You People Who Think Separation of Church and State is Possible.......How Do You Reconcile Abortion??

[Blues Man]

The Constitution doesn't differentiate and doesn't need to. A human being is a human being.
Again, women don't have dominion over their child's bodies, which is what abortion involves.

Except SCOTUS has always used the term person to mean a born person not a fetus

And yes women do have dominion over everything that is inside their bodies.

 

[Redfish]

Why should anyone subject their persona choices to a vote ? Do you want other people telling you what you can and can't do to your own body I sure as hell don't.

Our bodies are the only thing in the world we actually own and I'll not let you or anyone else usurp my sovereignty over my own body

Does that thinking apply to unborn human bodies? if not, why not? At what instant during the 9 months does personhood happen? When do human rights start?

your, life of the mother, argument falls flat, everyone agrees with you on that.

 

[Redfish]

Except SCOTUS has always used the term person to mean a born person not a fetus

And yes women do have dominion over everything that is inside their bodies.

interesting, how does that dominion apply to urine and excrement? Does she have complete control or when her bladder or colon decides to empty itself?

 

[Blues Man]

Does that thinking apply to unborn human bodies? if not, why not? At what instant during the 9 months does personhood happen? When do human rights start?

your, life of the mother, argument falls flat, everyone agrees with you on that.

the unborn are incapable of thought or of intent which is why they may be human but are not yet persons

I've already told you that when a fetus is viable outside of the womb that it can be considered a person but it still has no rights until it is separated from the body of the mother

 

[Blues Man]

interesting, how does that dominion apply to urine and excrement? Does she have complete control or when her bladder or colon decides to empty itself?

Stupid and irrelevant

Why are you ducking my question about voting on the DNA registry for all males so the state can know who the biological father of every child is?

 

[Redfish]

the unborn are incapable of thought or of intent which is why they may be human but are not yet persons

I've already told you that when a fetus is viable outside of the womb that it can be considered a person but it still has no rights until it is separated from the body of the mother

again, those are your opinions, not medical facts. I'll ask one more time, why are you afraid of a state by state vote on legalizing abortion? Why do you fear the will of the people?

 

[Redfish]

Stupid and irrelevant

Why are you ducking my question about voting on the DNA registry for all males so the state can know who the biological father of every child is?

That would be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

 

[Blues Man]

again, those are your opinions, not medical facts. I'll ask one more time, why are you afraid of a state by state vote on legalizing abortion? Why do you fear the will of the people?

The question of rights has nothing to do with medicine.

And I'll tell you one more time no one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do to my own body. My body is mine not yours.

 

[Blues Man]

That would be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

Not if it was voted on it wouldn't. Why are you afraid to let people vote on it? Besides the SCOTUS ruling is that there is no right to privacy because that is what the original abortion ruling was based on so you state could require every male to submit a DNA sample. But you don't want that vote do you?

And how is you wanting to control the body of a woman not an invasion of privacy?

 

[Redfish]

The question of rights has nothing to do with medicine.

And I'll tell you one more time no one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do to my own body. My body is mine not yours.

yes, we agree on that. but that does not apply, in the opinion of many, to unborn children. I'm really tired of asking this question but last time, what is your objection to a state by state vote or a national referendum to decide if abortion is legal or not?

 

[Redfish]

Not if it was voted on it wouldn't. Why are you afraid to let people vote on it? Besides the SCOTUS ruling is that there is no right to privacy because that is what the original abortion ruling was based on so you state could require every male to submit a DNA sample. But you don't want that vote do you?

And how is you wanting to control the body of a woman not an invasion of privacy?

No one wants to control a woman's body, she and only she should do that, but if she loses control and becomes pregnant, she relinquishes the right to control the body of the human being growing inside her. This is really about personal responsibility, its easy to prevent pregnancy, if you fail to do that or are negligent you do not somehow gain the right to kill an unborn human being.

 

[Blues Man]

yes, we agree on that. but that does not apply, in the opinion of many, to unborn children. I'm really tired of asking this question but last time, what is your objection to a state by state vote or a national referendum to decide if abortion is legal or not?

And I told you that what you think any person should or should not be able to do to their own bodies is irrelevant because YOU do not own that body so YOU do not get to make the decision.

And we both know your argument isn't just about abortion your end goal is to have a fertilized ovum be granted all the rights of personhood.

and 61% of adults want abortion to be legal

About six-in-ten Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases

A majority of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases; 37% think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Blues Man]

No one wants to control a woman's body, she and only she should do that, but if she loses control and becomes pregnant, she relinquishes the right to control the body of the human being growing inside her. This is really about personal responsibility, its easy to prevent pregnancy, if you fail to do that or are negligent you do not somehow gain the right to kill an unborn human being.

So she only loses control when she becomes pregnant?

You can't have it both ways.

And no birth control method is 100% effective.

But I notice that you don't want measures put in place to make sure the biological father of a baby can be known and that father forced to support his kid. If you really cared about the kid you would agree to the DNA registry

 

[Mashmont]

Except SCOTUS has always used the term person to mean a born person not a fetus

And yes women do have dominion over everything that is inside their bodies.

You don't know that, and the Constitution doesn't say it. It doesn't distinguish between born or unborn.
In terms of your last statement, your saying it does not make it so. No human has the moral right to wantonly kill another human.

 

[Mashmont]

And I told you that what you think any person should or should not be able to do to their own bodies is irrelevant because YOU do not own that body so YOU do not get to make the decision.

And we both know your argument isn't just about abortion your end goal is to have a fertilized ovum be granted all the rights of personhood.

and 61% of adults want abortion to be legal

About six-in-ten Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases

A majority of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases; 37% think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

www.pewresearch.org

No human owns another. That went out in 1863.

 

[Mashmont]

and 61% of adults want abortion to be legal

It really depends on how the question is asked. Leftwing Pew asks if abortion should be legal. Many people don't know what abortion is, and the leftwingers and their media ensure that by framing it simply as women's rights, and not what abortion really is. If you ask the question: "Do you think unborn humans should be allowed to slaughtered in the womb?" you would get a much different result.

 

[Blues Man]

You don't know that, and the Constitution doesn't say it. It doesn't distinguish between born or unborn.
In terms of your last statement, your saying it does not make it so. No human has the moral right to wantonly kill another human.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

www.law.cornell.edu

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

Unborn children as constitutional persons - PubMed

In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas argued that "the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." To which Justice Harry Blackmun responded, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In Roe v. Wade all nine justices agreed that the use of “person” in the Constitution always assumed a born person, and therefore that the 14th Amendment’s mention of person did not confer constitutional rights until after a live birth. In the years since Roe, when the make-up of the court has changed, no justice has ever disagreed with that conclusion, including those who would overturn Roe and Casey.

 

[Blues Man]

No human owns another. That went out in 1863.

Where did I say they did?

Please quote the post

 

[Blues Man]

It really depends on how the question is asked. Leftwing Pew asks if abortion should be legal. Many people don't know what abortion is, and the leftwingers and their media ensure that by framing it simply as women's rights, and not what abortion really is. If you ask the question: "Do you think unborn humans should be allowed to slaughtered in the womb?" you would get a much different result.

Really? people do not know what abortion is?

 

[Redfish]

So she only loses control when she becomes pregnant?

You can't have it both ways.

And no birth control method is 100% effective.

But I notice that you don't want measures put in place to make sure the biological father of a baby can be known and that father forced to support his kid. If you really cared about the kid you would agree to the DNA registry

A DNA registry is not the answer to any question. Like all lefties you continually dodge the real issue------------is an unborn child an person or not? You also refuse to tell us why you fear a vote of the people on whether abortion should be legal or not, or only legal under clearly defined circumstances, rape, incest, life of the mother. you want abortion as birth control, why can't you admit that fact?