Abortion is in the constitution.

Hold it ... Are you still banging on about the supposed lack of responses to your devastating RAPE!!!!!!!!!! argument? Why do you do this to yourself?

My posts ##727 and 744 answer/explain the rape exception directly, though it may be a different poster I was responding to. If you don't like my argument, fine, but please stop demanding answers already given, in this case, twice.

It's you who cannot find my responses, not I ... no, wait, this is amazing, you even quoted my answer in a previous post and you're STILL demanding an "answer"!? There is no pleasing you.

I think this is where, per your own custom, I get to LOL. But I won't. It's degrading.

 

Ah, a new line of attack--the covid vaccine is unnecessary. How about you describe the likely economic impact of large numbers of unvaccinated people spreading covid?

They catch and spread covid much less. Many times less.

Without the vaccinated, covid would be much worse. The hospital system would have been overwhelmed unless dramatic stay-at-home measures had been adopted. You're going on a free ride on the vaccinated.

Younger vaccinated can take more chances without becoming someone likely to catch and spread covid.

From covid? Not great, but there is a risk of long covid and organ damage. The risk associated with the vaccines is less.

 

You cannot make any claims on long term effects. You and I just don't know. Those that know the most are the developers and they put a "take at your own risk" disclaimer on the product. I do know the long term effects of avoiding products from the pharm industry.

On the issue of stay at home orders, Los Angeles is an example of how strict mandates do not result in fewer cases. Government has no business forcing people to stay home or to give birth.

 

Man, that's a lot of poetic words trying to hide a simple fact that some people would rather kill an unborn baby than take responsibility for their actions. All under the mask of caring about women's rights. It's so easy not to conceive a baby if you don't want it, so I don't understand why somebody would do it. Unless they are human waste who spend most of their life under the influence of substances.

 

It's based off of the same principle as is being used to argue against abortion; the right to life. The thing is, no right is absolute, not even the right to life. While every effort should be made to uphold it, as with other rights, when the exercise of one right violates the right of another, then the first right is no longer in effect. Such is why we have freedom of speech, but are not allowed slander/libel.

We can easily shift that up a bit to make it more analogous. You initially volunteered. Is it your position that you cannot withdraw that consent at any time? Say it is having more of a negative effect on you than you anticipated, but still is not a hazard to your life or health

The intent of that was to denote the occurrence of an event that you were not trying to have happen, but I do concede that it was not well presented. By the above I have to presume then that you are of the anti-abortion party that makes an exception for rape. Sadly there is an entire faction that won't even make that exception, or even one if the woman is in threat of death or permanent injury.

The imminent part was based on Bluesguy's insistence that only IMMINENT(sic) death or serious injury is justification for killing another. So when looking at that logic, even at the involuntary taking of your body for the human blood filter still means that you cannot disconnect because you are not under such an IMMINENT(sic) threat.

But more to point, I am not conceding that it is morally okay to do that anymore than it is morally ok for a ZEF to use a woman's body, against her will, even if it doesn't cause imminent death or serious injury. I DO consider it morally okay if both of us consent to the procedure.

Is that a question with regards to the hypothetical? If so then you are changing the parameters of the hypothetical.

 

Ignorance can be corrected. If you can't explain it then say so. If you can, and correct the ignorance, then do so.

 

Please tell me that this was not intentional. If not, allow me to suggest using the @ feature. It will allow you select a poster with just a few letters following the @ symbol.

Is this the post in questions that was meant to be a response to one of mine?

Please show me where I am questioning this of you. Maybe you are thinking of @FoxHastings ?

 

You're the one who tried to use the argument that not being able to get a SSN meant the ZEF was not a person/being/whatever.

 

I don't believe that I have run across this particular slang before. Eludicate?

 

That's the medical average, not the legal standard. In fact several different states are trying to make different standards of which week viability takes place.

If you can't understand a parallel to show that not all individuals develop at the same rate and thus some ZEF's may be viable earlier than 23 weeks and some later than 24 weeks, then I can't help you. Do you some something that says 100% of all ZEF's are absolutely viable by 24 weeks? I noticed that you also avoided addressing the statistics I provided. At 23-24 weeks the risk of death is just below 50%, which means that the remaining portion is not actually viable.

Premature babies (preemies) are babies born before week 37

So if preemies require extraordinary means to survive, and viability is the ability to survive outside the womb, is the requirement of medical intervention and technology to survive part of being viable? If so then cannot viability occur even earlier than 23-24 week as medical technology and knowledge grows?

 

What is the distinction you are claiming? Can a baby left to own their own survive or does someone else have to provide them them with nutrition and water and protection from the elements?

 

By that logic, a baby that has gone the full 40 weeks of gestation is not viable either.

 

There is a risk.

There are far too many variables for you to be able to make this claim.

 

So what, the viability argument is not mine it's yours, I don't have to justify this viability you do. Defend your own argument.

So how about by that logic a logical response.

So if a baby is born and placed on a table and no "artifical" means are used to support it, no one feeds it or provides it water it's all on it's own, and you come back a week later how viable would it have been?

Not very in fact the baby would be dead. In fact for the next several years the same result would occur.

So does the viability argument justify a mother killing her year own baby because it is not viable to live on it's own without someone providing nourishment, water and protection from the elements?

 

A word or two on your sig:


"The Democrat party promises pie in the sky but delivers dung on the sidewalk."

Obama and Biden gave me affordable health care at a time in my life I couldn't afford it. .

Biden's rescue plan rescued my business with a PPP loan, which was forgiven, got me through the thick of it.

Biden's infrastructure plan is historic, and Trump tried for four years and couldn't get it done.

Socialism = Trickle down poverty

There are no socialists in the Democratic Party. True socialists are members of the Socialist Party.

If you ask a true socialist as to whether or not a democratic socialist is a socialist, they will tell you they are compassionate capitalists, which is, indeed, what they are. They are capitalists who don't like the term. What they are are
'social democrats', but Bernie had to change it, for some stupid reason.

 

I am responding to some 50 comments every which way and I can't keep track of it all. When you mention anything, be specific IN your comment.

Is that too much to ask?

 

No and I made it specific where is abortion in the Constitution?

You made the claim.

 

You fail to understand, that once you make exceptions. You lose. Right from the start that one large loophole is going to have expensive and devastating consequences even IF abortion were ever outlawed.
Why would a woman not lie now and claim rape everytime to get the procedure? Whats one more life destroyed, in the pursuit of happiness?

3 scenarios will unfold with republicans failed abortion policies.
A. woman goes to jail for lying, baby goes in the system, now we gotta fund more welfare programs.
B. An innocent man goes to jail, and a baby is still killed.
C. Some republicans feel justified in tightening their grasp on woman's freedoms, they lose even more female votes.

Its a stupid stance, and its costing you votes on more serious matters. Let it go, it would do your party some good.

 

Some folks post three pages per post of some one else's work by "copy and paste" and they can't keep track of it all. Most post could be a few simple sentences or paragraphs ..Is that too much to ask?

 

Since that is not my argument on the overall topic, I have no need to defend it. My point and position on bodily autonomy holds consistent whether the violator of the woman's (or any person's really) bodily autonomy is born or unborn.

 

Same with making proper use of the quote function.

 

I wasn't quoting.

 

A short response to wall on sonsese. The constitution guarantees that those things not found in the constitution are then reserved to either the states, or the individual. The concept was bastardized in Roe when the equal protection clause was used to determine that suddenly, when not engaged with the commerce clause, medical treatment in the various states was something the federal court system could apply to ensure that equal access to a decision made by an individual in a state that does have the constitutional right and obligation to regulate within it's borders could not differ. The argument, in and of itself is unconstitutional. As that was explicitly covered by the framers to not allow that power to the federal government. Simply put, the prerogative of the federal state does NOT extend to the liberty or the decisions of the individual, and the individual states are by design allowed to regulate medical services in the manner they desire because it is, by definition, not interstate commerce.

Which is why this type of initiative might only ever be accomplished by amending the constitution to include a protection not otherwise written. And should the assembled states or by ballot box, this could have been added to the constitution. That is structurally how this should/could have been handled. This isn't a question that a simple majority of the court should choose for the nation.

 

I wasn't talking about you with that, but merely bouncing off your post.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Are you going to answer my question?

You claim a man has a "say" in pregnancy...

What if he "says" have an abortion.

Despite your attempt , you can't dazzle me with BS...

What does that have to do with the post of mine you quoted?

Nothing.

None of what you are talking about applies to, or is related to, my post.