Women have the right to control their own bodies.

[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 sorta hit on the problem with live and let live....jus sayin

Especially when abortion is all about live and DON'T let live .

You understood. Well done

 

[OldLady]

You mean a ten week old fetus? No, not outside the womb.

So you think life begins outside the womb? So then if a man kills a pregnant woman, he cannot be charged with double homicide, right? As stated in another person's post (sorry to abscond with your idea)

Perhaps you should ask a lawyer.

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?

 

[OldLady]

Oh, give it up, Cat. If Roe v. Wade has been considered established precedent for over fifty years, I guess I'm probably thinking about the same way most folks do. A lot of this "states rights" stuff is advocated by sore losers who don't like the laws as they are and hope that if it was left to the state, the laws would be different.
But you do realize that if it went to the states, it would end up popping back to the SCOTUS just the way Roe did.

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.

 

[Magnificat]

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.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Whines about insults..then insults.

Yeah you're a leftist. Man up

 

[OldLady]

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.

Whines about insults..then insults.

Yeah you're a leftist. Man up

Who asked you, *****?

 

[OldLady]

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.

It isn't murder. It is a heartbreakingly sad loss of potential. If only there were another way. But until there is, it is up to the parents to decide.

 

[Camp]

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.

Your post is a good representation of why there is so much controversy about abortion. You present your personal opinions as facts.

 

[Magnificat]

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.

Your post is a good representation of why there is so much controversy about abortion. You present your personal opinions as facts.

Nevertheless, they are still facts.

 

[Camp]

Criminal law is also clear about the second. It's murder. There should be no debate about this.

Our Constitution has proclaimed it is not murder, hence, your claim abortion is murder is technically a lie.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I've brought this over from what I said in a different thread on Roe v Wade in the CDZ. This speaks to the privacy right the Court spoke to in the 14th Amendment.

While everyone knows that the US Constitution does not specifically list a right to privacy, those using this argument should carefully consider the decision of the court. The court stated that there were "zones of privacy" that had been created in the Constitution. I will call the unwritten right to privacy as "inferred privacy" for this post.

The Constitution does not list a right to privacy. The Court has held, however, that Bill of Rights protections of free speech, assembly, and religious exercise (First Amendment), along with freedom from forced quartering of troops (Third), unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth), and forced self-incrimination (Fifth) create “zones of privacy.” Further, the Ninth Amendment’s protection of unenumerated rights could be said to protect privacy. These “zones,” the Court held, are places into which the government cannot unreasonably intrude. Roe claimed that the law robbed her of her right to privacy as protected by the combination of Bill of Rights amendments, and of her liberty as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Roe v. Wade (1973) - Bill of Rights Institute

Now, lets carefully consider this. Should a future case get the court to conclude that the 14th Amendment does not provide an inferred right to privacy, where would this lead to when it comes to the other "zones of privacy"? Could, and would, government then attempt to remove other inferred rights to privacy to further it's own interests? It is certainly possible. In these tumultuous political and social times it would not be unreasonable to think so.

Remove any one zone of privacy and we open the door to eroding further zones, stripping us of our individual rights. Not something anyone would ever want to see happen.

You are absolutely right, and one "zone of privacy" is your right to travel in this country, and not be subject to some officer of the law to stop you and demand "papers", without probable cause, like they did in NAZI Germany.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

The woman has the final say on getting pregnant. Take responsibility.

YOU first.

It's your body. You women keep telling us it's your body, then you want to blame the man. You can't have it both ways.

I am saying the man is one half to blame. That is all.

You have spent decades saying you are better then men. Smarter then men. You can't even figure out the simplest urge from gaia given history. You cry because you screwed up. And screwed up bad. You are so expensive and in most cases so not worth it. You let feminist extremists ph uk you over. And in the process you have ph uked over men. You expect men who you emasculated to pay for you. Half the men will not even put their lives on the line for you anymore. Watching TV is like a bring the men into the death camps revival. And the more this goes on the worse the relationships will become. The first rule of being the smartest sex in the world is........."Say no"! It would save so much misery. Although it would not be a happy relaxing time. Fellas.....you young ones. Soon enough the robots will be much more advanced. Then you can be purely for yourselves. And if the games are stacked with feminist extremism, you can take what you want. You already are in small areas. But the smartest ones do not realize it.

See a therapist, right away.

 

[BS Filter]

I am all for women being in control of THEIR bodies. You want a boob job, tummy tuck, butt lift, go for it. The pro-"choice" advocates pretend the fetus is an unnecessary piece of fat.

And the pro-lifers pretend the fetus is a full-fledged person. More importantly, they pretend that a pregnant woman's womb is public property.

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.

 

[Hale]

Why do you keep asking me the same legal question?

Are you dense?

Why are you dodging the question?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Is a fetus alive? Yes or no

You mean a ten week old fetus? No, not outside the womb.

So, you believe that a ten week old fetus is dead? Medical science says otherwise.

Medical science also does not call it a baby.

What else would you call it? At the moment of conception you had your own uniques human DNA which is exactly the same as you have now. It contained all the information of the person you would become, your hair color, your eye color, etc. You are as different today from the baby you were at the moment of your birth as that newborn baby was from the way it was at the moment of conception. For the first nine months of your life you were nurtured inside of your mother's body and then you were nurtured outside of her body for years more. Birth was no more than a marker of your progress from the moment of your conception to who and where you are today.

We all know it is a baby. We ask a pregnant woman about her baby, not about her fetus. The only time we call it a fetus is when we decide to kill it in an effort to dehumanize our intended victim to ease our consciences. If a woman wants an abortion, she should the character to acknowledge she wants to kill another human being.

Ever notice how liberals, when given a choice, always choose death for a fetus, then protest when a convicted murderer is about to be executed?

Ever notice how, with conservatives, they resist abortion, but are willing tp pull the switch personally on convicted criminals?

 

[dblack]

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.

 

[Magnificat]

Criminal law is also clear about the second. It's murder. There should be no debate about this.

Our Constitution has proclaimed it is not murder, hence, your claim abortion is murder is technically a lie.

Murder is defined as the act of ending an innocent life. A fetus is alive. Therefore, it's murder.

 

[Camp]

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.

 

[Moonglow]

And the pro-lifers pretend the fetus is a full-fledged person. More importantly, they pretend that a pregnant woman's womb is public property.

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...

 

[dblack]

And the pro-lifers pretend the fetus is a full-fledged person. More importantly, they pretend that a pregnant woman's womb is public property.

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 legality would seem to have everything to do with it, eh?