Women have the right to control their own bodies.

[ThisIsMe]

Let's be perfectly clear on one thing. This whole argument about abortion is not about whether a fetus is alive or not. It's about whether a person has a right to end that life. Medical science is clear about the first question. It's alive. Criminal law is also clear about the second. It's murder. There should be no debate about this.

And yet there is. That's usually an indication that there's disagreement over the premises of your argument. In this case you seem to be implying that 'alive' is synonymous with 'legally recognized person'. I'm not completely sure on where the legal statutes are on this, but there's clearly no consensus on when a fetus becomes a person. Some people think it's not a legally separate person, with distinct rights, until it's separated from the mother - ie 'born'. Other's think that from the moment of conception until birth, we are facing a situation of one person living inside another.

There's also a question of jurisdiction. I don't think government should be granted authority over the inner workings of a person's body, regardless of the excuse. Any kind of coherent picture of individual rights puts "self-ownership" front and center. Without that, as a basis, we have no rights at all.

I think Republicans are indulging the same conceit liberals are usually accused of: they think every problem in society can be solved by passing a law. And no matter how many times it's shown to them that law isn't, usually, the right answer - they are convinced that THIS time it's different.

I think this is more about the moral definition of personhood than the legal definition, honestly, at least from the right. However, the left seems to be looking at this from a legalistic standpoint.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You sure like telling people what to do. This isn't one of your classrooms where your extteme authoritarianism can just run roughshod over the proceedings.

She doesn't HAVE to give it up. I realize you like to shut up anybody presenting more rational arguments than you, but nobody appointed you arbitrator what everybody gets to say.

She does not support the taking of a human life. You do.

Her arguments against taking a human life are simply better than the ones you are offering supporting the killing .

I honestly don't know where this personal animosity toward me comes from with you, but I've had enough. You're on ignore. Rave on.

Lolol! Could this be the same old Biddy who once chastised me for ignoring others? Say it isn't so.

LOL Yes, it is. I suggested you not to put people on ignore because they have different opinions from you. That is not why Dog is on ignore.

I never put anyone on ignore for disagreeing with me. And yet you took exception to it. Why? Because they were liberals? Is that why you were upset?

Dog zeros in with personal insults the minute he spots me in a thread, and he digs up arguments from years ago. At least I think it's a he--he carries grudges and attacks more like a girl.
Which is more than you had any business knowing, so stick your nose back where it belongs and I'll handle my business, thanks very much.

I took exception to your continual bossing people around like you do.

That is not a personal attack, even if you whine that it is in hopes that the statement addressing your pattern of behavior will get removed.

 

[buttercup]

I know of at least one case where someone killed a pregnant woman and was convicted of double homicide. That's known as a legal precident. Abortion is murder. Judge and jury have said so.

This is where they throw logic completely out the window. If a baby is WANTED, the baby is a valuable, irreplaceable, precious human being who has at least SOME legal rights. If the baby is UNWANTED, then suddenly it's a worthless, disposable "clump of cells", a non-human with no rights. Meanwhile, in reality, the preborn baby is inherently the same in BOTH situations. Yet the law only recognizes the preborn when the baby is wanted. It's inconsistent, silly, and hopefully even the most dense proaborts will see that, if we point it out to them.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Lolol! Could this be the same old Biddy who once chastised me for ignoring others? Say it isn't so.

LOL Yes, it is. I suggested you not to put people on ignore because they have different opinions from you. That is not why Dog is on ignore.

I never put anyone on ignore for disagreeing with me. And yet you took exception to it. Why? Because they were liberals? Is that why you were upset?

Dog zeros in with personal insults the minute he spots me in a thread, and he digs up arguments from years ago. At least I think it's a he--he carries grudges and attacks more like a girl.
Which is more than you had any business knowing, so stick your nose back where it belongs and I'll handle my business, thanks very much.

Whines about insults..then insults.

Yeah you're a leftist. Man up

Who asked you, bitch?

She has every right to respond.

Just because you despise free speech as you do, that does not mean you get to control her like you try to control everybody else who does not agree with your rigid orthodoxy.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Let's be perfectly clear on one thing. This whole argument about abortion is not about whether a fetus is alive or not. It's about whether a person has a right to end that life. Medical science is clear about the first question. It's alive. Criminal law is also clear about the second. It's murder. There should be no debate about this.

You are trying ro shape the narrative, but even doing that you screw up and call the fetus "it". So, even your subconscious knows "it" is not a baby, child, or viable human being.

"It" means it has life. "It" could also mean, in the absence of knowing its gender, you refer to it as "it", until you know, the you refer to it has "him" or "her".

 

[ThisIsMe]

The human fetus is a human being. Take an elementary biology class. Duh.

I understand the biology just fine. The question is whether a fetus is a separate legal person, with rights that should be protected by the government.

Legality has nothing to do with what is defined as human life. We're talking about human lives here.

Ahhh. .Ok. I thought you were talking about making abortion illegal. My apologies.

Abortion should be illegal.

So should income inequality...

Income inequality is illegal. A company cant pay a woman less for doing the exact same job just because she is a woman. That's discrimination.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves.

Then why call it "control" of their bodies when it is not possible under that scenario? should they be responsible for their own bodies? I say cut out all second party responsibility and allow women to decide if they should get to hold the bag or not..what say you?

 

[Moonglow]

If the state want to controls the uterus they can raise what is developed there...

 

[ThisIsMe]

So, a lawyer gets to decide when life begins?

You are talking about charges for homicide. It doesn't sound like a medical question.

You are saying a baby is not considered a person until they are born, so I'm asking you, if a baby isnt a person, then if a pregnant woman is killed, the assailant cannot be charged with a double homicide, right?

I'm not asking what a lawyer would say, because that lawyer may believe the unborn baby is a person. I'm asking what you would say.

You cant say a baby is not a person inside the womb, but advocate for double homicide in the scenario mentioned.

Why do you keep asking me the same legal question?

Are you dense?

I'm trying to figure out when you, or other pro abortionists, consider when a baby is a person.

When oxygen enters its lungs and they cry out announcing to the world their intent.

So then my question to OldLady goes to you as well. If you feel a baby isnt a person, should someone who kills a pregnant woman be charged with double homicide?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Lolol! Could this be the same old Biddy who once chastised me for ignoring others? Say it isn't so.

LOL Yes, it is. I suggested you not to put people on ignore because they have different opinions from you. That is not why Dog is on ignore.

I never put anyone on ignore for disagreeing with me. And yet you took exception to it. Why? Because they were liberals? Is that why you were upset?

Dog zeros in with personal insults the minute he spots me in a thread, and he digs up arguments from years ago. At least I think it's a he--he carries grudges and attacks more like a girl.
Which is more than you had any business knowing, so stick your nose back where it belongs and I'll handle my business, thanks very much.

Whines about insults..then insults.

Yeah you're a leftist. Man up

Who asked you, bitch?

What ya going to do about it ya hypocritical Old Hag?

Again...you support abortion you're just as guilty of doing it. Burn in hell hag

 

[Chuz Life]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

And if people minded their own business we wouldn't be constantly dealing with a plethora of controversies both here and abroad. Why people simply can't just live and let live is beyond me. You talk about others controlling themselves better while you advocate for your control over other people.

You clearly don't think, know or care that a child is being killed in the process.

If you did, you would be making it your business too.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

And if people minded their own business we wouldn't be constantly dealing with a plethora of controversies both here and abroad. Why people simply can't just live and let live is beyond me. You talk about others controlling themselves better while you advocate for your control over other people.

You clearly don't think, know or care that a child is being killed in the process.

If you did, you would be making it your business too.

Leftists prefer to be left alone in their evil endeavors

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

And if people minded their own business we wouldn't be constantly dealing with a plethora of controversies both here and abroad. Why people simply can't just live and let live is beyond me. You talk about others controlling themselves better while you advocate for your control over other people.

You clearly don't think, know or care that a child is being killed in the process.

If you did, you would be making it your business too.

And what constitutes “making it your business”?

If “making it your business” constitutes speaking out against abortion, or counseling women to not have an abortion, or protesting abortion – that’s fine.

If “making it your business” constitutes ‘banning’ abortion and forcing women to give birth against their will through force of law – that’s illegal, un-Constitutional, and wrong.

 

[OKTexas]

What this all boils down to is that liberals wish to act irresponsibly and not have to deal with the consequences. Proof that liberals are nothing but adults who have never matured mentally.

What this post boils down to is a strawman fallacy – a lie as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Yet you lack the ability to specifically refute it. Typical commie, ad hom with no substance.

.

 

[OKTexas]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

And if people minded their own business we wouldn't be constantly dealing with a plethora of controversies both here and abroad. Why people simply can't just live and let live is beyond me. You talk about others controlling themselves better while you advocate for your control over other people.

Yes, people should mind their own business. The issue of forcing tax payers to participate in peoples' abortions should not even be on the table.

Another lie.

Taxpayers don’t pay for abortions.

That's a lie, TX was recently force by a commie judge to pay for an abortion for an illegal.

.

 

[Faun]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

And if people minded their own business we wouldn't be constantly dealing with a plethora of controversies both here and abroad. Why people simply can't just live and let live is beyond me. You talk about others controlling themselves better while you advocate for your control over other people.

Because they expect the tax payers to pay the tab. They want to be left alone? They need to be responsible for their own actions.

Stop lying. Except in extreme cases, tax payers are not paying for abortions.

 

[OKTexas]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

The state has no authority to control them, either.

A State has a vital interest in protecting all lives, including those yet to be born.

.

 

[BS Filter]

If the state want to controls the uterus they can raise what is developed there...

It's the duty of the state to protect citizen's RIGHT to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A human is a human, in the womb and outside the womb. It's not our responsibility to take or give life. That belongs to God.

 

[BS Filter]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

And if people minded their own business we wouldn't be constantly dealing with a plethora of controversies both here and abroad. Why people simply can't just live and let live is beyond me. You talk about others controlling themselves better while you advocate for your control over other people.

Because they expect the tax payers to pay the tab. They want to be left alone? They need to be responsible for their own actions.

Stop lying. Except in extreme cases, tax payers are not paying for abortions.

Congress gives millions to Planned parenthood, then PP gives millions to Democrat campaigns. Nice game, taxpayers funding Democrat campaign coffers.

 

[Anathema]

If the state want to controls the uterus they can raise what is developed there...

Honestly I’d rather have the State raise the child than any woman who would consider terminating a pregnancy. Of course the woman would lose all parental rights and interests in the child. They should never even see the child after birth, nor be told anything (including gender) about the child.