Abortion Debate (US)

[Kenny]

Please be specific. How was the law faulty? Who lied to get it into place and what were the lies?

I will grant that the law was not perfect. No law is. But I see far more lies coming from the antiabortion side.


But never supporting your claims and ignoring when your errors were pointed out to you.


Once again: How?

Since your unsupported claims tend to be wrong far too often I will not believe that he was wrong.

read their report and the history. I don’t need to do all the work for you. Not to mention the fact that you didn’t read what I wrote in context. Go back to the beginning, please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

read their report and the history. I don’t need to do all the work for you. Not to mention the fact that you didn’t read what I wrote in context. Go back to the beginning, please.

Sorry, it does not work that way. Your claim, your burden of proof. I scanned the whole thread and I may have missed it but I did not see any links by you. Only empty claims. And some of them demonstrably wrong. Do you remember your posts about most abortions not being embryos? It seemed that you were implying that most were of fetuses, when the plurality of all abortions are of embryos and their predecessors are second it means that a rather small percentage are of fetuses.

So what were the lies? Links please.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry, it does not work that way. Your claim, your burden of proof. I scanned the whole thread and I may have missed it but I did not see any links by you. Only empty claims. And some of them demonstrably wrong. Do you remember your posts about most abortions not being embryos? It seemed that you were implying that most were of fetuses, when the plurality of all abortions are of embryos and their predecessors are second it means that a rather small percentage are of fetuses.

So what were the lies? Links please.

My proof is simple, they shot the law down - more than enough evidence. It was a bogus law, apparently and visible to all. Do you have proof contrary to this?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My proof is simple, they shot the law down - more than enough evidence. It was a bogus law, apparently and visible to all. Do you have proof contrary to this?

Well, first of that the law was changed is not proof for the reason you gave, is the reason used to change the law.
Secondly there is no proof possible that a law is bogus in the strong sense of law, because laws are not made and evaluted objectively as per proof.
Laws are in effect intersubjective norms for what is good and how to understand that.

Now please stay with your beliefs and if you want to do objective learn how it works. Of course in the end we have different belief systems about proof, but if it is to matter in some sense as it seems to be case of the standard of objective, then proof should be kept objective.

Now if you believe differently about proof, then I have proof that you are evil, because I say so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No… the law was faulty.

Once again: How?

It acknowledged rights for people who @Kenny felt should not get the full rights we grant to human beings.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

read their report and the history. I don’t need to do all the work for you. Not to mention the fact that you didn’t read what I wrote in context. Go back to the beginning, please.

Yes, you do need to do all of the work if you're not lying. YOU made the claim that the law was faulty, so you DO need to do all of the work if you want to be believed. Presently, you are not. Right now, it looks like you're bluffing and in bad faith.

Have you heard the term "lying for Jesus"? It's when one is willing to say anything however untrue to promote his religion. You have the opportunity here to show that that does not apply to you if it doesn't.

My proof is simple, they shot the law down - more than enough evidence. It was a bogus law, apparently and visible to all.

Overturning Roe is evidence that it is a bogus Court. There was no reason to do that except that enough justices thought that that was what Jesus wanted them to do and they didn't care how un-American that was or who it hurt. Christians talk about Christian love, but this is what the world sees from this religion, along with its homophobia and atheophobia.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you are talking legalities? What about when slaves legally weren’t “persons” but rather property.

Is there any context where you personally have pushed for legal recognition of fetuses as people that doesn't involve hurting women?

Have you pushed for fetuses to be recognized as citizens for immigration purposes, maybe?

Or for fetuses to be allowed as beneficiaries for life insurance?

Anything that wouldn't be consistent with a desire to make life worse for pregnant people you disagree with?

 

[wellwisher]

@Wildswanderer since you seem to NOT understand the meaning of "start your own thread" on this topic.

Here you go.

------

So.... Why is it that a cadaver has more rights to its body than a woman does in the US?

"Currently, the United States (US) uses the “donation model”, a consent model for deceased organ recovery that prioritizes the rights of the individual (or of the surrogate decision maker) over the needs of society by requiring authorization or explicit consent prior to deceased organ and tissue recovery."

Ethics of deceased organ donor recovery - OPTN.

Even if I am actively dying and desperately in need of an organ transplant. I cannot receive one without the corpse's explicit consent prior to death?

Why is it that if I need a blood transfusion because I'm sick and dying, I cannot compel you (assuming it's a match) to give me your blood to save my life.

So why can't a woman decide whether or not she wants to carry a baby to term?

Why is it not her decision to choose whether or not she is physically, financially and emotionally capable of raising a healthy child?

A fetus has no fundamental "right" to my wife's body, for its own usage... without her expressed consent. And no having sex does not imply consent was given.

Women also have cadaver rights. Organ donation after death is not limited to just men or any ethnicity. However, it is illegal to sell your live organs. The unborn is more alive; an integrated whole, than a kidney or lung; just one part of a whole. You do not have control over your live organs; buy and sell. Abortion and the unborn in this gray area.

There is no such thing, as a woman's right to abortion. That was more of a Liberal word game like The Inflation Reduction Act that increased inflation by rigging the energy market. If the concept of a women's rights was true, can you name a man's right that only applies to men?

Rights are things we all have; men and women of all colors and creeds. When such things get narrowed down to just one group or a person, that is called an entitlement and not a right. We all have humans rights that apply to all, but entitlements, like abortion only applies to some. For example, it is illegal to do insider stock trading, unless you are Nancy Pelosi or other members of Congress who think they are entitled. This is no right to do insider trading, unless we all get to do it. Men have no say in an abortion even though they may have lots of future responsibility. This dual standard is an entitlement with two sets of rules.

If you recall feminism, since the 1970's, worked hard to break up the Good Ole Boy's World. For example, not too long ago, men were the only one's who could fight in war. Women could serve, but in support and logistical roles. Men are still the only ones who get drafted. Feminists thought things like the good ole boys networks, somehow gave men more rights, so they fought to homogenize the process; same for all. In the case of the draft, women did not realize men gave them this entitlement, so they could to avoid war, if they choose, but they could also volunteer if they choose. Men are not so entitled.

The same homogenization process happened to men's colleges, clubs, societies, businesses, etc. The idea was to end the entitlement mentality in favor of our equal rights for all, to pursue happiness and opportunities. Even jobs that had been traditionally for men; construction, were no longer exclusive. The women were heading toward equal rights for all, instead of entitlements for some. Shouldn't the homogenizing process now include the rights of men when it comes to the unborn and abortion decision? Or is the dual standard in effect? If the dual standard is in effect men should be able to vote for a man's entitlement that only they have to balance this out.

The Constitution only speaks of rights that apply to all, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion violates the right to life to the unborn. This is where the debate is stuck. In theory, no person has the right to deprive another person of their rights, especially their life. The abortion option has morphed into an entitlement.

The king was entitled to steal your land and not violate any law. He had an entitlement loophole. But you cannot steal your neighbors same land because this is not a right, and you are not entitled. Rights are different from entitlements, since the right to life apply to all that have life. A Doctor's oath is to do no harm, which is why they are liable in some states if they do abortions. Women are not entitled to get a separate set of laws with the power over life and death. If they seek power over live and death, join the military and ask to fight in the front lines. You will be entitled to kill the enemy without any violation of the law. The female killing fields should not be small vulnerable civilians.

This is why the debate often comes down to, what is life or when does human life begin? For example, say I have a large tumor. Do I have the right to abort it and not let it grow further? Seeing this is a common medical procedure, the answer is yes. A tumor is alive in the sense it eats and grows. But it is not the same as a human life, which is more the sum of many more parts that all work together. Some pro abortion people have tired to create a parallel between the unborn and a tumor; yucky means pull the plug.

One solution would be to use the entitlement cut off for abortion, at the age of the youngest premature baby to survive, which is currently 21 weeks and 1 day. This number can change in the future, with improvements in science and technology, until technology can act as artificial uteruses. In this case, instead of an abortion, woman would have the right of a transplant, so the right to life is preserved.

 

[Revoltingest]

Women also have cadaver rights. Organ donation after death is not limited to just men or any ethnicity. However, it is illegal to sell your live organs. The unborn is more alive; an integrated whole, than a kidney or lung; just one part of a whole. You do not have control over your live organs; buy and sell. Abortion and the unborn in this gray area.

There is no such thing, as a woman's right to abortion. That was more of a Liberal word game like The Inflation Reduction Act that increased inflation by rigging the energy market. If the concept of a women's rights was true, can you name a man's right that only applies to men?

Rights are things we all have; men and women of all colors and creeds. When such things get narrowed down to just one group or a person, that is called an entitlement and not a right. We all have humans rights that apply to all, but entitlements, like abortion only applies to some. For example, it is illegal to do insider stock trading, unless you are Nancy Pelosi or other members of Congress who think they are entitled. This is no right to do insider trading, unless we all get to do it. Men have no say in an abortion even though they may have lots of future responsibility. This dual standard is an entitlement with two sets of rules.

If you recall feminism, since the 1970's, worked hard to break up the Good Ole Boy's World. For example, not too long ago, men were the only one's who could fight in war. Women could serve, but in support and logistical roles. Men are still the only ones who get drafted. Feminists thought things like the good ole boys networks, somehow gave men more rights, so they fought to homogenize the process; same for all. In the case of the draft, women did not realize men gave them this entitlement, so they could to avoid war, if they choose, but they could also volunteer if they choose. Men are not so entitled.

The same homogenization process happened to men's colleges, clubs, societies, businesses, etc. The idea was to end the entitlement mentality in favor of our equal rights for all, to pursue happiness and opportunities. Even jobs that had been traditionally for men; construction, were no longer exclusive. The women were heading toward equal rights for all, instead of entitlements for some. Shouldn't the homogenizing process now include the rights of men when it comes to the unborn and abortion decision? Or is the dual standard in effect? If the dual standard is in effect men should be able to vote for a man's entitlement that only they have to balance this out.

The Constitution only speaks of rights that apply to all, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion violates the right to life to the unborn. This is where the debate is stuck. In theory, no person has the right to deprive another person of their rights, especially their life. The abortion option has morphed into an entitlement.

The king was entitled to steal your land and not violate any law. He had an entitlement loophole. But you cannot steal your neighbors same land because this is not a right, and you are not entitled. Rights are different from entitlements, since the right to life apply to all that have life. A Doctor's oath is to do no harm, which is why they are liable in some states if they do abortions. Women are not entitled to get a separate set of laws with the power over life and death. If they seek power over live and death, join the military and ask to fight in the front lines. You will be entitled to kill the enemy without any violation of the law. The female killing fields should not be small vulnerable civilians.

This is why the debate often comes down to, what is life or when does human life begin? For example, say I have a large tumor. Do I have the right to abort it and not let it grow further? Seeing this is a common medical procedure, the answer is yes. A tumor is alive in the sense it eats and grows. But it is not the same as a human life, which is more the sum of many more parts that all work together. Some pro abortion people have tired to create a parallel between the unborn and a tumor; yucky means pull the plug.

One solution would be to use the entitlement cut off for abortion, at the age of the youngest premature baby to survive, which is currently 21 weeks and 1 day. This number can change in the future, with improvements in science and technology, until technology can act as artificial uteruses. In this case, instead of an abortion, woman would have the right of a transplant, so the right to life is preserved.

You treat your opinions as absolute facts.
That's a big mistake that blinds one to
other opinions of no less validity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is no such thing, as a woman's right to abortion.

There is wherever abortion is legal.

One can call something a right, but unless some body such as a government exists to defend and enforce that claim, it's not a right in the legal sense. When we say that everybody has a right to clean drinking water, what we mean is that everybody should have access to it, that everybody deserves it, but that is a different claim from saying that one has a legal right to clean water, which is only true where that idea has becomelaw and is defended by law enforcement.

If the concept of a women's rights was true, can you name a man's right that only applies to men?

The law doesn't say that only women can get an abortion. Only a man can get a vasectomy, but that's not because the law says so.

And we do make distinctions among classes of people and their rights. One has a right to live in a country in which he is a citizen that non-citizens only have if a visa is granted. One has a right to have sexual relations with a consulting adult, but not a minor. One may lose the right to own a firearm or to walk the streets freely.

Rights are things we all have; men and women of all colors and creeds. When such things get narrowed down to just one group or a person, that is called an entitlement and not a right.

They are synonyms. You have a right to have an attorney present means that you are entitled to have one present.

Abortion violates the right to life to the unborn.

There is no such right unless some legislature says so. In states where abortion is illegal, the unborn have the right to be protected from abortion in that state. Elsewhere, that might not be the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It acknowledged rights for people who @Kenny felt should not get the full rights we grant to human beings.

I did not expect an answer. It is hard to support inconsistent reasoning when one has to explain it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My proof is simple, they shot the law down - more than enough evidence. It was a bogus law, apparently and visible to all. Do you have proof contrary to this?

That in no way is "proof". The people that did so were shown to be without honor since most of them had said under oath that it was settled. They lied. They could have been honest and said that they did not think that it was a settled issue. No one was forcing them to say that they supported abortion. No guns at their head. No threats to loved ones. You are relying on a court where at least four of them went against their testimony in front of Congress.

If you have nothing but dishonest Supreme Court members then that is far from "proof".