Is there a right to abortion, and if so, where does the right come from?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Talon, May 6, 2022.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because it has no separate respiratory or digestive system, and is therefore not a separate life.
    Right: because the fetus is part of their body, not a separate body.
    :roflol::roflol::roflol: Have you Googled "internal twin" or "blighted ovum" yet, Mister Science?
    No, if a pre-viable fetus's body chemistry is separated from the woman's, it is absolutely certain to die.
    Nope. Flat wrong. A pre-viable fetus WON'T continue on its life if the woman carrying it dies (not generally her choice), so it is not separately alive.
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is not a non-sequitur, and the rest of your sentence is gibberish.

    I repeat: do you think it should be a crime for a man to lie to his wife, and if not, does that make you pro-lying?
    No, she most certainly does not.
    The decision may or may not be in her hands. You are saying that if she miscarries without intending to, she should be charged with involuntary manslaughter and serve a prison sentence for it.

    That is evil.
    But it is not living separately. That's why roughly 1/3 of pregnancies are miscarried: unlike you, nature knows that separate viability is the criterion of separate life, and doesn't hesitate to discard unviable fetuses.
    It is indisputably not separate, so my premise is true and yours is false.
    Their brain may not be dead. There may just be no way their body can keep living. Like a pre-viable fetus separated from the woman carrying it.
    Irrelevant. The point is that inability to identify the exact moment of viability in no way implies that viability is not the relevant criterion, whether that viability is being gained or lost.
    No it's not. It proves your "unless we can identify the exact moment" argument was specious.
     
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense. Not separately viable --> not a separate, individual life.

    Look you have gotten so much biology wrong at this stage I would stop digging your hole.
    It is not meaningless or undefinable, and is of very considerable biological and ethical interest.
    Which began when I was able to exist apart from any specific other person.
    I see that it does not in any way say what you claimed it says.
    Read and learn:

    "Surgical removal of a parasitic twin is generally performed to save the life of the autositic twin and preserve their health. It relieves the physical burden of the parasitic twin on their healthier sibling and is usually done after delivery."

    https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/fetal-development/what-is-a-parasitic-twin
    They are aware that I am right.
    <yawn> I didn't say they share each other's blood. You simply made that up. I said the pre-viable fetus relies on the woman's blood -- and her lungs and digestive system. And I am objectively correct about that.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2022
  4. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,435
    Likes Received:
    51,251
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your claim that I "hijacked" the thread is fake news. The topic is "where does the right come from" and you specifically slandered the religious. Old Hag Pelosi has specifically referred to her Catholicism to justify abortion even as a full term baby is being delivered, which is flat out murder. A lot of absolutist extremists when called on to justify their irrational beliefs, which is a proper discussion as our elected representatives are regulating them, and the discussion helps us inform our vote, try to exclude opposing arguments from the discussion. Consider your attempt to exclude my views a fail.

    In our Constitutional Liberal Democracy, despite your attempt to dismiss it, political opinion is absolutely critical to resolution as our opinion informs our elected representatives, and in our system the only legitimate authority are those that We The People grant.

    Our Elected Representatives DO regulate human rights, gun regulations being a prime example, even though this right is specifically listed in our Constitution, unlike abortion.

    And even though abortion is not specifically listed, we do recognise that the rights listed in the Constitution is neither complete nor exhaustive and seek to protect those unlisted rights as well, regulation of unlisted rights are subject to rational basis review.

    I think your main area of opportunity might be the simple realization that folks with other views have the right to discuss them here. You'll catch on and be much happier for it!
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2022
  5. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think it does. I don't see why it wouldn't.
     
  6. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It most certainly would be two people. That is beyond question provided each had independent higher brain function.

    So what are they trying to do now, claim the soul is the person? So if I cut someones head off they are still a person? LOL!

    Is it discrimination if I won't sell a cake to a headless person?
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2022
  7. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not a person.

    If you decapitate somebody and with some scifi tech the body and head both survive, which is the person? I say obviously the head. So two heads sharing one body is two people.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2022
  8. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not a single line of debate has changed my mind one iota.
    so .. I'm off to other things.
     
  9. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    YES a separate individual a SEPARATE human life as I have cited you from the medical and text books.

    Show one thing I have gotten wrong after a listed your most blatant mistakes which you have not acknowledged.

    It has no bearing in the science or when your life began. A just born baby is not "viable" if left on the table and everyone leaves it will die.

    False your life began when you were created as I have shown.

    It says EXACTLY what I have said and you have yet to refute it. How does it differ from what I have said?

    Do you know even what parasitic means? A separate being living off another separate being.

    You
    That is laughably false.
     
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People who have multiple personality disorder are not two people. People who have internal twins are not two people. Not separately alive --> not a separate person.
     
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Does require a LAW to be pro or anti something. I am anti using profound language as your common means of expression does that mean I insist on a law against it? Lying to your spouse is WRONG and I am anti-lying to your spouse, does that mean I have to insist on a law against it......no. You are argument is a non-sequitur.

    Does not what?

    Debate what I SAY, what I post instead of throwing spaghettis against the wall trying to find something to stick.

    That a woman would kill her unborn baby simply because she doesn't want it to live? I agree.

    It is a SEPARATE HUMAN BEING. My born children did not live separately from me, I still had to feed and cloth them and house them.

    You have shown nothing to refute the biological and medical facts as I have posted.

    AND NO HOPE OF RECOVERY.

    Yes it is, there is no definable point of this viability, even the estimates have shifted with medical technology and advancement, which is a specious argument anyway. Ever been to a neonatal ward? Ever see those babies that are not "viable" unless they are placed in artificial wombs and fed and provided extras oxygen and struggle ever waking minute to survive and in this country we do a miraculous job of those babies surviving?

    The life in the womb from conception is a unique and separate human being, an individual that is scientific FACT.
     
  12. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your misinformed statements refute nothing. Post something from a medical source that states the baby in the womb is a part of the mother and NOT a separate human being. I have cite the medical source including the teaching books used in college course and the reviewed scientific writings.

    These two alone are so patently wrong as to be totally ABSURD and shows you know nothing about the biology of how life beings in the womb.

     
  13. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,949
    Likes Received:
    6,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great then we can do the same thing with abortion. Fantastic.
     
  14. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is a human being, why is the irrelevent? It is what it is all about, killing a human being, a mother having her baby killed what do you think happens in an abortion?
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I proved that YOUR OWN SOURCES proved me right and you wrong.
    <yawn> Your claim that the DoI said a fertilized egg is a person; your claim that before the 20th century only "social" scientists considered a newborn's life to begin with independent respiration; the list goes on.
    I made no mistakes.
    It most certainly does.
    Irrelevant. It can survive separately from its mother. That is what makes it a SEPARATE life.

    See how that works?
    But I was not a separate individual until I could live separately.
    No, it most certainly does not, and I have refuted it by pointing out that fact. If it said what you claim it says, you would be able to quote it saying that. And you can't.
    It mentions nothing about fertilized eggs. Indeed, it talks about "men," not even women or children.
    No, a being inside another being, and in the case of a human parasitic twin, NOT HAVING RIGHTS.
    No it isn't, as fetal alcohol syndrome proves. The fetus lives off the oxygen and nutrients in the woman's blood, and is harmed by toxins and pathogens in her blood. Case closed.
     
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course. The question is not what we can do, it's what we should do.
     
  17. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,488
    Likes Received:
    9,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just want to point out that the righties do not seek to supress your liberties unless you're a young woman. This whole push to undo constitutionally established laws is so that they can control women. Their god forbids women to actually enjoy sex ... that should only occur as part of her "wifely duties" that their deity deems allowable in order to propagate the species.

    (Not one evangelical has ever been able to explain to me why, if their god made us, he gave women the clitoris, which serves no other purpose than to enjoy sex. Same goes for the more than 4,000 nerve endings in the vagina. Why would their god make it feel so good, then say it's a sin? Nothing but crickets ...)
     
  18. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    7,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Except it is, sorry.
     
  19. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,949
    Likes Received:
    6,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then we should do one of two things.

    Either it is murder to kill a “pre-viable” fetus whether it’s the mom doing so or another person doing so.

    Or it’s not murder to kill a “pre-viable” fetus whether it’s the mother doing so or someone else.

    Pick one. But you cannot have it both ways.

    If a man who got a girl pregnant feeds her a drink spiked with abortion pills because he doesn’t want the baby and she does, he should not be charged with murder if that same woman is not charged with murder for killing the same baby.

    Or both of them get charged with murder. But you cannot have it both ways.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2022
  20. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    7,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its very simple, if the woman doesn't want it inhabiting her body she has every right to have it removed even if this results in its death. Thus whether or not its human is irrelevant
     
  21. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,949
    Likes Received:
    6,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except it’s not.
     
  22. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    7,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As a matter of fact you can.
     
  23. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,949
    Likes Received:
    6,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No you cant. And you’re about to find that out on Monday.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2022
  24. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    7,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The fact that its happening says it is.
     
  25. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,949
    Likes Received:
    6,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it’s just a contradiction in law. And contradictions in law may stand for a time, but they will ALWAYS be struck down eventually. Without exception.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2022

Share This Page