As usual you insert yourself into the middle of conversation and don't understand the context of what is being discussed. Do you know anyone who can prove the existence of God, by the way. I mean wow, you really got a chuckle out of that. That was worth a capital LOL and six exclamation points. How excited you must have been to see me say that! And of course you know that it is proper English to capitalize the "G" in "God"? Now I know that you can rarely ever post anything that doesn't have a strawman argument and this one is no different. When did I ever say that I do not believe humans exist/existed? Please show me where that argument is being discussed by anyone? I'm not trying to be personal, but you really have a bad habit of doing that and I'm trying to make you more self aware but you seem to keep ignoring my advice. If you would like some tips about how to avoid making strawman arguments, I am always here for you. I am willing to help you. In fact, here's what I will do for you. Every time you respond to my posts with a strawman argument, I will just post a big picture in response like this - Okay?
[ No, it isn't. And it doesn't matter to me since your god is your make believe character and doesn't earn a big g from me since it doesn't exist. Where did I say you did? NO where. Now I know that you can rarely ever post anything that accurately reflects what the poster actually said .... but do try harder. As usual , you're caught with no good argument nor any proof of your claims so it's time for you to haul out the "Strawman Whine".....and the special need to control...... Care to get back to the topic of how slavery 's only similarity with abortion is the Anti-Choicers wish to make slaves of women....
I see a lot of bigotry and mocking of Christians and religion all the time. It is becoming quite popular among leftism and socialists. You said it here: This is what is know as the "when did you stop beating your wife" form of a question but is serves the same purpose of a strawman argument. Perhaps it's time for you to stop trying to attack me personally like you always do and provide some proof of your claims. Yes I would, when have you addressed any of that in your post? Nice flamebait by the way, "the Anti-Choicers wish to make slaves of women".
No, a fetus until a certain point is a woman's property, legslly. Unless you think a wwoman with a fetus gets to keep her fetus's share of inheritance rights if she aborts it.
My post: Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post However, there were men who wrote things down , documented, real proof that men existed....in fact, there's lots of proof humans existed......do you need proof of that? .... don't you believe humans existed/exist ? That would be really weird....""" Those funny squiggly things at the end of sentences are called question marks, they denote the sentence is a question.....most people know that. And yes, by forcing women to give birth Anti-Choicers are acting just like slave owners who forced slave women to give birth.....that 's a fact.
Yeah, one question like, "when did you stop beating your wife?" implies that I have beaten my wife in the past. Asking if I don't believe humans existed/exist implies I have questioned the existence of humans. And repeating the "Anti-Choicers are acting just like slave owners who forced slave women to give birth" is just doubling down on flamebaiting.
So you don't want to ban abortion and force women to give birth? (Please note little squiggly thing at the end of the sentence denoting it's a question.)
I've never really accepted these comparison. Sperm and eggs are each only 1/2 of the potential life. The developing baby has exactly the same DNA signature the adult will.
Then please provide your legal evidence to support your assertion, if you cannot then it is nothing more than an opinion and as such can be taken with a pinch of salt. Irrelevant, you still haven't produced anything other than your opinion that a fetus is property.
Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990), Washington University v. Catalona (2007), Piljak Estate v. Abraham (2014). Absolutely relevant. A fetus only has inheritance rights because it is anticipated to be alive. So I say again, unless you think that a woman who aborts her fetus after it receives inheritance rights will receive both her's and the fetus's inheritance rights, then your point was irrelevant. Really dude, I've provided a logical connective argument as to why a fetus is a woman's property - you have provided nothing in counterargument, you've just repeatedly made the assertion that w/o a court case no logical argument holds weight. Which is, of course, just your opinion.
Nothing to do with the unborn being property. Nothing to do with the unborn being property. Nothing to do with the unborn being property The Supreme court of Tennessee in Davis vs Davis resolved the issue of personhood under Tennessee state law by stating that preembryos are neither persons nor property. Rather, preembryos belong to an “interim category that entitles them to special respect because of their potential for human life.” That really depends on the contents of any will left, initially the woman would be declared as a the executive of the the unborn "person" interests, should that "person" be aborted then it would return to the requirements of the will, if the women was also part of the will then any inheritance declared for the unborn would fall to her (as the next of kin) or go to probate for a court to decide how the inheritance should be distributed. The fact that most states do enforce restrictions on abortion also substantiates that the unborn are not property, if they were, no restrictions would be legal as you cannot restrict what people do with their own property (unless what you do with it infringes or threatens another person) I grant that there are inconstancies within the laws pertaining to the actual status of the unborn, however there is nothing that deems them as persons or property.
I would like to ban abortions so that pregnancies can take their natural course and babies can be born naturally. I would like to ban abortions so that children can live and so that we can recognize their God given right to life. I would like for mothers to love their children. When have I not answered that question?
So you want to ban abortions which makes slaves of women...... forcing women to give birth is forcing women to give birth...just like slave owners did...the reason doesn't matter as the outcome is the same for the slave (woman)
Strawman. And you were doing so well. When did I ever say I want to make slaves out of women? When did I ever say I want to force women to give birth?
States that human tissue is personal property. States that human tissue is personal property. States that human tissue is personal property. Don't you see the bind this puts you in? These multiple cases clearly state that human tissue is personal property, so in this case either the mother's or the child's. Go ahead and choose - either way it proves the OP's point. "Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." -Roe v. Wade Legally, fetuses have never been recognized as actual persons, only prospective persons. Now legally a woman has as much right to abort her fetus as she does to get cosmetic surgery - in both cases, because it's her property. Really? Like most states do enforce restriction on houses means that houses are not property? Really? I mean... really? Just because something is regulated doesn't mean that it is not property. Excepting the plethora of cases deeming human tissue to be personal property.
Why are humans still making the same mistakes? "...in the eyes of the law... the slave is not a person." (Bailey/als. v. Poindexter's Ex'or, 1858, Virginia Supreme Court) "An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution." (George Canfield, American Law Review, 1881) "The statutory word ‘person’ did not in these circumstances include women." – British Voting Rights case, 1909 "The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews...as 'persons' in the legal sense." (1936 German Supreme Court decision) Up until the referendum 1967, Aborigines were not considered persons with all rights as human beings under the Australian Constitution. Up until then they were even classified as "flora and fauna" instead. (http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/auscurric/sampleunit/1967referendum/aboutreferendum.pdf) "The word 'person' as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn." (Justice Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade opinion, 1973)
And it has been tried by various states to extend personhood status to human entities from conception and failed every time.
True, even in the most pro-life state, Mississippi, because once people understood the ramifications, that women would be reproductive slaves with no recourse even for rape or to save their lives, most understood it was wrong.
Not in the slightest, the human tissue in question is from the person themselves and nothing more .. a fetus is not part of the person. You are still incorrect, a fetus has never been deemed as property OR as a person, you cannot own another human being, a fetus is a human being. Personhood is a legal status ergo while all persons are human beings, not all human beings as persons. the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense. "In the whole sense" ie exactly the same as children under the age of majority are seen, they are not persons "in the whole sense". Now you are resorting to reduction to absurdity fallacies in order to attempt to substantiate your opinion. You are also assuming the premise ie begging the question, you are assuming that because the unborn are not seen as persons they must be property, this is an either/or assumption (a false dilemma fallacy) when the reality is that neither are correct. You are assuming that there can be only two possible outcomes to the issue, when the reality is there are other outcomes. Human tissue from the actual person, not from another source, the fetus is not part of the females body ergo the "tissue" is not her personal property.
