Abortion is NOT a woman's right

Well, is your morality based on some NEW morality, Sam? One you created for yourself or somebody else did in the past year or two?

 

Did you lose your train of thought? There is nothing immoral about the use of the term "person" to mean those who are born.

 

Actually I believe the Nazis classified them as "undesirable persons" but still held them to be persons.

And no, just because there is legal precedent doesn't establish that something is right and in such cases we can change the legal precedent. I've mentioned this repeatedly related to the potential personhood of a fetus. Historically the preborn were never persons so if we want to change that we can. All it requires are compelling arguments to support a Constitutional Amendment that would establish "personhood" for the "fetus" so that is obviously the only course of action. We cannot change legal precedent by simply wishing it was different and the Constitutional precedent today is that a fetus is NOT a person so change the Constitution.

In the meantime a fetus is not a person and has no Inalienable Rights that are reserved for "persons" under the Constitution. Simply lying about this fact is not a winning argument. A fetus cannot be "murdered" because murder is the unlawful violation of the Right to Life of a Person. People can "act" like abortion is murder but currently it's not and it won't be unless we change the US Constitution.

BTW is it moral to claim that abortion is murder when it is not according to the US Constitution? Typically I'd call lying to be immoral but then that's just me.

 

Pro-lifers are trying to argue that the fetus should be a person and that abortions should legally be considered murder. The only reason that killing a fetus isn't murder is because the fetus isn't legally classified as a person, which is what the pro lifers are trying to argue for-that fetuses should be considered persons. They compare fetuses to infants as another way of saying, "well, if it isn't legal for somebody to do this to an infant using this excuse, why should this be any different for a fetus"?

Besides, I don't get this logic. Does this mean that the Holocaust wasn't murder during the 1940s, just because it was legal then, but that the Holocaust should only be considered murder post 1945?

 

Well, what if infants were suddenly legally not considered persons? Oh, you won't answer this question, and here's why.

You never want to indulge in hypothetical scenarios because you don't want to be proven wrong. This automatically shows that you subconsciously don't have that much confidence in your own beliefs.

 

Slaves were not considered persons, based upon historical tradition, for centuries. Stop condemning the immorality of slavery in your history books. (sarcasm.)

 

It's an absurd hypothetical. What could possibly suddenly precipitate changing that paradigm?

I have confidence that you will never prove me wrong. Ever.

 

Exactly. I have confidence that I will never prove you wrong, because you're a very stubborn feminist. However, I also have confidence that I will never change my opinions because of you. I also have confidence that all of your arguments are wrong.

 

Separate people don't inhabit the same body.

- - - Updated - - -

Slavery and abortion are not related. Neither is Hitler and abortion.

 

Actually, it's because the facts are on my side.

 

Your overconfidence is your weakness.

- - - Updated - - -

It's called an analogy.

 

I don't know the specific laws of Germany during WW II under the Nazis but I suspect that the Holocaust was actually murder under the laws of Germany at the time. Enough of this though because it's really off topic.

In the meantime I haven't seen a single proposal for a Constitutional Amendment being drafted by those that oppose abortion. It certainly hasn't been proposed by anyone in Congress to my knowledge. Am I wrong in this? I have found a link to a Personhood Amendment to State Constitutions but it would be unconstitutional based upon the Roe v Wade decision. The "power" of the "State or the People" is limited as they don't have the "power" to violate the US Constitution (re 10th Amendment).

http://wholeworldinhishands.com/world/personhood_amendment.html

I would also not use the term "pro-life" to address those that are really "anti-abortion" because I'm Pro-Life but also Pro-Choice. I don't believe the government should dictate what any person can or can't do with their own body. Many people are "Pro-Life/Pro-Choice" and, I believe that most "Pro-Choice" people really are also "Pro-Life" because none of us advocate abortions but instead oppose government interventionism in the life of the Person.

Back to the point. The Republican Party is highly opposed to abortion and it controls the House of Representatives. Why haven't House Republicans proposed a "Personhood" Amendment related to the fetus yet? It would be a good place to start a national debate but they seem to be avoiding the national debate on this issue.

 

Try a little hypothetical thought. If a woman has her umbilical cord tied off when she's pregnant what would happen to the fetus? Does she have the Right to Her Body which would include the umbilical cord that does not belong to the fetus?

There is a difference because the fetus is not an "independent sovereign person" which was the foundation of "personhood" throughout history. The fetus, at best, is a "dependent person" as it cannot live on it's own without imposing an involuntary obligation on another person.

 

Your faith in your friends is yours!

 

Which "friends" do you mean by this statement?

 

The government has the right to intervene if a person is harming another person. Of course, this begs the question of whether or not the fetus is a person. As for the only reason that there hasn't been a personhood amendment, I honestly don't know why. It's probably because abortion isn't a top priority, even for so called "pro life" Republicans, who simply use abortion as a means to get votes during election season.

Also, several times throughout this thread (and also in other threads), I keep mentioning about how pro-choicers keep using circular arguments. Here's what I mean by those statements.

I mean this. You agree with me that just because the law says something, this doesn't automatically mean that the law is always right and should stay that law. Sometimes laws should change. The main question of this abortion debate is simply this. Should the laws stay the same, where fetuses aren't persons and women are legally allowed to have abortions, or, should the legal status of fetuses change and abortions be outlawed and the unborn be classified as persons?

Now here's what I mean by circular arguments. Some pro-choicers, when attempting to justify abortion's legal status, say this. "fetuses aren't persons. The law doesn't classify them as person". What they're basically stating is that just because the law classifies fetuses as persons, that's why why abortions should be legal. They are using the law to justify the law. Using a circular argument is an invalid argument.

Haven't you noticed this trend before?

 

The difference is that those are children in the other picture, whereas an undeveloped fetus in the process of development in another person's body is not a child. Those other pictures are actually representative of what republicans do with actual children. It's all MINE MINE MINE, and they just want to throw children out on the street because people in need are all lazy, leaching scum.


As soon as republicans start giving a damn about children that are actually developed and have been born, maybe we'll start to take your "right to life" and "pro life" labels seriously.

 

So what NEW morality do you base your opposition to abortion on, Sam?

 

What about you?

 

I asked you first based on YOUR statement about "historical tradition doesn't mean it's moral".

What NEW (not one from history) morality do you base your opposition to abortion rights on?

 

Morality doesn't need any sorts of traditions to exist.

 

You are absolutely right Sam. Like reasoning, facts, knowledge, etc. why should morality be any different. You pull it out of your arse and declare it valid. Caligula could not do better.

 

Fine....what NEW non-traditional morality is your opposition to abortion rights based on???

 

In somewhat fairness to Sam....it's almost not his fault. It's how he learned to "debate" from listening to Talk Radio.

He thinks, like his mentors on the radio, he can just "throw out" things....like "Historical tradition does not mean that something is morally correct." as a "counterpoint"....and then not be expected to be questioned on it.

The Talk Radio guys do this...then move on to the next talking point or line or joke....and if somebody calls in to question them on something they said, they use the old dodge and deflect and "Wait, let me ask YOU something" lines to quickly move away from whatever bull(*)(*)(*)(*) line they put out that the caller is calling them on....or simply doesn't take a call and the screener hangs up on the person at the start with a "I'll pass that along to Rush/Sean/Glenn/Mark/Mike" dismissal.

But Sam can't do that here....he says something...he's expected to defend it or atleast EXPLAIN it. And he has no defense or explanation. It was just something that "sounded good" as a "snappy comeback".

"Historical tradition does not mean that something is morally correct."? Okay, if he doesn't use "history" or "traditon" for the basis of HIS morals....what DOES he use???

And he's got nothing.

 

But it is his fault. It is his obligation, for his own benefit no less, to learn, to educate himself, to seek different points of view, so that ultimately he can form a position or belief that is not arbitrary or capricious. No one else can do that but him and until he does he will will keep posting drivel at the intellectual level of a turnip.