Why are pro choicers afraid to fight it out state by state?

At least 8 states have "right to die" laws.

>>What's the basis for the government's decision that it is a crime for a woman and her doctor to decide that an abortion is to be performed?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Not afraid but basic a human right like bodily autonomy should include EVERY American.
Ever heard of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA
We shouldn't have to go to another state to exercise the right of free speech....or will that be next.

What TF has that got to do with the post of mine you quoted?.....nothing

 

Most of us are here to debate for entertainment. If you're not here to debate for entertainment, then it's questionable why you're here. Maybe to troll liberals? But you don't get an automatic "I win" just because the law is on your side today. I contend that because the mother is a person with rights to her own body, and the early fetus/embryo has no mind, restricting abortion violates the mother's rights without protecting the rights of anybody, because the fetus is not a person. Personhood requires having a mind, or else it's just tissue. The law of the day does not determine who is right, OBVIOUSLY since Roe was the law of the land before and isn't now. The ethics of the issue didn't change, the number of conservative hacks on the court did.

 

Well I guess women now have to drive to another state to perform murder.

Oh well

 

Ok...
-The right to an abortion is not unlimited.
-The right to an abortion is not absolute.
-States have the power to regulate, restrict, limit, and even prohibit abortions.
Have at it.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Not afraid but basic a human right like bodily autonomy should include EVERY American.
Ever heard of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA
We shouldn't have to go to another state to exercise the right of free speech....or will that be next.



What TF has that got to do with the post of mine you quoted?.....nothing

What TF has that got to do with the post of mine you quoted?.....nothing
And it must be a lousy country that permits "murder" in some states but not others...and with your "oh well" it sounds like you don't care

 

No. I don't care about the plight of a woman who purposfully chose to possibly get pregnant having to be inconvienced by driving out of her current state to commit murder on her unborn child.

Sowwy.

How delicious a predicament considering a year ago on the subject you were so smug under the false notion that roe vs wade would never be struck down. And yet here we are.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Not afraid but basic a human right like bodily autonomy should include EVERY American.
Ever heard of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA
We shouldn't have to go to another state to exercise the right of free speech....or will that be next.



What TF has that got to do with the post of mine you quoted?.....nothing



What TF has that got to do with the post of mine you quoted?.....nothing
And it must be a lousy country that permits "murder" in some states but not others...and with your "oh well" it sounds like you don't care

Oh, cute, BABY talk...LOL....and it also sounds like you really don't care about the "baby " being MURDERED....It's good for you because it punishes women for having sex....

Yes, I was wrong about there being enough DECENT Americans to protect EVERYONE'S rights...

Your glee in seeing them destroyed says a lot (all bad)

 

Nobody should have the right to commit murder.

It is forcing woman (and hopefully by extension, men) to be less flippant about the 1 act that creates life. As creating life is as powerful an ability as it is to take life.

The action of abortion is what it always was. It's about time we grew up and took responsability instead of just using murder to sneak out from under it.

 

I know, it's crazy how we trusted scotus nominees to stand by their word in what they said to the senators confirming them. There's no integrity even in the supreme court, and that's one reason Americans have such a low opinion on them now. They were previously more worthy of respect. Though making bad decisions is nothing new.

 

Why start with the assumption it's murder? The other side doesn't agree and that's the fundamental issue. A mindless human-shaped collection of tissues is not a person. Only a mind makes it a person. If it's not a person, it doesn't need rights and destroying it isn't murder.

 

There in lies the problem.

The other side can't come up with a clear definition of life that isn't negated by various situations after birth. They don't know when life starts. All they know is that it starts AFTER the time that the abortion was performed.

Think about this idiocy.

If a man punches a woman who is pregnant in the stomach, killing the baby. He is charged with murder. And the ONLY REASON we consider that baby in the belly a person is because the woman wanted it. If the baby survived and she later aborts it because it's an inconvienance...not murder.

That's ****ed.

Life begins at conception. Absolutely. That's clear cut point in time where you've taken DNA from the mother and the father and merged them together to create something seperate and unique of which is alive.

I can define life. Pro choice defenders cannot.

That's the problem.

 

Oh the definition is completely clear to me, but it's true there is a range at which it may begin and that range is after most abortions. In reality, the mind probably awakens after the structures are present for it develop, not at the same time, because there is no need for a fetus to be conscious. But if those structures are present and the fetus is born premature, consciousness begins early. The most reasonable thing to do is to have the abortion occur before those structures are in place, so that it's not possible any person was killed. 20 weeks at the earliest.

A person who punches a pregnant woman and causes an abortion is not guilty of murder, they are guilty of assault and battery and if there's an exacerbating factor to attach, murder isn't it. It's probably a mixture of pro-life people trying to assert a fetus is a person, and others trying to really punish somebody who is abusing a pregnant person just for the purpose of them getting in more trouble.

Life isn't what's relevant. Personhood is. Unique DNA is just a blueprint, and doesn't define a person. Identical twins are separate persons, even if their DNA is much less unique than people without a twin. We don't value the life of a twin less because they have less unique DNA. Therefore, unique DNA is completely irrelevant. If we made a million clones of the same person, each of those clones would be individual lives with their own value, and that value would begin when they have a mind and are a person.

Pro-choicers aren't as united as they should be on the definition of personhood, but my position is the only morally logical one. Persons are what we value. Persons are defined by the presence of a mind. Nobody values "life." We all eat living things. It's a particular kind of life that we value, and that is the life of persons.

 

I thought you wanted to debate?

You can try:
-The right to an abortion is not unlimited.
-The right to an abortion is not absolute.
-States have the power to regulate, restrict, limit, and even prohibit abortions.
Have at it.

 

Life. Not personhood. Any characteristic they come up with that needs to develop for it to suddenly "be life" is muddy at best.

It's alive. It's unique. It's human. And you created it with purposful actions. In 25 years it will be a full grown adult. None of these things are in dispute. The issue and only defense you have is to state that the mother has a say in having this person in her body. BUT she negates that choice for willfully partaking in the ONE ACTION that put it in there to begin with.

She took a gamble and lost is not grounds for murder.

 

Not at all. Cancer is made up of living cells. An appendix is. Why don't we care when those cells die? Because they weren't a person. The person doesn't need to be smart - they just have to have a mental existence. Without a mental existence, they cannot suffer, cannot feel, cannot experience anything, and so are morally irrelevant.

Why do you care that it's unique? Are twins lives worth less because of their lack of uniqueness? Each cell is alive and human in your body, but they are all tools, tools to support what actually matters, the person.

It's not always purposeful action. Some people get raped. But I don't care about that because it's not a person anyway. Rape, convenience, to save the mother's life, a whim, any reason is good enough because it's not a person.

Even if she had no choice and was raped it would not be grounds for murder. Fortunately, it ought to not be considered murder because the early fetus is not a person.

 

Just so we're clear here:
You value people. not human life.
What happens if someone decides you are not a person?

 

Cancer, and appendix, and anything else you try to come up with is not going to eventually grow and develop into a full grown human adult with nutrition.

Got anything else?

Rape is the only arguement you have and as an olive branch I would allow only for the fact that the woman partook in the action unwillingly.

But then rape thankfully only accounts for less than 1 percent of all abortions so...you may need to come up with another out.

 

Why do you think they are afraid? They are more than likely to show up in Nov.

People are pushing for national carry license, and I don't think its a bad idea.

 

Ethics is defined by harm to others. There is no other if there is no mind.

Don't even start with that ridiculous "potential person" BS. A fertilized egg requires an extraordinary amount of intervention to become a person. I am sure that unless a major catastrophe stops technology, we'll someday be able to replicate it, but it's far from "leave it alone and it'll happen." Even naturally many miscarriages occur before anybody knows they're pregnant. And with technology, any cell in your body could be used to a grow a new person, a non-unique clone that would nevertheless be a person once it had a mind. It becomes a person once it has a mind. Other attributes such as being of human origin, and being unique, are not nearly as relevant ethically.

Quite the contrary, I do not believe in a rape exception. But as I said, I don't need to because it's not murder. Two wrongs would not make a right.

They would be obviously wrong. It's quite clear personhood is defined by having a mind (while also being human). The only real area that's debatable is beings that aren't human. Animals have minds too, just not sophisticated on the same level.

 

No license should be required.

 

By -your- metric.
How is yours the only sound definition?
And how is "personhood" and not "human life" -the- determining factor?

 

I thought you wanted to debate?

You can try:
-The right to an abortion is not unlimited.
-The right to an abortion is not absolute.
-States have the power to regulate, restrict, limit, and even prohibit abortions.
Have at it.

 

Logic. Ethics is defined by harm to others. There is no other if there is no mind. If people were logical, abortion would be an easy issue, maybe with some debate about the exact timing (20 weeks vs 24 weeks based upon neurobiology) but not something as ridiculous as conception.