Abortion is in the constitution.

Did you not read the other poster's post? He stated that anything inside the woman's body was her property. Inside, not part of.

It is his and hers. They made it together. Which is why if it is born they both have responsibility for it. If it is hers alone then the man has no responsibility for it post birth. That in no way denies the woman's right to have it removed from her body, similar to the parallel of my post. Did you even read all of that post? From your response, you seem not to have.

 

IOW, you are incapable of remaining consistent in your application of your stated principle when applied to other situations, thus you avoid the question. Otherwise you would be able to address the hypothetical.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
The penis is not part of the woman's body. The ZEF is.

Oh , c'mon, you know what he meant....

No, it's only hers, he can lay no claim to it, cannot make any decisions concerning it ....until it is born and no longer part of HER body.

Uh, carrying a ZEF to term (9 months of pain, expense and bodily injury) while the man just supplied sperm is hardly "sharing responsibility".


If it's also his then he should be able to force her to abort HIS property...



Whether YOU agree or not there is a difference between born and unborn.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Why?
...and no one is promoting abortion....and women's lives are valuable, yes, I know that...some here don't...

So?

Oh how I like posters who can address the post of mine they quote....I didn't find that here, of course.

 

You did say "women's lives are valuable". No anti-abortion guy will doubt that.
But we all believe that it's wrong to destroy developing life.

 

It's about to be overturned. And then we'll see what happens.

 

Except "anti-abortion guys" will want to put their value on women....which appears to be quite low...

 

Disagree all you want the fetus is her property (a part of her body) while inside of her until it isn't. The analogies you posted are off the rails and don't change anything about the fetus and the host mother in terms of property. You are trying to equate material property with human tissue, that's not at all the same thing. In the case of intercourse, the man's parts still belong to him and him only (the tissue that exists because the man exists), that's another poor/false analogy.

 

Nope, already answered.

We were discussing a fetus growing inside a woman, not a baby (implying a born person). They are not one and the same. The former is unborn the latter is born.

The rest of your post is repetitive and still false. I told you I'm not going to go around in circles.

 

The state makes it up to the state. When one cannot make decisions about one's own body it's called slavery.

It doesn't pass constitutional muster but SCOTUS has been "interpreting" the Constitution since 1803 (Marbury v Madison). So the Constitution has no longer been what it says it is because of people like you who bend over to the state.

 

No you diverted it's the mothers choice not to kill the baby.

You said you are not for the abortion itself, not pro-abortion. I asked why not?

You don't have to be born to be in the baby stage of life. We are talking the unborn baby, those human beings living in the womb a person.

Well no it wasn't and I'd appreciate if you would respond to it

Yes unfortunately for you it does not say what you claim it says. The baby is NEVER a part of the woman, they are entirely separate human beings and each human being has a DOI declared and Constitutional right to their life and you have shown NOTHING otherwise trying to site specious biological nonsense.

To discuss abortion at all it must be done from and accurate and factual perspective so we know exactly what happens in an abortion. So again I ask are you pro-abortion and if not why not?

 

I was reminding him that it was CONSIDERED as a qualification for voting, he is the one who is tying rights to property which begged the question I asked.

 

If you are going with the tissue exists because the man exists, then that ZEF can't be entirely her's. Only half the makeup is from her. As far as material property, last I check human tissue is rather material. So it's either property or it is not.

It's looking like, while we agree upon the rights the woman has, we are disagreeing upon the underlying basis by which those rights arise. And I do think that such basis, especially when it is applied to other situations (such as the one that @Bluesguy is avoiding), provides the support for that right for the woman.

 

it's only hers, he can lay no claim to it, cannot make any decisions concerning it ....until it is born and no longer part of HER body.

Uh, carrying a ZEF to term (9 months of pain, expense and bodily injury) while the man just supplied sperm is hardly "sharing responsibility".


If it's also his then he should be able to force her to abort HIS property...



Whether YOU agree or not there is a difference between born and unborn.

 

You still did not read all of the post, did you? Otherwise you would not strawman.

 

It's not that the tissue exists because the man exists, the tissue exists because the woman exists and more importantly the fetus exists because it's part of the woman until it isn't.

It's not about DNA, it's about the fact that it's part of the woman until it's not.

That sounds about right.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
it's only hers, he can lay no claim to it, cannot make any decisions concerning it ....until it is born and no longer part of HER body.

Uh, carrying a ZEF to term (9 months of pain, expense and bodily injury) while the man just supplied sperm is hardly "sharing responsibility".


If it's also his then he should be able to force her to abort HIS property...



Whether YOU agree or not there is a difference between born and unborn.

LOL, you still can't address my post...there is no strawman....that's what posters claim when they are stumped

Where's the strawman ?

Here? : If it's also his then he should be able to force her to abort HIS property...

YOU claim it's half his ...YOU claim that.... so he should be able to have it aborted...or force the woman to gestate..

Where is the mythical "strawman? ?

 

LOL, OK, then the woman has every right to have a foreign object, an object that isn't her's.. removed from her womb..

..NO one is obligated to use their body to sustain the life of another WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

No one is obligated to sustain harm from another WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.



YOU want a ZEF to have more rights than anyone else, super rights!


IF it isn't part of her body then it should be able to be taken out and grow on it's own.

 

"pro-abortion" is a term invented by Anti-Choicers to make it look like Pro-Choicers want more abortions.

They don't. Their emphasis is on women retaining their right to CHOICE. PRO-CHOICE... RIGHTS for everyone.

Anti-Choicers want to direct away from that so they use misleading terms like "pro-abortion".....they don't want the abortion issue to be about rights or they know they will lose any argument....and they do.

 

I get your point, but applied to practical everyday situations it becomes nonsensical. Is it slavery if I take a job and have to drag my body into the office if I would prefer not to?

I don't fully follow. Are you faulting me for believing the Constitution which puts most power and authority in the state, or holding me accountable for, as I said and I think you agreed, SCOTUS deep-sixing that part of the Constitution? I'm confused.

You are correct about Marbury v. Madison, but an interesting side-note is that Marshall's ruling was legally faulty (wrong).

 

NO, that is not slavery and shows you have NO idea what slavery is.

If they beat you and rape you and sell you and breed you like an animal and don't pay you and sell off your children and they do it all legally THAT would be slavery...

 

I simply replied to Bob0627 who asserted, "When one cannot make decisions about one's own body it's called slavery" which means tons more than rape, beatings, breeding, and selling.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
NO, that is not slavery and shows you have NO idea what slavery is. If they beat you and rape you and sell you and breed you like an animal and don't pay you and sell off your children and they do it all legally THAT would be slavery...

You posted: "" Is it slavery if I take a job and have to drag my body into the office if I would prefer not to?""

I replied (above.)

Now you say it means more than that....what does slavery mean to you?

How much more do you need past "loss of bodily autonomy".

 

I think your question is nonsensical. One takes a job voluntarily under known conditions and gets paid for it. One can quit at any time. How is this even remotely considered slavery where one has no choice, is not paid and can't quit?

The system is so incredibly rigged that constitutionality as it rests with SCOTUS is meaningless. Your post suggest you consent (as many do) to such a rigged system and by your consent you're complicit. If I'm wrong then I apologize.

 

I'm not asking you what you think about what someone else believes I am asking the other poster what HE believes. And since for years you have refused to answer and rather hide behind the "pro-choice" euphenism there is no point in continuing it with you.