Debate Now Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?

[Boss]

You're obviously using your subjective definitions to justify the murder of helpless haploid humans. Oh, the humanity!

There is no such thing as a haploid human.

 

[Boss]

Courts don't create our laws, the people do. The SCOTUS has been historically horrible at establishing the laws we have to live under as a society. They told us for 85 years that slaves were property, rightfully owned by their masters. It told us for years that blacks should be segregated. It has upheld misogyny and sodomy laws, violated the hell out of basic human rights for Native Americans, kept women in their place long after they got the vote.

Now... HERE is where I have a problem with you...

"...the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for..."

They have the inalienable RIGHT to use their religious views as the basis for any damn thing they please. You do not have the right to restrict their religious influence.

The People also have the right to give women the right to an abortion, which they have.

Uhm.. No, the SCOTUS did that in Roe v. Wade.

Since we have a government of the People, by the People, and for the People,

the People through their representatives give women the right to an abortion.

And furthermore, the People have had for 40+ years the opportunity to reverse Roe v Wade, and the People have chosen not to.

The Supreme Court is not the people or their representatives, they are the judicial branch of government. Nine justices appointed for life make up the court. They ruled on Roe v. Wade and they are who have had the opportunity to revisit it. For 80+ years, this same court ruled black slaves were personal property. For another 90+ years, this same court ruled blacks were not entitled to the same education as whites. 200+ years, same court said homosexual behavior was criminal sodomy.

I am actually fine with having the issue of abortion and restrictions on it be determined at the ballot box in each state. Let the people decide!

Do we have a government of the People or not?

Why would you want the states to decide abortion if you believe abortion is murder? That is condoning murder.

Where did I say that I believe abortion is murder? We have to be careful with how we use words. The termination of other human life does not automatically equate to murder. I can cite some common examples... wars, self defense, capital punishment. Are these murder? Abortion is a legal medical procedure allowed by law and upheld by SCOTUS. It's not murder.

Can an argument be made that at some point in fetal development, the termination of life should be considered murder? Of course! In fact, it's already codified into law under the Unborn Victims of Violence act.

 

[Boss]

your opinion as to what the court's decisions have been is interesting only as an aside. reality: you have no right to impose your religious viewpoints on me.

and the Court DOES exist to clarify what government can and can't do. i particularly love when the pretend small government types cry about not being able to dictate everyone else's most personal acts.

no... no one has any right, much less "inalienable" right to impose their extreme religious views on the rest of us no matter if you type in bold, in caps, in 200 point type. if you want to live that way, go live under the caliphate and leave everyone else alone.

now leave everyone else alone.

Well you're not going to be left alone... again, we don't live in that universe. I understand you were probably raised in a dysfunctional home where "leave me alone and mind your own business" worked on your parents and this was how you came to view the world around you, but it's high time for you to grow the fuck up and understand how the real world operates.

We live in a thing called society. Fortunately for us, our particular society is governed by representative republican democracy and a constitution. In this system, I can't establish any law for you and you can't establish any law for me. We have to garner support from others in society and petition our representatives to make laws. These laws can reflect our religious views, our non-religious views, our moral views or immoral views. What is important is the number of people who support your view. If 3/4 of society wants to impose their religious view on you, they can do so.

If 75% of us wanted to adopt the Read Your Bible and Attend Church on Sunday Amendment, we can do so in America, there is nothing that prevents this. Fortunately for you, there are probably only about 20% who would actually support such an amendment. Otherwise, your happy ass would be stuck in church on Sunday reading your bible because that's what the law said.

Now, I am sorry that you don't understand this. It's unfortunate that you seem to want to deny people their freedom of religion or threaten to void their political views because you disagree with their religious beliefs. It's sad that you can't see how you are no different than the Taliban.

 

[jillian]

your opinion as to what the court's decisions have been is interesting only as an aside. reality: you have no right to impose your religious viewpoints on me.

and the Court DOES exist to clarify what government can and can't do. i particularly love when the pretend small government types cry about not being able to dictate everyone else's most personal acts.

no... no one has any right, much less "inalienable" right to impose their extreme religious views on the rest of us no matter if you type in bold, in caps, in 200 point type. if you want to live that way, go live under the caliphate and leave everyone else alone.

now leave everyone else alone.

Well you're not going to be left alone... again, we don't live in that universe. I understand you were probably raised in a dysfunctional home where "leave me alone and mind your own business" worked on your parents and this was how you came to view the world around you, but it's high time for you to grow the fuck up and understand how the real world operates.

We live in a thing called society. Fortunately for us, our particular society is governed by representative republican democracy and a constitution. In this system, I can't establish any law for you and you can't establish any law for me. We have to garner support from others in society and petition our representatives to make laws. These laws can reflect our religious views, our non-religious views, our moral views or immoral views. What is important is the number of people who support your view. If 3/4 of society wants to impose their religious view on you, they can do so.

If 75% of us wanted to adopt the Read Your Bible and Attend Church on Sunday Amendment, we can do so in America, there is nothing that prevents this. Fortunately for you, there are probably only about 20% who would actually support such an amendment. Otherwise, your happy ass would be stuck in church on Sunday reading your bible because that's what the law said.

Now, I am sorry that you don't understand this. It's unfortunate that you seem to want to deny people their freedom of religion or threaten to void their political views because you disagree with their religious beliefs. It's sad that you can't see how you are no different than the Taliban.

luckily i have a court that protects me.

please let me know when you grow a uterus. until then, you'd probably do better not telling women what to do.

i've yet to meet anyone wise enough or smart enough or compassionate enough to make those personal decisions for others.

and to be fair, nothing i've ever seen from radical christians (or any other religious fundies) has made me ever think i'd want my fate i your hands.

 

[Boss]

your opinion as to what the court's decisions have been is interesting only as an aside. reality: you have no right to impose your religious viewpoints on me.

and the Court DOES exist to clarify what government can and can't do. i particularly love when the pretend small government types cry about not being able to dictate everyone else's most personal acts.

no... no one has any right, much less "inalienable" right to impose their extreme religious views on the rest of us no matter if you type in bold, in caps, in 200 point type. if you want to live that way, go live under the caliphate and leave everyone else alone.

now leave everyone else alone.

Well you're not going to be left alone... again, we don't live in that universe. I understand you were probably raised in a dysfunctional home where "leave me alone and mind your own business" worked on your parents and this was how you came to view the world around you, but it's high time for you to grow the fuck up and understand how the real world operates.

We live in a thing called society. Fortunately for us, our particular society is governed by representative republican democracy and a constitution. In this system, I can't establish any law for you and you can't establish any law for me. We have to garner support from others in society and petition our representatives to make laws. These laws can reflect our religious views, our non-religious views, our moral views or immoral views. What is important is the number of people who support your view. If 3/4 of society wants to impose their religious view on you, they can do so.

If 75% of us wanted to adopt the Read Your Bible and Attend Church on Sunday Amendment, we can do so in America, there is nothing that prevents this. Fortunately for you, there are probably only about 20% who would actually support such an amendment. Otherwise, your happy ass would be stuck in church on Sunday reading your bible because that's what the law said.

Now, I am sorry that you don't understand this. It's unfortunate that you seem to want to deny people their freedom of religion or threaten to void their political views because you disagree with their religious beliefs. It's sad that you can't see how you are no different than the Taliban.

luckily i have a court that protects me.

please let me know when you grow a uterus. until then, you'd probably do better not telling women what to do.

i've yet to meet anyone wise enough or smart enough or compassionate enough to make those personal decisions for others.

and to be fair, nothing i've ever seen from radical christians (or any other religious fundies) has made me ever think i'd want my fate i your hands.

luckily i have a court that protects me.

Courts can't protect you from a Constitutional Amendment.
That's why we don't have slavery anymore.

You don't know anything about me but you are presuming that I don't have the best interest of women at heart, and that really does offend me personally.

How much time have you seen the pro-abortion crowd here spend discussing the psychological effects of abortion? Do you not care about women and their mental health? Doesn't seem like you do, it's not being discussed.

I actually think there is something far more insidious and perverse happening here, where women who are riddled with overwhelming guilt for their decision to have an abortion are using this issue to appease said guilt. You can't live with what you did so it's best to cause others to fall from their grace as humans and make the same mistake.

 

[mamooth]

The definition of a living organism in biology is simply not subjective.

Of course it is. For example, is a virus a living organism? A cancer cell? It all depends how you look at it. And your peculiar interpretation of it is extra-subjective.

If you think so, you need to go look up the word because you don't know what it means. Biological facts are not my subjective choices.

Most any such definition starts with the word "individual".

If it's inside a woman and attached to her, it's clearly not individual. That is, unless you're positing a new and creative definition of "individual".

So, if we go by the biological definition, you're clearly wrong.

But let's reverse reality and say you're not wrong. All you've done is shown it's a living organism. You still haven't shown why there's any moral worth in that living organism.

There is no such thing as a haploid human

Those who promote the senseless slaughter of helpless haploid humans tend to say such things, probably to assuage the overwhelming guilt which shows through in their every action.

 

[Gracie]

The right to choose.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BOSS SAID:

“Courts can't protect you from a Constitutional Amendment.”

That you and many others on the right would seek to 'amend' the Constitution to deny women their privacy rights is telling, both with regard to the arrogance and authoritarianism common to most conservatives and that you'd be so delusional and ignorant to believe such an 'amendment' were possible.

Indeed, in order for such an 'amendment' to be enacted, you'd first need to amend the Constitution to repeal the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which are the Constitutional underpinnings of Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey.

The right to privacy isn't solely about abortion, the right to privacy concerns placing vital restrictions on the authority of government, prohibiting the state from interfering in a vast array of personal, private matters solely the purview of individuals, immune from attack by the state.

The right to privacy is deeply woven into the fabric of the Constitution and its case law, reflecting the Framers' wise acknowledgment that with regard to the relationship between the citizen and his government, the former has a fundamental right to be left alone, and to be free to decide matters both personal and private absent unwarranted interference by the state.

The people's representatives in Congress and the states would never seek to authorize discarding the fundamental right to privacy, only to enhance the power and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[Boss]

BOSS SAID:

“Courts can't protect you from a Constitutional Amendment.”

That you and many others on the right would seek to 'amend' the Constitution to deny women their privacy rights is telling, both with regard to the arrogance and authoritarianism common to most conservatives and that you'd be so delusional and ignorant to believe such an 'amendment' were possible.

Indeed, in order for such an 'amendment' to be enacted, you'd first need to amend the Constitution to repeal the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which are the Constitutional underpinnings of Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey.

The right to privacy isn't solely about abortion, the right to privacy concerns placing vital restrictions on the authority of government, prohibiting the state from interfering in a vast array of personal, private matters solely the purview of individuals, immune from attack by the state.

The right to privacy is deeply woven into the fabric of the Constitution and its case law, reflecting the Framers' wise acknowledgment that with regard to the relationship between the citizen and his government, the former has a fundamental right to be left alone, and to be free to decide matters both personal and private absent unwarranted interference by the state.

The people's representatives in Congress and the states would never seek to authorize discarding the fundamental right to privacy, only to enhance the power and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

I don't think your privacy rights include being able to take the life of another individual. Sorry, that's just how I feel about that. You don't have the right to be left alone to kill people.

Indeed, in order for such an 'amendment' to be enacted, you'd first need to amend the Constitution to repeal the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which are the Constitutional underpinnings of Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey.

Nonsense. A new Amendment takes precedent over previous rulings. They did not have to repeal the 4th Amendment (underpinning of Dred Scott) to pass the 13th and 14th Amendment. Court rulings do not trump Constitutional Amendments.

 

[Boss]

Of course it is. For example, is a virus a living organism? A cancer cell?

Neither are living biological organisms. We can go through the criteria for organisms in biology if you like, but viruses lack the ability to maintain homeostasis on their own, so they are not organisms. A cancer cell is (by definition) a single cell belonging to an organism.

If it's inside a woman and attached to her, it's clearly not individual. That is, unless you're positing a new and creative definition of "individual".

Nonsense. A parasitic tape worm is an organism which can live inside a human body. You have literally billions of organisms living individually inside your body at this very moment. If not for bacterial organisms working in your gut, you'd die.

All you've done is shown it's a living organism. You still haven't shown why there's any moral worth in that living organism.

Because it's human life and moral human beings value human life.

Those who promote the senseless slaughter of helpless haploid humans..

XXXXXXXXXXX haploid cells are not humans or organisms.

Mod Edit: no adhoms please

 

[mamooth]

Neither are living biological organisms. We can go through the criteria for organisms in biology if you like

I would like. To call your bluff, that is. You keep claiming the definition fits your claim, but you've never given an actual defintion. After all, if you do give a definition, you lose your wiggle room, and you'll have to explain why you had to revise your supposedly ironclad definition after we point out the problems with it.

but viruses lack the ability to maintain homeostasis on their own, so they are not organisms. A cancer cell is (by definition) a single cell belonging to an organism.

So, more of your subjective criteria. I await to see how "lacking the ability to maintain homeostasis" works into your official biological definition.

Nonsense. A parasitic tape worm is an organism which can live inside a human body. You have literally billions of organisms living individually inside your body at this very moment. If not for bacterial organisms working in your gut, you'd die

Point at a fetus.

Look, you're pointing at a woman.

Hence, it's clearly not separate.

Because it's human life and moral human beings value human life.

"BECAUSE I SAY SO!" is not a convincing argument, and it appears to be the only one you have.

I've corrected your ignorant science-illiterate ass once already, haploid cells are not humans or organisms.

Why do you get to rely on "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" and not anyone else? If your "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" is valid, then so is mine, and I say you're a ghoulish killer of helpless haploid humans who is obviously trying to assuage his guilty conscience.

 

[Boss]

Neither are living biological organisms. We can go through the criteria for organisms in biology if you like

I would like. To call your bluff, that is. You keep claiming the definition fits your claim, but you've never given an actual defintion. After all, if you do give a definition, you lose your wiggle room, and you'll have to explain why you had to revise your supposedly ironclad definition after we point out the problems with it.

but viruses lack the ability to maintain homeostasis on their own, so they are not organisms. A cancer cell is (by definition) a single cell belonging to an organism.

So, more of your subjective criteria. I await to see how "lacking the ability to maintain homeostasis" works into your official biological definition.

Nonsense. A parasitic tape worm is an organism which can live inside a human body. You have literally billions of organisms living individually inside your body at this very moment. If not for bacterial organisms working in your gut, you'd die

Point at a fetus.

Look, you're pointing at a woman.

Hence, it's clearly not separate.

Because it's human life and moral human beings value human life.

"BECAUSE I SAY SO!" is not a convincing argument, and it appears to be the only one you have.

I've corrected your ignorant science-illiterate ass once already, haploid cells are not humans or organisms.

Why do you get to rely on "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" and not anyone else? If your "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" is valid, then so is mine, and I say you're a ghoulish killer of helpless haploid humans who is obviously trying to assuage his guilty conscience.

Biology
Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits:[43][46][47]

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.[43]
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[48][49] or "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold."[49]

These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanismsthat are essential to maintaining life.

Viruses
Viruses are most often considered replicators rather than forms of life. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life,"[61] since they possess genes, evolve by natural selection,[62][63] and replicate by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. However, viruses do not metabolize and they require a host cell to make new products. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it may support the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.[64][65][66]

Life - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Point at a fetus...Look, you're pointing at a woman...Hence, it's clearly not separate.

If you are pointing at a fetus you are not pointing at a woman, you are pointing at another living organism inside of a woman. Hence. clearly a separate living organism.

 

[mamooth]

That was a definition for life, not for an organism.

No matter. I note Hela cells would fit it, and those are human and individual, so they must have moral rights.

HeLa - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A hydatidiform mole would also qualify as an individual human life. Moral rights for those too, it appears.

Molar pregnancy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Boss]

That was a definition for life, not for an organism.

No matter. I note Hela cells would fit it, and those are human and individual, so they must have moral rights.

HeLa - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A hydatidiform mole would also qualify as an individual human life. Moral rights for those too, it appears.

Molar pregnancy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Unless you can give us an example of an organism that isn't living, I don't see your point.

No, hela cells and moles do not fit the criteria for a living organism. Sorry.

 

[Boss]

Hey, that Wiki page also has a page on Organisms if you need to brush up. I don't have time to sit here and post links to satisfy your obtuse personality disorder.

 

[percysunshine]

.

I have it on credible and objective sources that the fetus has the DNA of both the father and the mother and, as such, the father has as much choice as the mother in whether or not there should be an abortion.



.

As the old saying goes possession is 9/10ths of the law. He gave her his sperm to do with as she chooses. Up to the woman to make the decision that is in her own best interests.

I respectfully disagree. There is an implied, and in most cases explicit, consent of a shared interest. It takes two to tango, as they say.

.

Only the woman can have bear the fetus to term therefore it is her decision alone. If the man was capable of bearing the pregnancy then you might have a point. Until that is possible the decision rests entirely with the woman who has to carry the burden, quite literally.

Why is this a factor? 50% of the DNA is the Fathers. Ten years later, if there is a custody kerfuffle, the Father gets 50% visitation rights. Fair is fair.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

.

I have it on credible and objective sources that the fetus has the DNA of both the father and the mother and, as such, the father has as much choice as the mother in whether or not there should be an abortion.



.

As the old saying goes possession is 9/10ths of the law. He gave her his sperm to do with as she chooses. Up to the woman to make the decision that is in her own best interests.

I respectfully disagree. There is an implied, and in most cases explicit, consent of a shared interest. It takes two to tango, as they say.

.

Only the woman can have bear the fetus to term therefore it is her decision alone. If the man was capable of bearing the pregnancy then you might have a point. Until that is possible the decision rests entirely with the woman who has to carry the burden, quite literally.

Why is this a factor? 50% of the DNA is the Fathers. Ten years later, if there is a custody kerfuffle, the Father gets 50% visitation rights. Fair is fair.

.

Get back to us when you are willing to gain weight for 9 months and then suckle an infant for a year and then raise a child while still trying to keep your job and get raises and promotions.

 

[percysunshine]

.

I have it on credible and objective sources that the fetus has the DNA of both the father and the mother and, as such, the father has as much choice as the mother in whether or not there should be an abortion.



.

As the old saying goes possession is 9/10ths of the law. He gave her his sperm to do with as she chooses. Up to the woman to make the decision that is in her own best interests.

I respectfully disagree. There is an implied, and in most cases explicit, consent of a shared interest. It takes two to tango, as they say.

.

Only the woman can have bear the fetus to term therefore it is her decision alone. If the man was capable of bearing the pregnancy then you might have a point. Until that is possible the decision rests entirely with the woman who has to carry the burden, quite literally.

Why is this a factor? 50% of the DNA is the Fathers. Ten years later, if there is a custody kerfuffle, the Father gets 50% visitation rights. Fair is fair.

.

Get back to us when you are willing to gain weight for 9 months and then suckle an infant for a year and then raise a child while still trying to keep your job and get raises and promotions.

I am willing to do that.

Your turn.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

As the old saying goes possession is 9/10ths of the law. He gave her his sperm to do with as she chooses. Up to the woman to make the decision that is in her own best interests.

I respectfully disagree. There is an implied, and in most cases explicit, consent of a shared interest. It takes two to tango, as they say.

.

Only the woman can have bear the fetus to term therefore it is her decision alone. If the man was capable of bearing the pregnancy then you might have a point. Until that is possible the decision rests entirely with the woman who has to carry the burden, quite literally.

Why is this a factor? 50% of the DNA is the Fathers. Ten years later, if there is a custody kerfuffle, the Father gets 50% visitation rights. Fair is fair.

.

Get back to us when you are willing to gain weight for 9 months and then suckle an infant for a year and then raise a child while still trying to keep your job and get raises and promotions.

I am willing to do that.

Your turn.

.

Do you speak for all males?

 

[percysunshine]

I respectfully disagree. There is an implied, and in most cases explicit, consent of a shared interest. It takes two to tango, as they say.

.

Only the woman can have bear the fetus to term therefore it is her decision alone. If the man was capable of bearing the pregnancy then you might have a point. Until that is possible the decision rests entirely with the woman who has to carry the burden, quite literally.

Why is this a factor? 50% of the DNA is the Fathers. Ten years later, if there is a custody kerfuffle, the Father gets 50% visitation rights. Fair is fair.

.

Get back to us when you are willing to gain weight for 9 months and then suckle an infant for a year and then raise a child while still trying to keep your job and get raises and promotions.

I am willing to do that.

Your turn.

.

Do you speak for all males?

Don't be silly. Of course not.

.