US signs anti-abortion declaration with group of largely authoritarian governments

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
288
Points
140
" Scope Of Claims "

* Contingencies Of Descriptors *

If the day comes when such a procedure is equal outcomes to the natural process, that would be a viable policy.
By such an argument , a viability policy is no longer a sufficient standard justifying proscription of abortion by a state because performing a c section to deliver alive would not produce an equal outcome , thereby implying that a state would need to apply an equal outcome standard for it to proscribe abortion .

* Principle In Need Of Qualified Language *
Right now though, my point is that the PRINCIPLE of restricting abortions is accepted even by playtime. The question is one of judgement, and balancing benefit/cost and conflicting needs and interests.
Such a supposition be true post viability , but prior to viability the supposition is false and mute .

* A Political Debate Post Viability But Not Prior To Viability *
It is a valid political debate, not a matter of "rights" vs government oppression, as playtime and her ilk like to pretend.
Whether it is a rigid standard or parturition or whether it is a less rigid standard of viability , the constitution specifies birth as requirement for equal protection and that has everything to do with non enumerated wrights of an individual under us 9th amendment versus state wrights under us 10th amendment .
 

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
288
Points
140
" Presuming Armchair Quarterback Simpleton At This Point "

* Pride Of The Vacuous Short Quip *

Debating philosophy with a poster quoting Wikipedia is inconsequential at best. .
And yet to this point , the extent of your intellect is the bandwagon fallacy with an ad hominem jab lacking the slightest bit of fact or substance .
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,409
Reaction score
14,121
Points
2,220
" Scope Of Claims "

* Contingencies Of Descriptors *

If the day comes when such a procedure is equal outcomes to the natural process, that would be a viable policy.
By such an argument , a viability policy is no longer a sufficient standard justifying proscription of abortion by a state because performing a c section to deliver alive would not produce an equal outcome , thereby implying that a state would need to apply an equal outcome standard for it to proscribe abortion .

* Principle In Need Of Qualified Language *
Right now though, my point is that the PRINCIPLE of restricting abortions is accepted even by playtime. The question is one of judgement, and balancing benefit/cost and conflicting needs and interests.
Such a supposition be true post viability , but prior to viability the supposition is false and mute .

* A Political Debate Post Viability But Not Prior To Viability *
It is a valid political debate, not a matter of "rights" vs government oppression, as playtime and her ilk like to pretend.
Whether it is a rigid standard or parturition or whether it is a less rigid standard of viability , the constitution specifies birth as requirement for equal protection and that has everything to do with non enumerated wrights of an individual under us 9th amendment versus state wrights under us 10th amendment .


1. The state does not need to provide an equal outcome. It is not up to the state to provide a technological fix for a personal problem. That was your hypothetical question about a possible future scenario. That does not found a legal precedence.


2. It is true post or pre viability.

3. The restrictions on abortion are not "equal protection". THe fetus for example, does not have the right to NOT go sky diving if the mom wants to, or not to be imprisoned if the mom committed a crime and is sentenced. My point was about the pretense of the Left that this issue is a matter of a RIGHT of the woman.
 

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
15,122
Reaction score
4,834
Points
380
Location
Wherever I May Roam
And yet to this point , the extent of your intellect is the bandwagon fallacy with an ad hominem jab lacking the slightest bit of fact or substance .
Any questions as to the possible validity of your assessments towards intellect ...
Were best put to rest when you came to the foolish conclusion any response you could make, would be either necessary or helpful ... :thup:

.
 

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
288
Points
140
" Probing Lines For Vulnerability But Failing "

* Proposing The Double Standard Ploy *

1. The state does not need to provide an equal outcome. It is not up to the state to provide a technological fix for a personal problem. That was your hypothetical question about a possible future scenario. That does not found a legal precedence.
The mother need not provide an equal outcome , she need only surrogate a fetus up and to the standard when a state interest may proscribe abortion and should she elect to deliver the child alive by c section then at that point the state can do with the fetus as it pleases , so my suggestion is to get started on the research .

* Non Enumerated Disregard Of Individual Liberty *
2. It is true post or pre viability.
A shifting standard does not apply against an " it is my body " meme prior to viability and the same conjecture definitely does not apply to the standard of birth for equal protection in us constitution .

According to roe v wade decision , in the second trimester ( pre-viability ) a state may regulate abortion procedures to ensure its safety , but those are regulations of the medical practice and not the woman .

* Personification Of Cognitive Objection In An Inchoate Fetus *
3. The restrictions on abortion are not "equal protection". THe fetus for example, does not have the right to NOT go sky diving if the mom wants to, or not to be imprisoned if the mom committed a crime and is sentenced. My point was about the pretense of the Left that this issue is a matter of a RIGHT of the woman.
A fetus does not have any wrights at all , period , and any act whereby a fetus is harmed is an offense against the private property of the mother .

If one wishes to propose not a constitutional argument based upon birth but an ethical argument regarding conscientious objection , it must begin with sentience and the time line for the onset of sentience is concomitant with , and actually begins later than , viability .
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
94,625
Reaction score
10,017
Points
2,030
" Presuming Armchair Quarterback Simpleton At This Point "

* Pride Of The Vacuous Short Quip *

Debating philosophy with a poster quoting Wikipedia is inconsequential at best. .
And yet to this point , the extent of your intellect is the bandwagon fallacy with an ad hominem jab lacking the slightest bit of fact or substance .
He called you out exactly, dilettante.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
94,625
Reaction score
10,017
Points
2,030
...A fetus does not have any wrights [sic] at all ....
Maybe you should work on improving your English before trying to pretend you understand anything about politics, morality, or philosophy.
 

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
288
Points
140
" Taking Your Own Advice In A Funny Mirror "

* Children Offering Adult Advice From The Kiddie Pool *

Any questions as to the possible validity of your assessments towards intellect ...Were best put to rest when you came to the foolish conclusion any response you could make, would be either necessary or helpful ... :thup:.
He called you out exactly, dilettante.
 

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
288
Points
140
" Forcing Others To Deal With It "

* Setting The Standard Not Abiding By That Set By Others *

Maybe you should work on improving your English before trying to pretend you understand anything about politics, morality, or philosophy.
My choice of words has a purpose and it is an intentional affront to the pretentious absurdity of the contemporary bandwagon drones .

If you held a greater acuity for the english language , your suggestion would have been for me to choose more conventional words , but you know such an intention is not forthcoming .

The term wrights is correct for those who understand legal positivism , which apparently you do not .

Right-handedness is by far the most common type. Right-handed people are more skillful with their right hands when performing tasks. Studies suggest that approximately 90% of the world population is right-handed.[5][8]

Left-handedness is far less common than right-handedness. Left-handed people are more skillful with their left hands when performing tasks. Studies suggest that approximately 10% of the world population is left-handed.[5][9]

The Latin adjective sinister or sinistra (as applied to male or female nouns ⁠— ⁠Latin nouns are gender specific) means "left" as well as "unlucky", and this double meaning survives in European derivatives of Latin, including the English words "sinister" (meaning both 'evil' and 'on the bearer's left on a coat of arms') and "ambisinister" meaning 'awkward or clumsy with both or either hand'.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
94,625
Reaction score
10,017
Points
2,030
....
Maybe you should work on improving your English before trying to pretend you understand anything about politics, morality, or philosophy.
My choice of words has a purpose ...
If the purpose is to make you seem like a semi-literate buffoon trying to punch above his weight class, you're doing a great job.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
94,625
Reaction score
10,017
Points
2,030
Had he been the burden on the past that he is on us now, Cliff Clavin would no doubt have been a supporter of slavery.
 

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
288
Points
140
" Mister Scat "

* Typical Behavior Of A Coprophiliac *

Had he been the burden on the past that he is on us now, Cliff Clavin would no doubt have been a staunch supporter of slavery.
You are apparently too stupid to understand my previous statements , but what else can be expected from an imbecile who choose a moniker to let everyone know that he likes to have other people shit his chest and then enjoys playing with it .
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,409
Reaction score
14,121
Points
2,220
" Probing Lines For Vulnerability But Failing "

* Proposing The Double Standard Ploy *

1. The state does not need to provide an equal outcome. It is not up to the state to provide a technological fix for a personal problem. That was your hypothetical question about a possible future scenario. That does not found a legal precedence.
The mother need not provide an equal outcome , she need only surrogate a fetus up and to the standard when a state interest may proscribe abortion and should she elect to deliver the child alive by c section then at that point the state can do with the fetus as it pleases , so my suggestion is to get started on the research .

* Non Enumerated Disregard Of Individual Liberty *
2. It is true post or pre viability.
A shifting standard does not apply against an " it is my body " meme prior to viability and the same conjecture definitely does not apply to the standard of birth for equal protection in us constitution .

According to roe v wade decision , in the second trimester ( pre-viability ) a state may regulate abortion procedures to ensure its safety , but those are regulations of the medical practice and not the woman .

* Personification Of Cognitive Objection In An Inchoate Fetus *
3. The restrictions on abortion are not "equal protection". THe fetus for example, does not have the right to NOT go sky diving if the mom wants to, or not to be imprisoned if the mom committed a crime and is sentenced. My point was about the pretense of the Left that this issue is a matter of a RIGHT of the woman.
A fetus does not have any wrights at all , period , and any act whereby a fetus is harmed is an offense against the private property of the mother .

If one wishes to propose not a constitutional argument based upon birth but an ethical argument regarding conscientious objection , it must begin with sentience and the time line for the onset of sentience is concomitant with , and actually begins later than , viability .

1. Your theory of C-section is what is not part of the law. You are the one that needs to get to work having that enacted as policy.

2. We as a society, and playtime herself accept that standard, thus negating the argument of abortion being a right that cannot be infringed.

3. When a state passes a law protecting the unborn child from abortion, that state is giving the unborn child some protection. Either viability or sentience are valid points to bring up in discussion of where to draw the line.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top