"My Body, My Choice": The Worst Abortion Talking Points

[Monk-Eye]

" Four Aces And A Wild Joker "

I appreciate you backing up the claim that abortion is to reduce the minority population but the name calling is actually proof you are pretending to make an academic argument.

* Individuals Determine Self Ownership *

The academic argument was presented in the majority opinion by Blackmun in Roe V. Wade, with the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

The deduction is direct from us 14th amendment that one must be born to become a citizen and one must be born for equal protection , else a fetus is without constitutional protections and consequently a fetus is the private property of the mother .

As a chance for eternal life , an after life , being born again , reincarnation , etc . are all metaphors for literally passing on ones genetic identity and self through ones offspring ; hence , the meaning of " My body . My choice " is both figurative and literal .

Before you go rambling on about fetal protection laws , any offense is against the mother , and that is how the laws are understood and how they should be written , that can include elevated penalties just other special circumstance laws are written , though fetal protection laws are devised with language to placate fools .


* Respectably Dealing With Ones Own Adversity *

A claim that abortion is used to reduce the minority population is hubris on par with using the terms " minority population " and failing to consider domestic versus global populations .

 

[LilOlLady]

" Four Aces And A Wild Joker "

I appreciate you backing up the claim that abortion is to reduce the minority population but the name calling is actually proof you are pretending to make an academic argument.

* Individuals Determine Self Ownership *

The academic argument was presented in the majority opinion by Blackmun in Roe V. Wade, with the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

The deduction is direct from us 14th amendment that one must be born to become a citizen and one must be born for equal protection , else a fetus is without constitutional protections and consequently a fetus is the private property of the mother .

As a chance for eternal life , an after life , being born again , reincarnation , etc . are all metaphors for literally passing on ones genetic identity and self through ones offspring ; hence , the meaning of " My body . My choice " is both figurative and literal .

Before you go rambling on about fetal protection laws , any offense is against the mother , and that is how the laws are understood and how they should be written , that can include elevated penalties just other special circumstance laws are written , though fetal protection laws are devised with language to placate fools .


* Respectably Dealing With Ones Own Adversity *

A claim that abortion is used to reduce the minority population is hubris on par with using the terms " minority population " and failing to consider domestic versus global populations .

In 2014, 39 percent of abortion patients were white, 28 percent were black and 25 percent were ... "Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion",

 

[Frankeneinstein]

you really went off the tracks here but ok

* Individuals Determine Self Ownership *

The academic argument was presented in the majority opinion by Blackmun in Roe V. Wade, with the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

the "academic" argument in question isn't the courts but the one name calling rant you were engaging in, academics never stoop to name calling which is why I suppose you quoted someone else

The deduction is direct from us 14th amendment that one must be born to become a citizen and one must be born for equal protection , else a fetus is without constitutional protections and consequently a fetus is the private property of the mother .

the "deduction"? that makes my point, why a deduction? would it be fair to deduce that makes the baby/fetus inside the womb a non citizen? [of course it would be] and subject to all the rights and laws of other non citizens [of course it would]...and all children are the property of the mother
...so I'll repeat, nowhere in the constitution does it make the case for abortion, certainly not to the degree it makes directly [without the need for deduduction] concerning congress and the right to beat arms [ie gun control]...which was the point of my earlier post...certainly not what current case law translate...this is why semantic legal arguments [deductions if you like] get overturned, and why one courts incredibly imaginative deduction is another courts WTF!

As a chance for eternal life , an after life , being born again , reincarnation , etc . are all metaphors for literally passing on ones genetic identity and self through ones offspring ; hence , the meaning of " My body . My choice " is both figurative and literal .

It's nothing more than a chant, an incantation of "woe is me"...ohm ohm ohm ohm

Before you go rambling on about fetal protection laws , any offense is against the mother , and that is how the laws are understood and how they should be written , that can include elevated penalties just other special circumstance laws are written , though fetal protection laws are devised with language to placate fools .

I have no knowledge of fetal laws at all, I do however recognize the "SO HAH" cry of "any offense is against the mother" argument designed to pretend one is now officially in the "victim status" category...
...and the "fools" thing...just can't climb that academic ladder high enough can ya?

* Respectably Dealing With Ones Own Adversity *

A claim that abortion is used to reduce the minority population is hubris on par with using the terms " minority population " and failing to consider domestic versus global populations .

Should those considerations extend to the border?
Not sure that you actually understand that by claiming that there are what you consider to be valid reasons for controlling the minority population is in fact an admission that abortion is a way toward that goal...you have, to this point made no direct claim that abortion does not bring the minority population down, only claims that anyone who dare speak out about it is guilty of chutzpa [sp]...
...Lets keep abortion legal, and you stop pretending the constitution addresses the issue in its citizen vs non citizen position...
...there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that covers abortion, nothing, cept maybe that no state may deny anyone the right to life...but that is not really a deduction is it? so you may need to use your deductive powers to bring about a different meaning.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion",

For that reason alone most men [including me] want to keep it legal...but that does not make it constitutional.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Foundations Of State Limits "

* Too Simple For Red Herring *

you really went off the tracks here but ok
...
the "deduction"? that makes my point, why a deduction? would it be fair to deduce that makes the baby/fetus inside the womb a non citizen? [of course it would be] and subject to all the rights and laws of other non citizens [of course it would]...and all children are the property of the mother
...so I'll repeat, nowhere in the constitution does it make the case for abortion, certainly not to the degree it makes directly [without the need for deduduction] concerning congress and the right to beat arms [ie gun control]...which was the point of my earlier post...certainly not what current case law translate...this is why semantic legal arguments [deductions if you like] get overturned, and why one courts incredibly imaginative deduction is another courts WTF!

Any must be born for equal protection with a citizen , else as birth is a requirement for citizenship , any other not having been born would be receiving more wrights than those granted to a citizen .

It is a straight forward deduction ; and , whether a fetus is referred to as a non citizen , or not , is irrelevant to a completion criteria to be a member of and therefore of concern by a state .


* Digression Of Fetal Protection Laws *

I have no knowledge of fetal laws at all, I do however recognize the "SO HAH" cry of "any offense is against the mother" argument designed to pretend one is now officially in the "victim status" category...
...and the "fools" thing...just can't climb that academic ladder high enough can ya?

Can you infer the foolish language below ?

In the context of an " eye for an eye " , or equal retribution , an implementation of the death penalty stipulates a double entendre , which is that when one removes a wright to life of another they in fact remove their own wright to life .

Hence , had the sycophants attempted to impose a death penalty on behalf of a fetus, the debase pretenses that a fetus has constitutional protections would have unraveled .

Can you further identify the shrouded admission that the crime is in fact against the mother from the phrase " had the injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother " ?

The farcical language is intended as a conjecture for fools seeking to establish a fetus as a person ( per son - male countable by census ) and a legal victim .

Again , a fetus is the private property of the mother until birth , though certainly more valued and less replaceable than simple material items , and elevated penalties can be accordingly applied as offenses against the mother .

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia
(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
...
(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.


* Foreign Rules Under Natural Freedoms *

Should those considerations extend to the border?
Not sure that you actually understand that by claiming that there are what you consider to be valid reasons for controlling the minority population is in fact an admission that abortion is a way toward that goal...you have, to this point made no direct claim that abortion does not bring the minority population down, only claims that anyone who dare speak out about it is guilty of chutzpa [sp]...
...Lets keep abortion legal, and you stop pretending the constitution addresses the issue in its citizen vs non citizen position...
...there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that covers abortion, nothing, cept maybe that no state may deny anyone the right to life...but that is not really a deduction is it? so you may need to use your deductive powers to bring about a different meaning.

A wright to life exists for citizens who comprise the foundation of a state .

Equal protection is afforded to individuals having been born who are under legal protectorates of the state .

The country of origin is responsible for reprising violations of their citizens who are sojourning abroad without legal permission to do so , and extradition of offenders or prosecution by foreign states may occur by petition or treaty , though a necessity for compliance by a foreign government is not a fundamental necessity .


* It Is Reality Sew Grow Up And Accept It *

It's nothing more than a chant, an incantation of "woe is me"...ohm ohm ohm ohm

It is a success criteria of nature , where failure of perpetuity is an allusion to the metaphors of final judgment and eternal damnation .

 

[Frankeneinstein]

*OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB*

Any must be born for equal protection with a citizen , else as birth is a requirement for citizenship ,

which is what makes the baby/fetus a non citizen

any other not having been born would be receiving more wrights than those granted to a citizen .

also not true, but if you insist on pretending that is the case then fine, lets just make sure it is only the same rights they receive

It is a straight forward deduction ;

as is deducing the baby/fetus is a non citizen as the line of reasoning is identical in each case

and , whether a fetus is referred to as a non citizen , or not , is irrelevant to a completion criteria to be a member of and therefore of concern by a state .

for "citizenship" purposes, not the "right to life" which is clearly stated and guaranteed in/by the 14th amendment...your pretzel logic and ignoring of intent is anything but straightforward...
...there is absolutely nothing in the constitution claiming abortion is a right, it is just not there...
btw, see the lefts border argument concerning a "non citizen" and a states concern for them, you will see further evidence of why your claim is anything but straight forward.
...one more time, ya wanna claim abortion should be legal? be my guest, but if you want to claim the constitution protects it then you have entered into a lie.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Posers Versus Supreme Court Scholars "

* Law Of Excluded Middle *

*OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB*
which is what makes the baby/fetus a non citizen
...
as is deducing the baby/fetus is a non citizen as the line of reasoning is identical in each case

A baby has been born , and it is either a citizen or entitled to equal protection , that is presuming it is subject to us jurisdiction .

As for your assertion that a fetus is a non citizen , a cloud , along with a myriad of many inchoate entities , are non citizens and they do not have constitutional protections either , except that they be hue mammon and born .

* Meet The Birth Requirement *

any other not having been born would be receiving more wrights than those granted to a citizen .

also not true, but if you insist on pretending that is the case then fine, lets just make sure it is only the same rights they receive

Sure , once born , the wrights are the same .

* Too Easy *

for "citizenship" purposes, not the "right to life" which is clearly stated and guaranteed in/by the 14th amendment...your pretzel logic and ignoring of intent is anything but straightforward......there is absolutely nothing in the constitution claiming abortion is a right, it is just not there...
btw, see the lefts border argument concerning a "non citizen" and a states concern for them, you will see further evidence of why your claim is anything but straight forward.
...one more time, ya wanna claim abortion should be legal? be my guest, but if you want to claim the constitution protects it then you have entered into a lie.

Blackmun statement begins " LOGICALLY , OF COURSE .." and then proceeds to relate that a STATE INTEREST in protecting a wright to life begins at birth .

Try reading the us 9th constitutional amendment , because as many , you are confused that abortion has to be enumerated in the constitution for it to be legal .

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]

 

[Frankeneinstein]

" Posers Versus Supreme Court Scholars "

The Poser pretend they are worthy of making the supreme court scholars argument.

* Law Of Excluded Middle *

A baby has been born , and it is either a citizen or entitled to equal protection , that is presuming it is subject to us jurisdiction .

that's true, because it actually says so in the constitution...no deducing necessary

As for your assertion that a fetus is a non citizen , a cloud , along with a myriad of many inchoate entities , are non citizens and they do not have constitutional protections either , except that they be hue mammon and born .

and the constitution does not afford them, or those who want to abort a baby it's protection.

* Meet The Birth Requirement *
Sure , once born , the wrights are the same .

for citizenship.

Blackmun statement begins " LOGICALLY , OF COURSE .." and then proceeds to relate that a STATE INTEREST in protecting a wright to life begins at birth .
He had to say it because the constitution does not

Try reading the us 9th constitutional amendment , because as many , you are confused that abortion has to be enumerated in the constitution for it to be legal .[/quotre]

see, pretending again...you accuse others of being confused when it is you that is/are not following the argument/debate..the argument being made by me is that it has to be in the constitution in order for an act to be unconstitutional, you just keep pretending that this is about everything else so you do not have show where the constitution backs up your claim.

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]

that is true and goes for both sides of the argument, ie. the court you are holding up to make your point is very likely to give babies in the womb the protections "the people" are demanding for it as guaranteed by the constitution...the right to life.

EDIT: Not sure what happened here.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Blackmun statement begins " LOGICALLY , OF COURSE .." and then proceeds to relate that a STATE INTEREST in protecting a wright to life begins at birth .

of course he said that, he had to since the constitution does not

Try reading the us 9th constitutional amendment , because as many , you are confused that abortion has to be enumerated in the constitution for it to be legal .

Now why would you try to get away with this? that is my point, it may be a law but it is not found in the constitution and:
First: you are admitting that the right to abortion is not a constitutional right guaranteed by the constitution by claiming that it falls under the 9th amendment which pertains to laws that are not in the constitution

Second: it does not need to be enumerated in the constitution to be legal, it needs to be in the constitution to be called unconstitutional...you seem to be struggling mightily with this simple concept

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]

This will come handy if, and or when the SCOTUS rules the unborn are a human life entitled to the protections retained for them by the people

" Posers Versus Supreme Court Scholars "

"Posers" pose as being worthy of making supreme court scholar arguments, not because one disagrees with the interpretation of the argument made by the court.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Responding To Babbling Bluff "

* Poser Spinning Wheels Believing To Go Somewhere *

Now why would you try to get away with this? that is my point, it may be a law but it is not found in the constitution and: First: you are admitting that the right to abortion is not a constitutional right guaranteed by the constitution by claiming that it falls under the 9th amendment which pertains to laws that are not in the constitution

Second: it does not need to be enumerated in the constitution to be legal, it needs to be in the constitution to be called unconstitutional...you seem to be struggling mightily with this simple concept

This will come handy if, and or when the SCOTUS rules the unborn are a human life entitled to the protections retained for them by the people

"Posers" pose as being worthy of making supreme court scholar arguments, not because one disagrees with the interpretation of the argument made by the court.

You are splitting hairs to assert that " it needs to be in the constitution be called unconstitutional " , as " others retained by the people " is a corollary to " certain rights " - constitutional - in the initial clause , as if wrights retained by the people are not intrinsic with the vernacular term of constitutional , which is absurd .

The logical issue , of course , is that a fetus has zero constitutional protections because they have not been born , which is a stipulation for constitutional protections ; that is also to state , a fetus is also not yet one of " the people " .

 

[Frankeneinstein]

" Responding To Babbling Bluff "

* Poser Spinning Wheels Believing To Go Somewhere *

always with the scholarly language

You are splitting hairs to assert that

yeah, when does that ever happen in legal arguments

" it needs to be in the constitution be called unconstitutional " , as " others retained by the people " is a corollary to " certain rights " - constitutional - in the initial clause , as if wrights retained by the people are not intrinsic with the vernacular term of constitutional , which is absurd .

the entire point, which I first thought you were just ignoring, now seems to be going completely over your head to the point as not being recognizable to you..
..."where does the constitution say abortion is a right"? and you point to the requirement to be an American citizen and then translate that into a medical finding of what a fetus/baby is...and nothing about the actual question is answered

The logical issue , of course , is that a fetus has zero constitutional protections because they have not been born , which is a stipulation for constitutional protections ; that is also to state , a fetus is also not yet one of " the people " .

where does it say that in the constitution?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Disregard For Authoritarian Histrionics "

* Blacklisting Whitelisting And Catch-all Rules *

the entire point, which I first thought you were just ignoring, now seems to be going completely over your head to the point as not being recognizable to you..
..."where does the constitution say abortion is a right"? and you point to the requirement to be an American citizen and then translate that into a medical finding of what a fetus/baby is...and nothing about the actual question is answered

The point seems to be going over your head that because a wright is not enumerated in the constitution does not mean it is not a constitutional wright .

Your perception of constitutional wrights is similar with that of a dictatorship and police states where anything not allowed by a government is not allowed by default ; that is not how the constitution is devised .

A amendment entitling congress to prescribe or to proscribe abortion is not included in the enumerated powers of us constitution - Enumerated powers (United States) - Wikipedia .

The 9th amendment is raised for individualism as " anti-statism " against pretentious conjectures by " anti-federalists " who seek to override individual liberty at a state level through the 10th amendment .


* Reductio Ad Absurdum *

where does it say that in the constitution?

The majority opinion for roe v wade was written by blackmun whom stated thus , "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .

The statement of blackmun is a direct inference defining birth as a criteria for citizenship in the us 14th amendment , such that birth is consequently a criteria for a wright to life .

A fetus does not have constitutional protection for a wright to life , a citizen is not prohibited by constitution from acquiring an abortion , therefore a citizen is entitled to acquire an abortion .


* Colloquial Options *

always with the scholarly language
yeah, when does that ever happen in legal arguments

These political forums . as public opinions , are based in sophistry .

When scholastic rules are required , conformance with its standards is followed .


* Advanced Topics *

Less tyrannical constitutions are devised in terms of negative and positive wrights , where negative wrights are phrased as proscriptions against government , and where positive wrights are phrased as prescriptions for government action .

From negative wrights and positive wrights , negative and positive liberties for individuals arise , where negative liberties are freedoms of individuals to act without interference from government , and where positive liberties are endowments to individuals from government .

Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia
Negative liberty - Wikipedia
Positive liberty - Wikipedia

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

*OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB*

Any must be born for equal protection with a citizen , else as birth is a requirement for citizenship ,

which is what makes the baby/fetus a non citizen

any other not having been born would be receiving more wrights than those granted to a citizen .

also not true, but if you insist on pretending that is the case then fine, lets just make sure it is only the same rights they receive

It is a straight forward deduction ;

as is deducing the baby/fetus is a non citizen as the line of reasoning is identical in each case

and , whether a fetus is referred to as a non citizen , or not , is irrelevant to a completion criteria to be a member of and therefore of concern by a state .

for "citizenship" purposes, not the "right to life" which is clearly stated and guaranteed in/by the 14th amendment...your pretzel logic and ignoring of intent is anything but straightforward...
...there is absolutely nothing in the constitution claiming abortion is a right, it is just not there...
btw, see the lefts border argument concerning a "non citizen" and a states concern for them, you will see further evidence of why your claim is anything but straight forward.
...one more time, ya wanna claim abortion should be legal? be my guest, but if you want to claim the constitution protects it then you have entered into a lie.

“...there is absolutely nothing in the constitution claiming abortion is a right, it is just not there...”

No one said there was.

But there is a right of privacy, prohibiting the state from interfering in citizens’ private lives and decisions concerning personal matters – such as whether to have a child or not.

And for the state to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law by ‘banning’ abortion violates that right of privacy, where such measures are in fact un-Constitutional.

Moreover, the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

The right of privacy can be found here in the Constitution:

“We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions”

Griswold v. Connecticut

 

[LilOlLady]

Abortions are not about access to healthcare. Not to be used either as a form of birth control when we have numerous methods over the counter and by prescription from your doctor. My doctor keeps a jar of free condoms in her exam room. A woman's choice is the choice of birth control she and her partner chose to use.
More than crime. More than accidents. More than cancer, heart disease and AIDS. Abortion has taken more Black American lives than every other cause of death combined since 1973. In the United States, the abortion rate for Black women is almost 4 times that of White women. On average, 900 Black babies are aborted every day in the United States. This tragedy continues to impact the population levels of African Americans in the United States. Is this a conspiracy.?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Need Versus Want "

* Owning Up To Gluttony *

Abortions are not about access to healthcare. Not to be used either as a form of birth control when we have numerous methods over the counter and by prescription from your doctor. My doctor keeps a jar of free condoms in her exam room. A woman's choice is the choice of birth control she and her partner chose to use.
More than crime. More than accidents. More than cancer, heart disease and AIDS. Abortion has taken more Black American lives than every other cause of death combined since 1973. In the United States, the abortion rate for Black women is almost 4 times that of White women. On average, 900 Black babies are aborted every day in the United States. This tragedy continues to impact the population levels of African Americans in the United States. Is this a conspiracy.?

It is not a conspiracy , it is personal responsibility .