Should Abortion Be Legal?

Applesauce

Dee said:

@Applesauce

You say ......very simple really human life > all  generally speaking

1 My reply .....You dodged , I asked why the implied right of the fetus trumps the right of the woman?

You say ......rights come into conflict all the time and someone will have their rights while the other will not if they both can't be accommodated.
really this is very simple.

2 My reply .....But in this case you wish to deny someone as in the woman their right to bodily autonomy , really it’s very simple 

You say .....no matter what right you claim to have none of them gives you the right to murder another human (self defense is not murder so don't bother trying that nonsense)

3 My reply .....It’s not murder , why aren’t women who abort given life imprisonment for murder if that’s the case?

You say .....we have property rights, true?  Look up some cases where people used deadly force to protect their property rather than self defense.
I'll give you some help  https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/protection-of-property

4 My reply ......I’m not talking about property do try and keep up will you. It’s you need all the help you can get.

You say ....."It is important to remember that deadly force can never be used simply to defend property against someone else’s interference with that property, even if that interference is unlawful and even if there is no other way to prevent that interference."

My reply .....Why are you bleating on about property rights?

You say ......when it comes to the death/killing of another human being only the right to self defense matters, no other rights you think you have matter.

5 My reply .....Thanks for your opinion is that your argument?

You say ....this is why no one wants to define a time when a baby is a baby or human, that should be obvious now if it wasn't already. 

My reply ....What should be obvious?

1 didn't dodge at all, you didn't read everything I wrote, or didn't understand it.
2 I've explained about what happens when rights conflict
3 I never said it was murder and that has yet to be determined/decided
4 if a fetus or what you want to abort isn't property to you, then what is it?
5 not opinion, it's the law you have a lot to learn

let me see if I can explain this in a way you can understand.

it is wrong to murder a human/person, you'd agree with that, correct?  I mean the laws are pretty clear on the matter, are they not?
IF the supreme court, law, determines a baby is a baby at let's say 28 weeks then to kill it would be murder according to the law, wouldn't it?
Currently those who support late term abortions do not want the court or law to rule that a baby is baby any time before 9 months so they can kill it if they wish.
are you with me so far?
the newest anti abortion laws are designed to force the supreme court to settle this issue once and for all.

if you'd like to try and argue that a baby isn't a human or a person feel free to try.

John_C_87

Plaffelvohfen said:

@RyanHoug

If abortion is not Murder than Killing a pregnant woman should be not 2 but 1 count of manslaughter.

This is only true in some states, so it's not really a valid argument in regard to abortion in itself, no? If it was true everywhere ok but it's not... 

It is true in every state. The arguments of truth does not hold a united state in the ability to assemble a strong removal of reasonable doubt in pursuit of criminal trial. Abortion is a description of a crime by use of admission in guilt with every state. This admission is a united state as truth because every state shares an alibi for the crime as a common defense.

In basic principle we do not need to all share an alibi of the official stop of life, the alibi also is a contradiction which states the original admission was just a lie. A woman is not in control as a assault took place that now threatens her life. Look at the basic principle not the law, the law has been written with a admission witten into it.

Applesauce

@Plaffelvohfen
giving birth

pregnancy is a sexually transmitted disease that is always fatal

But what is your view on the bodily autonomy principle?

< life

as I said, protecting life from being taken trumps all other rights generally speaking.

specifically what I'm talking about is the active,knowingly,willful murder because of inconvenience, desire or any other non self defense claim.  Society has decided this is wrong and has implemented laws accordingly for murder.

need someone else's body parts to live

a child needs to be fed and food made for them just to name a few things for which they need other's body parts to live, should allowing a child starve to death be legal because it might be annoying or inconvenient to feed them?  or is bodily autonomy selective, some instances you have it and some you don't?

this is why if a definition for life/person/human is ever decided things will chance.

I do appreciate your questions.

Plaffelvohfen

@Applesauce

It's not "willful murder"... I will agree that it ends a life, but a fetus is not legally a person and you can only murder persons... Laws that imply so, are deeply flawed and open up avenues for aberrations where a pregnant woman in a car accident in New York  or one who gave birth to a stillborn in Indiana can be charged (it happened...) with manslaughter...  In fact, a fetus need not die for the state to charge a pregnant woman with a crime. Women who fell down the stairs, who ate a poppy seed bagel and failed a drug test or who took legal drugs during pregnancy — drugs prescribed by their doctors — all have been accused of endangering their children.

These laws downgrade women to 2nd class citizens with less rights than others...

I'm perfectly fine with saying that life begins at conception, and I agree that abortions are sad occurrences, mostly to the woman interrupting her pregnancy as it is never without consequences... I also agree that reducing the number of abortions is a noble goal, but it does not warrant making it illegal... People die, that is what they do, there is no escaping that fact... Whether life is worth living or not is an opinion, not a fact really... 

It's a very emotional issue understandably, but emotions should not be involved when establishing laws... 

Dee

@Applesauce


You say .....

1 didn't dodge at all, you didn't read everything I wrote, or didn't understand it.

My reply .....You did , I specifically asked why should any implied rights of the fetus trump those of the woman?

You say ....
2 I've explained about what happens when rights conflict

My reply .....I didn’t ask for your opinion on property rights 

You say .
3 I never said it was murder and that has yet to be determined/decided

My reply.......Yet you keep mentioning murder 

You say
4.....if a fetus or what you want to abort isn't property to you, then what is it?

My reply .....What are you talking about?


You say .5

not opinion, it's the law you have a lot to learn

My reply .....What’s the law and where , I have a lot to learn about what exactly?

You say .....let me see if I can explain this in a way you can understand.

My reply ....Maybe you should get help as you think property rights  have something to do with abortion , I don’t think anyone understands you to be honest 

You say .....Is it is wrong to murder a human/person, you'd agree with that, correct?  I mean the laws are pretty clear on the matter, are they not?

My reply ...Murder is the illegal premeditated taking of another humans life I see the wrongness of murder 

You say .....supreme court, law, determines a baby is a baby at let's say 28 weeks then to kill it would be murder according to the law, wouldn't it?

My reply .....Has the Supreme Court determined this?


You say ......Currently those who support late term abortions do not want the court or law to rule that a baby is baby any time before 9 months so they can kill it if they wish.
are you with me so far?
the newest anti abortion laws are designed to force the supreme court to settle this issue once and for all.

My reply ......I don’t really care what courts say or do I’m a firm believer in each individual woman having the right to choose are you with me so far? 

You say ......If you'd like to try and argue that a baby isn't a human or a person feel free to try. 

My reply .....Whether it’s “human “ or not is immaterial to my argument , if you think a fetus is a person you need to consult a dictionary 

Applesauce

@Plaffelvohfen

fetus is not legally a person and you can only murder persons

I haven't said one way or the other except to make a point or for arguments sake

Laws that imply so, are deeply flawed

they are trying to force the supreme court to make that determination one way or the other

I'm perfectly fine with saying that life begins at conception

so the value you put on a human life is subjective and can have virtually no value and that the life of a baby is "downgrade to 2nd class citizens with less rights than" a mother's feelings.  or am I misinterpreting what you are saying?

People die, that is what they do

no one is arguing that point, that isn't murder

It's a very emotional issue understandably, but emotions should not be involved when establishing laws.

think about what you just wrote there.............if women want non life threatening abortions then what  do they want them for other than for emotional reasons?  the abortions laws have been established for emotional reasons, if you believe what you wrote you should be anti-abortion, you couldn't be anything else.

Plaffelvohfen

@Applesauce

As an add-on, you wrote : as I said, protecting life from being taken trumps all other rights generally speaking.

So you allow for exceptions? Which might they be?

Applesauce

@Dee
Murder is the illegal premeditated taking of another humans life I see the wrongness of murder 
I don’t really care what courts say or do I’m a firm believer in each individual woman having the right to choose are you with me so far? 
Whether it’s “human “ or not is immaterial to my argument

you agree murder is wrong and yet if the court has ruled that a fetus becomes a baby at 28 weeks then you "don't really care what the courts say or do" because each individual woman has a right to..... murder?

you can't murder a non human it is 100% material, you contradict yourself perhaps you can clear that up.

 if you think a fetus is a person you need to consult a dictionary 

what I think is irrelevant to anyone else but me personally, if the court rules the that will be that.

Applesauce

@Plaffelvohfen

I don't allow but acknowledge there could be exceptions, death penalty comes to mind can't think of any others really, I'm not saying there aren't any it's just I can't think of any.  I never want to come across as I know everything because I don't and I'm always open to the possibility someone will show me an exception or something I didn't know or wasn't aware of.  So I feel the need to qualify my statements in such a manner as to leave open the possibility that I could be wrong, mistaken, not fully informed etc.

Dee

@Applesauce

You say .....

you agree murder is wrong and yet if the court has ruled that a fetus becomes a baby at 28 weeks

My reply .....If the courts rule that a fetus becomes a baby at 28 weeks that’s what they will agree now you’re assuming that they will also say that to abort then is murder? 

You say .......then you "don't really care what the courts say or do" because each individual woman has a right to..... murder?

My reply .....No each  woman has the right to abort , 

You say .....you can't murder a non human it is 100% material,

My reply .....There you go with your murder argument again which you keep saying you’re not doing , why aren’t women who abort serving life for murder? 

You say .....You  contradict yourself perhaps you can clear that up.

My reply .....I haven’t contradicted myself at all

 You say ......what I think is irrelevant to anyone else but me personally, if the court rules the that will be that.

My reply ......So if the court says slavery is right you’d agree .....Wow !

BTW I’ve asked 5 times now and you refuse to answer......let’s try again ......Why should any implied rights of a fetus rights to life trump those of a woman’s right to abort? 

Plaffelvohfen

Applesauce said:

@Plaffelvohfen

so the value you put on a human life is subjective and can have virtually no value and that the life of a baby is "downgrade to 2nd class citizens with less rights than" a mother's feelings.  or am I misinterpreting what you are saying?

Of course it's subjective, every individual has is own sets of value regarding human life... The fact that the majority give it high value doesn't impact it's subjective nature... But yes, I do value a born individual's life far above an unborn one. 

There are a few problems when you write : " the life of a baby is downgrade to 2nd class citizens with less rights than a mother's feelings. "

1st, feelings have no rights, what are you saying?? 

And a fetus is not a baby, it might be one eventually but it's not one while in the womb, while in there it's a fetus... But it's a known tactic used to misrepresent the nature of the fetus to appeal to emotions... A caterpillar is not a butterfly, it might be one eventually but it's not one yet... 

if women want non life threatening abortions then what do they want them for other than for emotional reasons?  the abortions laws have been established for emotional reasons, if you believe what you wrote you should be anti-abortion, you couldn't be anything else.

Are you saying that wanting non life threatening surgery is an emotional reason??? Ahem....Safety reasons maybe? You know, the "non-life threatening" part was a good clue imo...

There are practical reasons, economical reasons, quality of life reasons, and a lot of other reasons I guess... Abortion laws were not pass for emotional reasons but for safety and individual freedom reasons...

You know, if I was a woman and got pregnant I don't think I'd chose abortion personally, but never would I dare to presume I have the right to tell anyone that they, don't have the right to make that choice for themselves, they are the one who'll live with the consequences after all, not me... 

Applesauce

@Dee

why aren’t women who abort serving life for murder? 

if you can decipher what John_C_87 is saying, he explains it best, in essence what he is saying it's a crime that goes unreported, can't be reported and doesn't have to be admitted to HIPPA plays a role in that as does the right to not confess to a crime, if a woman is taken to court and asked if she had an abortion she doesn't have to answer, if the doctor is taken in he doesn't have to answer either etc etc  at least I think that's what he is saying, it can be difficult to decipher what he says.

If the courts rule that a fetus becomes a baby at 28 weeks that’s what they will agree now you’re assuming that they will also say that to abort then is murder? 

if it is determine to be a baby/person/human and you kill it, how is that not murder?  how does that differ from killing any other person?  what makes it different?

Why should any implied rights of a fetus rights to life trump those of a woman’s right to abort? 

I've answered it several times, I'll try a different way
We agree murder is bad, so if at 28 weeks it is a baby/person then to kill it is murder and it is bad, to not murder/kill it inconvenience or causes some kind of emotional distress to the woman, so the life of a baby/human is more important than feelings and you have to pick one or the other in this circumstance, which is more important feelings or protecting, not killing/murder a baby/person/human?  you seem to value feelings more than human life which the courts do not and would not if a ruling came down that at 28 weeks it was a baby/person/human.

John_C_87

Applesauce said:

not if I didn't cause your condition, your condition is causing your death and I'm letting you die by not giving you a kidney, still not murder

you did not put that person in their predicament that is true, you have no obligation.

let's say this person managed to grab a rope, your rope, you would not be justified in cutting it or taking it way such that it would cause their death, right?  Because their right to life is > property, inconvenience, pretty much everything else.  Do you agree that it should be that way?  You steal my hat should I be able to shoot you in the back as you run away to get my hat back?
there is no higher value placed on anything that I can think of than a human life, do you disagree?

The woman plans then causes the same death continually every month by refusing of sexual intercourse. The issue is to create all woman as equal so they may defense the united States Constitution accordingly, a woman who is married and a woman who is not married have some clear inequalities as the marriage license gives a woman and her a union of vital information in timely remedy. also understand when a woman was voted into the Armed Services of the united states Civil service it was done with the clear understanding that rape was now added as a weapon of war not just a violation of civil law. 

Applesauce

@Plaffelvohfen

the minimum value of a human life is that you can't unjustly take it, aka murder, that is not subjective, unless you want to get philosophical then we might agree life is pointless so nothing really matters anyway.

 feelings have no rights

not compared to the right to life, the law does not protect you from me hurting your feelings, but it does protect you from me hurting your body

And a fetus is not a baby

I'm not arguing one way or the other, this was based on a assumption of how the court may rule and if they ruled a certain way what might happen.

Are you saying that wanting non life threatening surgery is an emotional reason?

give me non emotional reasons then, btw "safety" is a feeling, emotion

Abortion laws were not pass for emotional reasons but for safety and individual freedom reasons

yeah, um no, I believe they were passed for emotional reasons, freedom?  you mean so they could feel free?

don't have the right to make that choice for themselves, they are the one who'll live with the consequences after all

but again based on the assumption I have explained she is making a decision to kill/murder which she does not have the right to do and yes we all live with consequences for events we create and ones we don't

Applesauce

@John_C_87

"The woman plans then causes the same death continually every month by refusing of sexual intercourse."

the genetics of conception are unique and potential to become a human being, an unfertilized egg does not, the deaths are not the same at all, you are factually incorrect.

Plaffelvohfen

@Applesauce

The reason why the government can and must enforce laws against murder of members of their society is because murder of a member is disruptive to society, and that's the sole purpose of the Law and the government, to insure order in society... Not because something is ultimately right or ultimately wrong, governments don't deal in what's right or wrong, philosophy and faith do, but both philosophy and faith are personal in ways no other things are, right? You wouldn't want the government to impose a particular belief on you, right? 

The only valid rationale for being against the right to abortion, from a government stand point, would be to try and demonstrate factually, that abortion is disruptive to society, in what ways and to which extent compared to other disruptive occurrences, unless you live in a theocracy...

Then there might be grounds for something... Otherwise, it's a private matter between the pregnant woman and her own conscience or her god if she fancies one, no one else...

Dee

@Applesauce

You say .....

if you can decipher what John_C_87 is saying, he explains it best,

My reply .....I can decipher nothing he says the man is unhinged 


You say .......in essence what he is saying it's a crime that goes unreported,

My reply .....It’s not a crime where I live where are you talking about what country?

You say .....can't be reported and doesn't have to be admitted to HIPPA plays a role in that as does the right to not confess to a crime,

You say .....If it was legally a crime it would and could be reported as happened in times  past  

You say .....if a woman is taken to court and asked if she had an abortion she doesn't have to answer, if the doctor is taken in he doesn't have to answer either etc etc  at least I think that's what he is saying, it can be difficult to decipher what he says.

My reply .....She does have to answer if it is a crime in your society also a doctor who carries out abortions illegally would lose his job 

You say .....If the courts rule that a fetus becomes a baby at 28 weeks that’s what they will agree now you’re assuming that they will also say that to abort then is murder? 

My reply .....If the courts rule Blacks are to be given second class citizens rights would you agree with the courts if not why not?

You say ......if it is determine to be a baby/person/human and you kill it, how is that not murder?  how does that differ from killing any other person?  what makes it different?

My reply .....All you ask is If ,If questions .....the courts have decided so far it’s not murder so do you agree then it’s not murder if not why not?


You say ......I've answered it several times, I'll try a different way

My reply .....You haven’t 

You say ......We agree murder is bad,

My reply .....You keep saying you’re not saying women who abort are murderers yet here you go again saying they are , do you want women who abort given 25 year jail sentences For murdering a baby if not why not?

You say.........so if at 28 weeks it is a baby/person

My reply .....It’s not a baby , newborn or infant refers to a baby from birth to two months , I also note you’re now saying an unborn is a wait for it ......person .....oh dear 

You say.....then to kill it is murder and it is bad, to not murder/kill it inconvenience or causes some kind of emotional distress to the woman, so the life of a baby/human is more important than feelings and you have to pick one or the other in this circumstance, which is more important feelings or protecting, not killing/murder a baby/person/human?

My reply .....So the woman is a murderer and she is also not entitled to bodily autonomy because “ hey it’s only her feelings “ after all 

 You say ...... you seem to value feelings more than human life which the courts do not or could not if a ruling came down that at 28 weeks it was a baby/person/human.

My reply .....You seem to value the feelings of a fetus  more than the quality of a woman’s life , so you do agree the fetus should be granted a right  and  a woman’s should be denied a right , Also you do agree women should be jailed for murder of a baby the sentence for murdering a baby  is around 25 years in most countries 


Your whole argument is If the courts do this then it would be murder but the courts cannot at the moment so in your mind is it not murder? Do you need someone else to tell you how to think?

Applesauce

@Plaffelvohfen

murder of a member is disruptive to society,

you do know that a high percentage of women who get abortions are black right?  Imo this is why some are in favor of even late term, to keep their population numbers down.  seems rather disruptive to society

At some point the baby will have to be delivered because of size either naturally or c-section, when a baby is that large can you explain why it should be killed rather than born and if it survives given up for adoption, because it's coming out one of those 2 ways, given that fact delivering it alive solves the problem of making the woman not pregnant anymore right?  so in these instances the choices are, give birth to a live baby, kill it in utero and give birth to a dead baby, there's no escaping those facts, since the desire (feelings) is the woman doesn't want to be pregnant there is no need to kill the baby, just induced or whatever manner is used to make her not pregnant which fulfills her desires.  then there's the whole partial birth abortions which do happen.
How about the babies who are delivered alive because the procedure they used to kill the baby didn't work?  she delivered, she's not pregnant anymore, still kill the baby?

John_C_87

Applesauce said:

@John_C_87

"The woman plans then causes the same death continually every month by refusing of sexual intercourse."

the genetics of conception are unique and potential to become a human being, an unfertilized egg does not, the deaths are not the same at all, you are factually incorrect.

A planned in advance death. The basic principle you support is the official stop of what will be a life. Stage one creation of human egg and sperm. Stage two the exertion of life by introduction of egg to sperm.  This is your united state. Woman do not admit by public declaration they are having an pregnancy abortion by not taking part in sexual intercourse as a united state. This whole truth can change. Female specific amputation can be proven to be a pregnancy abortion it is not a united state with admission of guilt.

John_C_87

Do all living things have DNA?

Plaffelvohfen

@Applesauce

you do know that a high percentage of women who get abortions are black right?  Imo this is why some are in favor of even late term, to keep their population numbers down.  seems rather disruptive to society

This only confirms that racism is disruptive, not abortion itself... 

And again, the only valid rationale for being against the right to abortion, from a government (thus legal) stand point, would be to try and demonstrate factually, that abortion is disruptive to society, in what ways and to which extent compared to other disruptive occurrences, unless you live in a theocracy...

So far you told me that racism is disruptive and I agree...

Applesauce

John_C_87 said:

Do all living things have DNA?

you are just being pedantic
does an unfertilized egg have unique dna than the woman?  no
does a fertilized egg have unique dna than the woman?        Yes

one is unique the other is not.

Applesauce

@Plaffelvohfen

you seemed to selectively ignored the 2nd part and biggest part of my post, are you going to answer the question?

Plaffelvohfen

Applesauce said:

@Plaffelvohfen

you seemed to selectively ignored the 2nd part and biggest part of my post, are you going to answer the question?

I will... Although if you say that it's your biggest point, it's really weak because it's anecdotal occurrences, you're talking about extremely rare cases which have very little to do with the principle... The overwhelming majority of abortion happen early in the pregnancy, the earlier it happens, the less traumatic it is for the woman so early abortion should be encouraged...

So, your question: How about the babies who are delivered alive because the procedure they used to kill the baby didn't work?

At this point, if the government want to take charge of everything regarding the well-being of this newborn from then on, it's all good, by all means go ahead and have the government take charge and assume parenthood... As soon as the fetus leaves the body of the woman, she is liberated from the burden of the pregnancy and should not be involved in any other decision regarding this newborn, she already gave up parental rights anyway by going through with the abortion procedure, so I don't see any problems with the government taking charge and responsibility from then on, because at this point we're not talking about abortion anymore...  

Applesauce

@Plaffelvohfen

you're talking about extremely rare cases which have very little to do with the principle... 
So, your question: How about the babies who are delivered alive because the procedure they used to kill the baby didn't work?

and or could be born alive, if the baby is at a gestational age where it is very likely to survive even if born early, should the woman be induced, given a c-section, made non pregnant by delivery which then removes any need to kill the baby right?  The baby will be of a size that it must come out vaginally or if that's not possible c-section.  The baby will exit the woman either vaginally or c-section making the woman non pregnant, does it matter if the baby is born alive or if it is killed first?
why would there be a need to kill it in this scenario?

Plaffelvohfen

@Applesauce

As long as the fetus is in the womb, only the mother's decision matters... At this point, it still doesn't warrant government involvement... The judgment call is the prerogative of the pregnant woman alone, even at this point whether you like it or not...

There is a really good case to be made in favoring early stage abortion over late terms ones because the later the procedure take place, the more traumatic and the more risky it will be for the woman... As a health concern, everything should be done to facilitate early stage abortion, the earlier the better... 

Applesauce

@Plaffelvohfen

I think killing when it isn't necessary, causing horrific pain and brutality to another living thing, only to satisfy some emotional, feeling reason is repugnant and barbaric, clearly we do not have any common ground because I can not be so cold, unfeeling and callous as to approve such treatment of any living thing just to satisfy someone's feelings of inconvenience.  I have nothing further to say.

Plaffelvohfen

@Applesauce

Remember, the question was "Should abortion be legal"... Not "Is abortion intrinsically wrong"...  I'm only addressing the grounds for legality, nothing else...

I think killing when it isn't necessary, causing horrific pain and brutality to another living thing, only to satisfy some emotional, feeling reason is repugnant and barbaric, clearly we do not have any common ground because I can not be so cold, unfeeling and callous as to approve such treatment of any living thing just to satisfy someone's feelings of inconvenience. 

And you are certainly entitled to this opinion, but that's all that is, an opinion...

I have nothing further to say.

So, you concede then, ok!

Applesauce

@Plaffelvohfen

I understand, but there are laws against animal cruelty for example, there are standards as a civil society that we set forth and enforce as to how living things can and should be treated, late term abortion is inconsistent with those standards and laws.  There are penalties for pregnant women who do drugs while pregnant, then there's the whole issue if someone else causes the death of the baby. Trying to have it both ways is inconsistent. 

If the end desired result is achieved without the need to cause death then that death is optional,not needed, unnecessary to the end goal, and therefore should not be allowed in a civil society.  I don't believe there is any rational argument against that just some selfish or irrational, emotional reasons.

(nice edit after my reply, there is nothing to concede, since you chose to be childish when i thought we were having an adult conversation you can go fk yourself)

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;

In basic principle of the common defense to the general welfare Pregnancy Termination is made clear. Woman have been placed into the Armed Civil Service by legislation with their own action set as a united state speaking for all woman.  “All woman have been created equal by their creator.” This is a form of legal Precedent.

This sets a way to now include all woman in methods in which they may be all created as equal. United in State. This includes the admission of Pregnancy abortion. Married, unwed, sexually promiscuous, individual physical training for preparation for pregnancy or pregnancies, and uninterested in sexual reproduction or condition for child labor.

The creation of all woman as equal includes as a citizen of these United States of America as nation we take part in the death of every soldier, who is murdered, who must be sent after birth to combat, to help keep combat from us. We take part in every single one of the deaths equally no exception.

As far as woman's body autonomy? It was forfeit when voted into the Congressional Armed Civil service. The burden of rape was expressed and acknowledge as a weapon which can be brought to bear apron a woman. Sex has been use on men who are or have been placed in armed services the danger in basic principle has not change, sexual disease and parenting of foregone nationals.

Plaffelvohfen

@Applesauce

I understand, but there are laws against animal cruelty for example, there are standards as a civil society that we set forth and enforce as to how living things can and should be treated, late term abortion is inconsistent with those standards and laws. 

Then the question becomes: How can we reduce the number of late term abortions...  This is a different question, and a very good one too, here there is probably room for legislation but not in the way you'd think...

There are penalties for pregnant women who do drugs while pregnant, then there's the whole issue if someone else causes the death of the baby. Trying to have it both ways is inconsistent. 

These occurrences are state specific and are thus irrelevant to the question... We're talking Federal level here (The question is should abortion be legal in the US, not in state X or Y...) and the SCOTUS has the power to overrule state laws if those laws are found to be unconstitutional so it's really at the federal level that it matters...

We can discuss those state laws separately, as there are some of those laws that I would support, depending on the intent and wording of those laws... Meaning, I can support legislation that intends to reduce the number of late term abortions or that puts criminal penalties to actions that cause death of fetuses (yes, while in the womb, at any stage), but the rationale for this support of mine isn't grounded in the alleged sanctity of life dogma and is consistent with my stance on the right to abortion...   

PS: I was editing while you were responding, I had no way of knowing you were typing at that same moment...

Applesauce

@Plaffelvohfen
depending on the intent and wording of those laws

your claim that anti murder laws were made to prevent disruption in society I don't believe is true since many laws in the U.S. were based on religious practice and teachings.  The determination that murder is wrong came long before modern society and laws.  The view of murder is based on the opinion that human life is one the highest levels of importance.  This is as it was from long ago which has been carried forth for centuries.  I believe this is evident that slavery was abolished.  The objection to slavery was at it's very core that human life is important because until that point slavery was legal and normal.  Why is murder a disruption to society?  Because people have but a high value on human life.  The value came first and not because of some practical matter.
Laws reflect values, what is valued and how important it is.
state laws do differ, but most Federal laws do not, punishment can also differ, but murder being a crime does not.

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;

1: Granting a fetus more rights to other people's body part than any born person.

In whole truth, basic principle, and legal precedent the idea created in united state with all woman, both baby and mother are to be made a slave. Female specific amputation is not Pregnancy Abortion, a American state in the constitutional union is at liberty to provide impartial separation. Not guidance made to admission of guilt from united confession of all woman held equal. Roe Vs wade did not approve abortion it describe a united state that all woman had been created equal around that was not whole truth, in order to provide tranquility this mistake must be addressed.

John_C_87

Applesauce said:

John_C_87 said:

Do all living things have DNA?

you are just being pedantic
does an unfertilized egg have unique dna than the woman?  no
does a fertilized egg have unique dna than the woman?        Yes

one is unique the other is not.

Okay, so you admit DNA can be changed in living human life both naturally and by science.

you are just being pedantic Who do you believe I am trying to impress? I made it clear I do not want to participate in a united state created around a woman's admission of guilt to described murder. That you and others are smarter then me and got away with it for so long. Does not change the impact of my refusal to take part once the issue was understood by me.

Plaffelvohfen

Applesauce said:

@Plaffelvohfen
depending on the intent and wording of those laws

your claim that anti murder laws were made to prevent disruption in society I don't believe is true since many laws in the U.S. were based on religious practice and teachings.  The determination that murder is wrong came long before modern society and laws.  The view of murder is based on the opinion that human life is one the highest levels of importance.  This is as it was from long ago which has been carried forth for centuries.  I believe this is evident that slavery was abolished.  The objection to slavery was at it's very core that human life is important because until that point slavery was legal and normal.  Why is murder a disruption to society?  Because people have but a high value on human life.  The value came first and not because of some practical matter.
Laws reflect values, what is valued and how important it is.
state laws do differ, but most Federal laws do not, punishment can also differ, but murder being a crime does not.

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, it's a fact... The fact that some religious practice and teaching correspond to secular laws is only coincidental... It just happens that some things that are deemed immoral are also disruptive to society. 

Saying that governments hold the opinion that human life is one the highest levels of importance, is factually false... 

Need a proof that government don't find murder to be intrinsically bad, many still uphold the Death Penalty, which is nothing but state sponsored murder... And it's even worst than abortion since the person executed has full conscience and moral agency whereas fetuses do not have either... A government that actually hold this opinion (that life is of the highest importance) would never engage in wars, drone bombings, nuke dropping, etc, and certainly not death penalty...

The actual basis for objecting to slavery is a question of human rights, and human rights only apply to born persons... It's not a question of a "right to live" but a right to freedom...

I'm not saying you should like abortion, no one should force you to have an abortion if you don't want to, it's between you and your conscience or your god if you fancy one...

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;

Need a proof that government don't find murder to be intrinsically bad, many still uphold the Death Penalty, which is nothing but state sponsored murder... And it's even worst than abortion since the person executed has full conscience and moral agency whereas fetuses do not have either... A government that actually hold this opinion (that life is of the highest importance) would never engage in wars, drone bombings, nuke dropping, etc, and certainly not death penalty...

It is better said that death does not hold a united state as murder even when planned. In Constitution the state of the union rests on whole truth. 

Applesauce

@Plaffelvohfen

Need a proof that government don't find murder to be intrinsically bad, many still uphold the Death Penalty, which is nothing but state sponsored murder... And it's even worst than abortion since the person executed has full conscience and moral agency whereas fetuses do not have either... A government that actually hold this opinion (that life is of the highest importance) would never engage in wars, drone bombings, nuke dropping, etc, and certainly not death penalty...

that's not proof and here is why, a person facing the death penalty has had their rights revoked and or they have forfeited their rights because of their actions, your attempting to draw some kind of comparison between a murder and an innocent is absurd.  Our actions can forfeit our rights via laws and justice.
wars have to be justified and are justified in the same way as a self defense claim, they are suppose t be anyway.  while casualties happen wars are not suppose to be waged against the innocent so again not a valid comparison.

you have not proven that laws against murder are to prevent discord in society, I have given plenty of context and precedent to why that claim is incorrect, repeating your statements is not an argument and I've addressed your reasoning "that government don't find murder to be intrinsically bad"

Plaffelvohfen

@Applesauce

No you didn't, but that's ok... 

billbatard

@RyanHough this forum is not the "public " by the way https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

billbatard

AINT NOBODIES DIFFERENCE IF YOU DO

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;

A human kidney does not become a citizen of a nation. A woman can pick a process which may lengthen a life. The woman must then predict her ability to provide living services for that life over a timetable. The right to body autonomy is negated by united states for woman by the induction into Congressional armed civil service. This took place and has been approved as legal precedent. Though not combat the idea of death and sacrifice of life is addressed here by this admission made to serve in an elevated threat of operation. All woman has been created equal by their creator.

More importantly the woman has forfeited the right to body autonomy as when impregnated by enemy she is immediately treated as a casualty of war removing the means of her threat to life. In united state the promise by induction into an armed civil service is an acknowledgement to sacrifice of life to that civil service. Not just her life but the lives of those who are around her.

Pregnancy abortion cannot be used as a united state period. Woman have placed woman into the armed civil services. In a group which creates all woman as equal. Independence of every woman is not the only concern of the way a citizen in established by her any more. The admission of Pregnancy abortion is creating and independence that she is acting alone. She is not. In the position of civil service a civil war which is an act of War by an domestic enemy describes a woman's readiness to serve the United state in Constitution. Even if that united state is death in common defense of the general welfare.   

There are issues that America addresses by united state constitution which are being addressed internationally with nations which do not hold a united state by basic principle and legal precedent. This includes North Korea, China, and the Soviet Republic.

John_C_87

@billbatard ;
Asking for a pardon/immunity from the public is not acceptable as justification to create a legislated admission as common defense to the general welfare. We are addressing an issue that has global impact on a United State of Constitution. North Korea, China, and the Soviet Republic all also address a woman's united state in their civil serves.

John_C_87

What concerns me the most about pregnancy abortion over the years of debate is the relationship in united state between the accusation of rape as a justification the admitting a confessed murder. The united state these two issues share with the pregnancy is they occur after sexual activity has ended.

In basic principle as united state all woman in truth stop immigration into the United States of America. Any woman in the world is simple doing likewise as a united state by basic principle. This in truth creates all woman as equal the female specific amputation is not an abortion is, the medical process was an official end to an abortion made on the women’s ovulation. The end of ovulation in truth is the reason for the immigration of person into the United States of America.

Death of the egg a woman holds can be held equal to immigration as she is simply stopping the process of entry into the united states. Time tables around the allowance by constitutional application can be much more effective in a common defense to the general welfare of all people.

All men are created equal by their creator.

Al woman are created equal by their creator.

All people are created equal by their creator.

RyanHough

John_C_87 said:

@Plaffelvohfen ;

A human kidney does not become a citizen of a nation. A woman can pick a process which may lengthen a life. The woman must then predict her ability to provide living services for that life over a timetable. 

Hold up a human kidney is a part of a human. a Fetus is a human growing inside another human. It cant be compared to a Kidney. also, the woman can put the child up for adoption so she doesn't have to care for a baby she feels she will let down.

YeshuaBought

@RyanHough How very Christian of you to judge rape survivors. KMA!

YeshuaBought

Should Christians accuse rape survivors of playing the victim card? No, because what would Jesus do? The point I am trying to make as a survivor, is that prolifers should make exceptions for the mother, and that I am tired of other people feeling entitled to my body. I am very moderate on abortion, and call into question the false dichotomy, of prolife versus prochoice. I am somewhere in the middle. 

John_C_87

@RyanHough

RyanHough said:

John_C_87 said:

@Plaffelvohfen ;

A human kidney does not become a citizen of a nation. A woman can pick a process which may lengthen a life. The woman must then predict her ability to provide living services for that life over a timetable. 

Hold up a human kidney is a part of a human. a Fetus is a human growing inside another human. It cant be compared to a Kidney. also, the woman can put the child up for adoption so she doesn't have to care for a baby she feels she will let down.

A woman does not have to sponsor a new citizen on behalf of law or state. Adoption is not an alternative to pregnancy it is an alternative to undertaking parenting the child. Termination of the pregnancy is something which would need to be proven on its own merit without admission by a claim of abort. A woman is terminating an abortion on ovulation to insure domestic tranquility by illegal or legal entry into a Country.

This is a constitutional United State you are arguing a crime of sexual assault and it is not a united state with all woman in America, or in the world.

CheckerbordStrangler

Although in general I find abortion to be a horrific tragedy, I recognize that there are instances where it is the only rational option, such as in cases where the viability of the fetus is already seriously in question in terms of quality of life due to severe birth or genetic defects, or in cases of rape and/or incest, or in cases where the life of the mother would be jeopardized by carrying to term.

In all other cases, I would support restrictions after a specified period of time, say perhaps around twenty weeks. At twenty weeks it is very likely the mother knows that they are pregnant, and they have had ample time to decide what to do prior to that deadline. 

Ultimately, I would demand that abortion be safe, legal but as RARE AS POSSIBLE. It is NOT a suitable substitute for contraception and one should not avail oneself of the procedure simply for the sake of "convenience" at a late date in the term. 

YeshuaBought

@CheckerbordStrangler Are you personally opposed, but prochoice, like me? I support safe, legal, and rare.

Plaffelvohfen

@CheckerbordStrangler

I can understand that some people feel uncomfortable with late therm abortions, although I personally am not. Reducing their numbers is a noble goal as early abortions are much safer and less traumatic for the woman. 

But then, if this is the goal (reducing late term abortions), every effort should be put into facilitating early abortions, but many states have implemented policies based on religious dogmas, which makes it harder to have an early abortion... The end result is more late terms abortions...