FoxHastings said: ↑ People can think what they like, the unborn do not have rights and that is the law.... And it IS all about the pregnant one... No , it means it can't decide....I never said that means we can kill it.. A one month old is a BORN PERSON WITH RIGHTS. I never said that. Being born means you are a person with rights. The only reason it's a point of contention is because there are those people who don't think women have rights and want to foist off their personal feelings on others.. Ya, I value all life, too EVEN WOMEN'S.....I believe they should have the same right to bodily autonomy that you and everyone else has. Now, what rights do you want a fetus to have.....that do NOT interfere with the rights of the woman it's in? My statements are facts not opinions...facts that stand today with abortion legal. You are welcome to hold your opinions but not demand everyone adhere to them . Now, what rights do you want a fetus to have.....that do NOT interfere with the rights of the woman it's in?
I gave my opinion as did you. I even stated I saw the reasoning behind your opinion and respect that. Further, I have no intentions of making you adhere to anything or even swaying your opinion. I believe all human life has the same natural rights. For me that is what it comes down to. If you believe an unborn child has no natural rights, then that is your opinion. The law should not give you rights but protect your rights. The right to life is as natural and basic as it gets.
. My statements are facts not opinions...facts that stand today with abortion legal. Gee, I must've missed that... Third time:what rights do you want a fetus to have.....that do NOT interfere with the rights of the woman it's in? NO, it's a fact. As it protects the rights of women...the right of bodily autonomy. For born people.
Simple question simple answer. Roe is the test book definition of judicial activism. The 14th was put in to place to ensure the rights of newly freed slaves, it had absolutely nothing to do with abortion or personhood.
I find it kind of amusing that you complain about my 'twisted logic', and then you released that drivel. And no, being a male doesn't make it any better. I'm pretty sure you're aware of this, but the major difference between eggs that fail to be fertilized and abortion, is the monthly cycle is a natural part of the reproductive system. There isn't interference in the process. It cannot be used as a logical point of reasoning for "Okay, it's moral to interfere now" Let's be blunt: Without interference, should sperm successfully meet the uterus, what will then form in 9 months is a human fetus to be born. Period. There is no alteration, there is no different possibility. The science on what happens when egg meets uterus is to use a liberal's favorite word: Settled. Since you know that your position lacks moral and intellectual standing, you then divert to "OMG, you don't know what women have to face! Keep out of it, it has nothing to do with you!" There's a bunch of ways to respond(which will then generate further argument which I'm unsure if I want to partake with you or not). However, it may not have anything to do with me personally, but it is a greater social question. Society has always tried to make itself moral and upright, and what a society determines is moral and upright changes over time. It's not moral to force women to carry to term, but it's also not moral to view fetuses as disposal human tissue. If someone does view it that way, then they should either tie the tubes or just not have intercourse until they're ready to have a kid(or wear protection.). it's also not moral to force men into fatherhood, anymore then it is to force women into motherhood. A lot more complications than "OMG, it's our right" or insert activist chant here.
And I would argue "everyone" includes unborn children also. So right back where we started. the 14th did not include or exclude in its language what a person was, but the "interpretation" of the law did. That was not the design of the law.
. Prove it. what rights do you want a fetus to have.....that do NOT interfere with the rights of the woman it's in?
What exactly? That life begins at conception or that I believe that life has rights? Well, the first is scientific fact, while the other is my opinion on what I considered part of our natural rights as human beings, so I don't know what you are looking for. 1. The right to exist is the same for everyone. 2. Natural biological processes are not an infringement of rights.
Then what is the problem? Roe v wade doesn't even apply to children. I do find your logic on conservitive activist supreme court curious however. The Supreme Court has not leaned liberal in over 50 years. During this time the Supreme Court has protected the roe v wade decision over and over. Is it actually your contention that the conservitives on the Supreme Court have been activists during that entire time including the present? That position seems to fly in the face of years of right wing media rhetoric.
altmiddle said: ↑ And I would argue "everyone" includes unborn children also"" Prove the underlined....and then prove that my posts are only opinion and NOT FACT... What rights do you want a fetus to have.....that do NOT interfere with the rights of the woman it's in? Yes, every BORN person....prove otherwise....????? What TF does that even mean?? I haven't seen anyone say they were...
I have never understood why people think they have the right to tell someone else how they *should* live. It makes no sense to me that we won't hesitate to euthanize an animal (that cannot speak for itself) to end their pain and suffering but we steadfastly ignore humans when they are stricken and exhausted and ready to die (and they can speak for themselves). It's absolutely disgusting. P.S. This is not directed at you.
I don't really put much stock in RW/LW anything. As far as the SC goes I believe it is a justice's job to interpret the original intent of the law and the constitution, no more no less. In other words interpret it the way it was written, in the time it written, and using the best understanding we have about the intention for witch it was written. If in needs changing or modifying, that is for congress.
The government has no business in the morality department, but when a decision must be made, the more local the better. Just because I believe abortion is wrong does not mean I get to tell someone across the country what they should do. The state I grew up in has never had more than one abortion clinic that I am aware of and at times I believe it has had none. Regardless of the law, these things seem to work out on their own. Often times end of life decisions are left to the family, who will nearly always be overwhelmed with emotion. After working in HC, I have always encouraged people to make it absolutely clear what your end of live intentions are, that way you get what you want and your loved ones aren't burdened with making those decisions.
I voted that a woman has the right to chose to have an abortion without limitations because deciding to have a child involves enormous responsibilities that many women are neither willing or able to accept and/or fulfill. After working in the Juvenile Justice system, I've seen the staggering and heartbreaking consequences of unprepared children having children themselves only to resent and reject that unwanted child. Consequently, that resented and unwanted child grows up under the most adverse circumstances and is unlikely to contribute anything positive to the society that compelled his/her mother to give birth and the cycle continues to the detriment of us all.
I agree with that assesement. However interpretation isn't that black and white. As I posted earlier the right to travel and marriage are not mentioned in the constitution but thanks to the 9th amendment these rights should be secure. To me abortion falls under this umbrella of unenumerated rights. To undermine a right because it is not enumerated is folly and counter to the intemt of the founders.
