique exception, without ever explaining why pregnancy should be the one case where bodily autonomy no longer applies.

What strikes me most is this:

I’m willing to argue within the ethical framework you prefer. I’ve granted your premise, that a fetus is a human life. I’m not leaning on edge cases like failed contraception, rape, or incest, even though those raise their own valid and complex moral questions.

But even with that head start, you still can’t justify your position, not without sidestepping the central issue or ignoring the implications it carries.

That’s the difference: I’m willing to face the cost of my argument. You keep pretending yours comes without one.

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

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 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."

Not me.

This fact was rightfully anticipated by the SCOTUS justices in Roe and the same ball was dropped by the justices in Dobbs.

 

[Chuz Life]

It will go nowhere because of the SCOTUS decision. You just don't get it. You cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional. Flunked your civics class in school just like that moron Congressman. Right?

Bookmarked for future entertainment!

 

[Chuz Life]

Lots of things 'cheapen' life: war, poverty, geography, religion, ethnicity, age, sex, and politics, Face it, humans generally consider all life to be cheap. That is why so many get killed and it has always been that way.

Ok, great observation with no details or specifics but let's say you were right about all of the above.

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."

 

[Chuz Life]

The issue has been settled. Simply move to a state where its restricted. Let the other states do as the voters in each state have decided.

Settled, you say.

Great.

So, that means you (anyone?) can completely explain how it is Constitutional for a child's rights and personhood to "begin" at conception in one State, at 12 weeks in some other State, not until live birth in a 3rd. . . etc.

Don't ******* dodge the question.

Just give us a full explanation on how that can possibly be "Constitutionally settled."

 

[initforme]

Ok, great observation with no details or specifics but let's say you were right about all of the above.

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."

View attachment 1143640

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