Should abortion be illegal?

Dee

@MichaelElpers


On a sinking boat many people may also save a 5 year old girl over 2 adult men. Or in dees scenario a 5 year old girl over several coma patients.  Does that mean the men aren't people?

Again you're using an emotional argument by making false comparisons , I do not know anyone who honestly believes that a fetus is person even your own courts do not believe in the equivalence you seem to think is a thing

Clearly I can't argue from a current societal perspective you are correct.  I'm saying society is incorrect just as they were when slavery and racism were a thing.

Again that's just an appeal to emotion and a very unfair argument you're comparing those who disagree with your argument as similar in mentality to those in the pas who were racist or pro slavery forgetting that in the US a supposedly Christian country it was those very people who indulged in such 

Your subjective moral views do not mean a blind bit of difference you do not get to decide for others 

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

There wasn't an equivalency being made.

Yes there was. That's the entire reason you mentioned it -- to attempt to counter my point that many women die during childbirth. 

You're evidently having difficulty understanding that there is no possible way you can twist, distort or misuse language so that forcing women to have kids becomes a moral -- or even logical -- argument.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

"But the problem here is if all life has value in the way you put it would you not save 5 in a coma over the one who is not?"

We're not talking about emotional subjective value. We're talking about the rights that people have and the way the everyone should be treated equal under the law.

Just because I may save one individual over another doesn't mean I do not consider both equals under the law. 

I'll give you several more scenarios. Sinking ship.

1. Save 5 year old girl or 3 people in a coma.

2. Save 5 year old girl or 2 elderly people.

3. Save a woman or man.

In each you'd have an inclination to save one or other.  Just because you don't choose the one that results in maximum number of lives saved, or for instance the woman over the man doesn't mean you now are making laws where age, development, disability, race, ugliness, intelligence or any other metric would make one more or less of a person under the law.

MichaelElpers

@Nomenclature

But the 2 men very well may have more cumulative life than the one girl especially if they are young men.

You'd save save a 5 year old girl before 100 middle aged men just because she's younger than all of them?

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

But the 2 men very well may have more cumulative life than the one girl

I said "assumed" Michael. The girl is assumed to have more life left, and that is what motivates the decision. 

Christ. 

MichaelElpers

@Dee

"Again that's just an appeal to emotion and a very unfair argument you're comparing those who disagree with your argument as similar in mentality to those in the pas who were racist or pro slavery"

This is not correct.  All I was showing was that societal views doesn't equal morally correct and used an example.

This argument provides no rational behind who is correct in this instance.

MichaelElpers

@Nomenclature

Not sure why you "assumed" that.

Either way though what you would be implying with Dee's argument then is that law should include ageism because you valued younger life over older life.

Just because I'd save a 5 year old old 5 fetuses doesn't prove that I believe they are not still people that should be equally treated under law.
Just as you may save one 5 year old over 5 80 year olds doesn't mean they should not all equally be people under law.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

 We're talking about the rights that people have and the way the everyone should be treated equal under the law.

We aren't really we are talking about the law and moral choices one is subjective the other  is not 

I think the way people are treated under the law is the same for every citizen a fetus doesn't come under person /people 


Just because I may save one individual over another doesn't mean I do not consider both equals under the law. 

Well no because you do indeed treat them differently as in the case of the 5 over 1  case I mentioned if you believed in the equality of such you would have no hesitation in saving the 5 

I'll give you several more scenarios. Sinking ship.

1. Save 5 year old girl or 3 people in a coma.

In your case the 3 should Trump the 1 right ? If you wish to be consistent 



2. Save 5 year old girl or 2 elderly people.


Again in you case the 2 should Trump the 1

3. Save a woman or man.

In your case I don't know ,  in mine I would presume the man would insist I saved the woman if not I'd pick the woman because of the man's lack of gallantry 


In each you'd have an inclination to save one or other.  Just because you don't choose the one that results in maximum number of lives saved, or for instance the woman over the man doesn't mean you now are making laws where age, development, disability, race, ugliness, intelligence or any other metric would make one more or less of a person under the law.

The point I'm making is that your argument is not logical you seem to think that a fetus is worth saving by force yet would save the 1over 5 in the scenario i posited , that is inconsistent with your position 

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

Not sure why you "assumed" that.

Oh Christ this is just impossible because you're all over the place, jumping from one fallacious argument to the next, without even taking a breath.

I didn't assume anything. You offered a hypothetical situation in which two men and a five year old girl are drowning on a boat, and implied most people would save the girl if they had a choice between saving just one of them. It was a false equivalence you invented to counter an earlier point Dee had made. I agreed that most people would sooner save the girl, because most people would assume she had longer left to live than the men. What I disagreed with is your baseless and false idea that the reason the girl would be saved in your example is the same reason the girl would be saved in Dee's example.

I'm sick of your continuous use of fallacy, Michael.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

The laws themselves are objective as well as their proposed enforcement.  However whether the law is correct is entirely subjective.  That is the argument in abortion.

"The point I'm making is that your argument is not logical you seem to think that a fetus is worth saving by force yet would save the 1over 5 in the scenario i posited , that is inconsistent with your position"

And I have shown by my previous that your argumentation here doesn't show that.
This is obvious by the fact by you couldn't simply answer my questions.  You got snarky because you realized by answering yourself trapped you in your own argumentation.

My argument is on abortion is not about whether the fetus is "worth saving more than a 5 year old" it is about the fetus being a human being and human beings having equal representation under law.

If your opinion is that the law  should be how we subjectively value each person in those situations be my guest.

MichaelElpers

@Nomenclature

"Either way though what you would be implying with Dee's argument then is that law should include ageism because you valued younger life over older life.

Just because I'd save a 5 year old old 5 fetuses doesn't prove that I believe they are not still people that should be equally treated under law.

Just as you may save one 5 year old over 5 80 year olds doesn't mean they should not all equally be people under law."

How is the fallacious?

My arguments have to be all over the place because you and dee never stick with the same argument after my rebuttal.  You move to some total other argument.

My original argument to you was about suffering doesn't give a right to kill.
Then you moved to overpopulation, to fetuses arent human beings, to childbirth deaths, to society agrees with me, to jumping on Dee's fallacious argument which I've shown proves nothing.  I can only counter what's offered.

MayCaesar

I cannot imagine many things more abhorrent than forcing a woman to carry her pregnancy through to childbirth against her will. This has all the aspects of what would in all other cases be classified as "torture". As a potential father, I would be horrified if my beloved girl was told by goons with guns and badges, "Stay pregnant and give birth, or go to jail". How is this at all conceivable in a modern free society?

You can think whatever you want about the morality of choosing to undergo abortion, but you really should not bring the government into this. If you are a woman, then you can give birth if you believe that abortion is evil; and as a man, what kind of a bastard are you if you choose to use legal threats to cause your partner to deliver you children?

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

How is the fallacious?

It's fallacious because you've presented it as though you are replying to one of my quotes, but you are not replying to one of my quotes. I never wrote the part you have included in quotation marks.

Just stop mate.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Told by goons "Stay pregnant and give birth, or go to jail"

That's because you don't view the fetus as a human being.  If your daughter was threatening to rob a clerk it would be different.

If you are a woman, then you can give birth if you believe that abortion is evil; and as a man, what kind of a bastard are you if you choose to use legal threats to cause your partner to deliver.

Again, I think this ignores the complication provided by the other human being.
I'd ask what kind of mother purposefully kills her own children? Sounds bad when you word it that way.

From a liberaterian perspective of wanting fewer government laws it comes down to still wanting protection for the most basic one.

Do you think the government should also be involved in child support?
Or can the father disown the child when it was a fetus and therefore it's not his.

MichaelElpers

@Nomenclature

You said my argument was fallacious so I went back and quoted my argument.

It's hard to debate someone who doesn't seem to read the full argumentation, and includes lots of adhominem which I imagine is why everything has not flowed very well. 

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

Told by goons "Stay pregnant and give birth, or go to jail"

That's because you don't view the fetus as a human being.  If your daughter was threatening to rob a clerk it would be different.

If you are a woman, then you can give birth if you believe that abortion is evil; and as a man, what kind of a bastard are you if you choose to use legal threats to cause your partner to deliver.

Again, I think this ignores the complication provided by the other human being.
I'd ask what kind of mother purposefully kills her own children? Sounds bad when you word it that way.

From a liberaterian perspective of wanting fewer government laws it comes down to still wanting protection for the most basic one.

Do you think the government should also be involved in child support?
Or can the father disown the child when it was a fetus and therefore it's not his.

No, it is a human being. As are the corpses in the graveyard nearby. This hardly has anything to do with what is being discussed here.

Well, if you believe that your partner is evil for undergoing abortion, then you are free to walk away from her. In fact, in the absence of any contractual obligations, I believe that a man should be able to walk away from her even after childbirth and not owe any alimony payments. What he should not be able to do is demand that she gives birth; screw people who do this kind of thing. Their place is not in a civilized society, but in Iran or Saudi Arabia, among other cowardly men who cannot secure a relationship as an equal partnership and have to constantly tell their enslaved ladies what to do.

Dee

@MichaelElpers



The laws themselves are objective as well as their proposed enforcement.  However whether the law is correct is entirely subjective.  That is the argument in abortion.


You never even read my first statement did you?
Whether legal facts are to be determined by a judge or lay jury the determination of such must be subjective


"The point I'm making is that your argument is not logical you seem to think that a fetus is worth saving by force yet would save the 1over 5 in the scenario i posited , that is inconsistent with your position"

And I have shown by my previous that your argumentation here doesn't show that.

No you certainly haven't I've exposed the gaping flaws in your argument 


This is obvious by the fact by you couldn't simply answer my questions.

I answered all your questions please provide evidence for your false claims of such?

  You got snarky because you realized by answering yourself trapped you in your own argumentation.

How did I get 'snarky '? That is a complete fabric fabrication on your part 

My argument is on abortion is not about whether the fetus is "worth saving more than a 5 year old" it is about the fetus being a human being and human beings having equal representation under law.

Well you were the one who decided a 5 year olds life was of more value than 5 embryos that's a completely irrational view and demonstrates clearly that you do in fact value the born a lot higher than the unborn 

If your opinion is that the law  should be how we subjectively value each person in those situations be my guest.

Thats not my opinion so again you're totally and deliberately claiming I said things I never said , it's a great pity you cannot bring yourself to debate fairly and honestly 7

Dee

@MichaelElpers

nd includes lots of adhominem which I imagine is why everything has not flowed very well. 

Thats a bit rich to be honest especially as you just accused me falsely of resorting to snarks 

MichaelElpers

@Dee ;

I said your comments were snarky because you didn't actually answer the questions.  You stated how I should answer the question.

Regarding "If your opinion is that the law  should be how we subjectively value each person in those situations be my guest."

You may not be trying to say that but that's the argumentation you're logic is leading to.

Your argumentation is you'd save X so that means you view Y as less of a person. This is not true.

Just as someone may also save the 5 year old instead of a couple of elderly people, or 3 coma patients or someone may save a woman over a man doesn't mean they don't consider the other options people.

If we were to go down that rabbit hole you'd be creating different rights for every person based on who'd you save.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Corpses are dead.  And yes human beings afforded human rights is what is being discussed.

"Well, if you believe that your partner is evil for undergoing abortion, then you are free to walk away from her. "

That's like saying country X society allows men to murder their daughters if you don't like it than the mother can walk away.
Well they can but that doesn't prevent the evil/daughter being murdered.
The argument is over whether this is morally acceptable enough to be allowed.

I'd disagree with you on alimony payments as well.  How are people supposed to make it in this world if their parents are just allowed to walk away?  You can't survive as a toddler on your own.

I don't view illegalizing abortion as a demand from the man the woman must give birth, just as I don't view not allowing murder or destruction of property as that if a woman wants to.  It's a rightful obligation to life you created.  If artificial wombs were a thing I'd have no problem with them, there is a problem with the purposeful killing of an innocent human being.

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

Corpses are dead.  And yes human beings afforded human rights is what is being discussed.

"Well, if you believe that your partner is evil for undergoing abortion, then you are free to walk away from her. "

That's like saying country X society allows men to murder their daughters if you don't like it than the mother can walk away.
Well they can but that doesn't prevent the evil/daughter being murdered.
The argument is over whether this is morally acceptable enough to be allowed.

I'd disagree with you on alimony payments as well.  How are people supposed to make it in this world if their parents are just allowed to walk away?  You can't survive as a toddler on your own.

I don't view illegalizing abortion as a demand from the man the woman must give birth, just as I don't view not allowing murder or destruction of property as that if a woman wants to.  It's a rightful obligation to life you created.  If artificial wombs were a thing I'd have no problem with them, there is a problem with the purposeful killing of an innocent human being.

A dead human being is still a human being. An unborn human being is also a human being. Neither is the kind of creature that one has in mind when talking about rights.

There is quite a bit of difference between murdering one's daughter and refusing to go through a long and painful ordeal which is pregnancy. I also do not think that moral considerations should enter the equation when developing laws - not in a secular society.

First, one parent walking away is not the same as both parents walking away (in which case alimony is not applicable anyway). And second, someone's need does not trump anyone's freedom. People are free to adopt abandoned children if they are so worried about them. There is a case to be made, I suppose, for the woman giving birth to automatically become the child's guardian, but there is no such case to be made for the man impregnating her.

Yet it is a demand by definition. It is literally, "You go through pregnancy and give birth, or I hurt you". Anyone who says such a thing to a woman facing a hard decision is a despicable weakling in my eyes.

Dee

@MichaelElpers


I said your comments were snarky because you didn't actually answer the questions.  You stated how I should answer the question.

Do you know what snarky means?  I asked you how you would answer the questions considering you regard a fetus as equivalent to a born citizen you refuse to supply a concrete answer because you cannot without revealing how deeply flawed your arguments are 

If you want me to answer the questions you are just deflecting as what I think or don't regarding your questions has absolutely no bearing on your argument it's deflection 




Your argumentation is you'd save X so that means you view Y as less of a person. This is not true.

No my argument is that you put the life of a 5 year old as far more important than that of an embryo proving you don't hold an embryo or fetus of equal value despite your protestations 

Just as someone may also save the 5 year old instead of a couple of elderly people, or 3 coma patients or someone may save a woman over a man doesn't mean they don't consider the other options people.

Again you're deliberately muddying the waters because if I asked you would you save five people from drowning in favour of 1 I bet  you would save the 5 year old yet you won't do likewise if they're embryos proving how false and disingenuous your pleas of a fetus being a person is as you don't believe it yourself.

Also if abortion is murder do you want women who abort being jailed for life ? Do you want doctors jailed for aiding and abetting if not  why not ?

If we were to go down that rabbit hole you'd be creating different rights for every person based on who'd you save.

I haven't created  any rights nor do I want to , you and  like minded  people do though as in you want women to be forced to give birth against their will , so again you're falsely accusing me the very faults you have as in wanting different rights for different entities 

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

"Neither is the kind of creature that one has in mind when talking about rights."
Not true which is why abortion is a big deal. 

"There is quite a bit of difference between murdering one's daughter and refusing to go through a long and painful ordeal which is pregnancy."

Pain is subjective. The father was sick of raising the daughter; that can be hard you know.  Being a little over the top, but my reasoning still applies. Country X allows it and the father js tired of the daughter, what gives you the right to have the goons step in?

"People are free to adopt abandoned children if they are so worried about them. There is a case to be made, I suppose, for the woman giving birth to automatically become the child's guardian, but there is no such case to be made for the man impregnating her."

It's not about a lack of freedom to adopt its about a human child in need that cannot fend for itself through no fault of its own.  I also think it's really unfair to say a woman is an automatic guardian but the man doesn't have to be. It's his child equally his responsibility.

Do not murder, drink and drive, rape, ect is also a demand. I was really saying it is not a demand by men, it is a demand by law to protect the rights people.

John_C_87

@theinfectedmaster

The question for the supreme court is can it move female-specific ambitions into state courts which is the United State Constitutional right of a medical treatment which addresses an immigration process to which there is no state precedent. These are children who are not citizens and will be become citizens due to federal law not state law. The mothers are ambassadors assigned by law of nature and the states are not ambassadors at all. In closing states do not have written law the addresses the child who is not a citizen of that state…..

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

my reasoning still applies.

Fallacy. You are not using reason. 

John_C_87

It is reason it is not making the best connection to established justice...

The fallacy is that the simple word abortion sets the idea all women are committing murder they don't, as well as all people who believe there is a hidden united states constitutional right for a woman also are affected by the lie. To stop and terminate a birth also know by an alias of immigration is not presumable as murder as the risk to death is random and by chance. It is criminal for someone any one to force a woman to complete an immigration which may end her life. Those who do obstruct justice in female specific amputations can be charged, should be charged in a federal court for the murder of the ambassador. it is that simple.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

The fallacy is that the simple word abortion sets the idea all women are committing murder they don't, as well as all people who believe there is a hidden united states constitutional right for a woman also are affected by the lie. To stop and terminate a birth also know by an alias of immigration is not presumable as murder as the risk to death is random and by chance. It is criminal for someone any one to force a woman to complete an immigration which may end her life. Those who do obstruct justice in female specific amputations can be charged, should be charged in a federal court for the murder of the ambassador. it is that simple.

Exactly John. Come on, let's leave these dummies behind and go get something to eat.

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

"Corpses are dead. "

And yet their organs cannot be removed without their permission. Making abortion illegal give a person who can become pregnant fewer rights than a corpse. No human being has the right to use another person's body without their permission, even if that results in death. Why should a fetus have more rights than any other human being?

"I don't view illegalizing abortion as a demand from the man the woman must give birth,"

Making abortion illegal forces people to give birth by definition.

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

"Neither is the kind of creature that one has in mind when talking about rights."
Not true which is why abortion is a big deal. 

"There is quite a bit of difference between murdering one's daughter and refusing to go through a long and painful ordeal which is pregnancy."

Pain is subjective. The father was sick of raising the daughter; that can be hard you know.  Being a little over the top, but my reasoning still applies. Country X allows it and the father js tired of the daughter, what gives you the right to have the goons step in?

"People are free to adopt abandoned children if they are so worried about them. There is a case to be made, I suppose, for the woman giving birth to automatically become the child's guardian, but there is no such case to be made for the man impregnating her."

It's not about a lack of freedom to adopt its about a human child in need that cannot fend for itself through no fault of its own.  I also think it's really unfair to say a woman is an automatic guardian but the man doesn't have to be. It's his child equally his responsibility.

Do not murder, drink and drive, rape, ect is also a demand. I was really saying it is not a demand by men, it is a demand by law to protect the rights people.

Abortion is only a big deal, in my view, because people like spending time arguing over irrelevant topics. This way they can avoid discussing relevant and complicated topics, such as questions of economics or philosophy. Abortion and gun law are two bizarre topics in the US that are irrelevant to lives of 99.999% people, yet are at the center of most political debates, because discussing them is easy and does not require a deep understanding of anything.

I fail to see what some countries' terrible practices have to do with the topic. In Saudi Arabia a husband is legally allowed to rape his wife; that does not mean anything other than that country's laws being barbaric and retrograde. Murdering a daughter is very different from refusing to go through the ordeal in order to give birth to one in the first place.

It is not a child if it has not been born yet. It is a creature inside an autonomous individual who has the right to dispose of her body however she sees fit.

Again, murdering, drinking, driving and raping requires one to go out of their way to do these actions. Here we are talking about the opposite: refusing to go through an ordeal requiring tremendous sacrifice. It takes a lot more effort and intentional action to give birth than to undergo abortion.
If someone dies by nature of your inaction, you are not responsible for the death. If someone dies because you stuck a knife in their head, that is a very different story. If someone has not even been born, hence cannot die by definition, and you get rid of the creature, then there is no case to be made for any sort of punishment.

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

Abortion is only a big deal, in my view, because people like spending time arguing over irrelevant topics. This way they can avoid discussing relevant and complicated topics, such as questions of economics or philosophy.

You're right. More often than not it's effectively a Christian vs atheist issue. The parameters for discussion in society are largely framed by the media, and the opinions which are considered acceptable are shaped in the same way. I found a perfect example here earlier, in the form of a poll about Hitler, in which 60 percent of participants were under the impression that he was a liberal. That idea has been planted in the minds of individuals by certain forms of American media. That can be determined because:-

A. It's the precise opposite of the truth.

B. A large number of people believe it.

There is plenty of reliable information out there about the politics Hitler believed in, so a large group of people with exactly the same ridiculous ideas about Hitler can only really be explained if those people, who are not accessing reliable sources, are watching the same TV station, or reading the same newspaper.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

Exactly John. Come on, let's leave these dummies behind and go get something to eat.

When you are the only one holding a United States Constitutional Right you do not see yourself as smart it is by far one of the most dumbest things I will ever do. I gave my word under oath, if found It, I would share it as part of the test to the best connection to established justice.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

"Abortion and gun law are two bizarre topics in the US that are irrelevant to lives of 99.999% people"

There are over 600000 abortions in the U.S. per year so that is just statistically untrue.

"Murdering a daughter is very different from refusing to go through the ordeal in order to give birth to one in the first place."

That may be true but what I was rebutting with that comment still remains. You were pointing out people using government goons to enforce their beliefs, and while I respect the liberaterian approach the issue is a human being is being intentionally murdered.
You said in Saudi Arabia you can rape which makes it barbaric, I consider abortion to be the same.

"It is not a child if it has not been born yet. It is a creature inside an autonomous individual "

One of the definitions of a child is a son or daughter of any age.  A fetus which is a human being is a son or a daughter in which we can identify the mother and father based on DNA.  You can say creature in attempt to dehumanize it, but that doesn't make a fetus not a human.

I am not sure why the amount of effort matters in this discussion.  It also takes a lot more effort to raise a baby or child than to kill it.  But murder is still illegal.

"If someone dies by nature of your inaction, you are not responsible for the death."

Untrue for children.  You can't just set your baby out in the cold.

"If someone dies because you stuck a knife in their head"

Oh like they do in some late term abortion practices.  In abortion they do intentionally and directly kill the fetus.

"If someone has not even been born, hence cannot die by definition"

Untrue.  The fetus is a living human organism, if it's cells were dead it would be a developing human.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers
There are over 600000 abortions in the U.S. per year so that is just statistically untrue.

Wrong, there are no abortions in the United States per year the statistic is wrong. There are 600,000 violations of medical privacy per year in the United States. The question we are asked about abortion’s illegal status is not held in a state of law by a state of the union with only one crime. That is just two opinions stating a grievance between each other publicly.

"If someone has not even been born, hence cannot die by definition"

This statement is not a whole truth as what is attempted to verbalize is a person who is not born cannot be declared legally dead by a medical doctor. Which is not true either they simply must fill out paperwork and this is where the invasion of medical privacy of men take place connecting them to the issue by law. The reason is that a medical doctor is not the legally assigned by law or assigned ambassador by law of nature of the unborn child. Nor are you MichaelElpers this means you violate laws of medical privacy against all women and men including me in this matter. You are being coached to do so by people like Nomenclature, MayCaesar, OakTownA, Dee and many, many others to do so who have a alternative goal of undermining the United States Constitution for the achievement of many personal goals, as they could not acquire several states of the union between women and many topics including citizenship to connect pregnancy, birth and immigration as a state of the union with self-evident truth and United States Constitution.

Kekee

No but there should be limits

1 to maybe even 5 is ok if you have a good reason for abortion. But if a woman is just carelessly having sex constantly then abortion should be denied.

Also one woman getting 10 abortions is also wrong.

One might think about pregnancy avoidance with abortion but there is always the simpler option which is to simply avoid sex. Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex.

John_C_87

The question isn't over legality of abortion the grievance was over abortion not describing a United States Constitutional Right for all women. Women have also had grievance on how a United States Constitutional Right can describe limits of men's influence as a Constitutional Right. The undisputed answer so far Female-specific amputation as a connected to established justice, common defense towards a general welfare to ensure tranquility by a relationship women share by law of nature, and immigration as a basic principle. Undisputed in that it is not called into question and described as ever being an imperfect state of the union between all women to established justice like abortion has been with a perpetual argument of when does life start.

Sonofason

Kekee said:

No but there should be limits

1 to maybe even 5 is ok if you have a good reason for abortion. But if a woman is just carelessly having sex constantly then abortion should be denied.

Also one woman getting 10 abortions is also wrong.

One might think about pregnancy avoidance with abortion but there is always the simpler option which is to simply avoid sex. Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex.

Most human beings are utterly debauched.  It is highly unlikely that you could find one person in a hundred that is capable of chastity.  No, they need rules.  They are incapable of choosing abstinence.  If they get pregnant and try to abort their child they should simply spend a great deal of time in jail.  Let them out when menopause takes over, and they are incapable of getting pregnant.

John_C_87

@Sonofason

The grievance is over abortion being a malpractice of law..........not a question of is abortion legal or not legal. In 1973 abortion in Texas legislation had been found unconstitutional as a United State, Executive officer # 45 overstep authority in working towards an appeal of the Ruling of Roe Vs Wade. The constitutional Presidential connection as fact in a state of the union is over immigration as the child in question was not a citizen of the United States of America during any of the trials. The united state of law created as legal precedent is with immigration on a Federal level of Court all that has been done is expose all levels of court State, Federal, and Armed Services to the same malpractice of law. 

  The constitutional grounds to dismiss all allegations of appeal on Roe Vs Wade are a lie. Perjury. There had not been one court ruling which describes emancipation on behalf of the person who has been refused judicial prudence in a court. A statement otherwise said as loss of 5th Amendment right. The criminal charge as grievance is asked to be filed in Armed Serves court against the Executive office itself as a malpractice of law. Being the Executive Office of the judicial courts of the land.     

John_C_87

There is a profound difference in the powers of Executive officer declaring those illegal immigrants a united state who are under the age of 18 to be held in custody of law, and filing a valid emancipation upon them each as citizens of America, the immigrations of birth and travle into America as a person under 18 without proper health regulation might be compared and interpreted as equal to some in a court of law. They are not by whole truth equal. 

Sargonski

just_sayin said:

@just4fun
No one has the RIGHT to kill someone else, and that is just what abortion does, it kills an innocent human life.  No one has the right to claim its there choice if they want to go on a killing spree.  Our rights have limits.  In the case of abortion, there are two competing interests, the interests of the woman and the interests of the child to her life.  While having to carry a child you do not want until viability is indeed a harm to the woman, taking the pre-born baby girls life is a greater harm.  She loses her very life.  Her life is not just disturbed and made uncomfortable, it is annihilated.   

This is assumed premise fallacy -   you are assuming that there is a "Someone else" throughout  all stages of pregnancy.  That "Someone else" is known as a Person .. and you have not shown a person exists. 

When do you think the soul arrives ..and why ? 

John_C_87

No one has the RIGHT to kill someone else, and that is just what abortion does, it kills an innocent human life.
Here rests the problem abortion admits to a claim a killing not stoping an immigration which is life threatning as the most perfect state of the union to be made with Consitutional right. Female-specific amputation is a state of the union with all conditions set in writing by Preamble of American Consitution. 

Also.

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Describes a right of assembly and not just firearm but of women themselves. As whole truth, make no mistake the assassination of children in only America has a far more sinister purpose than just global gun safety by attacking the 2nd Amendment.

Assassination Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Sargonski

Argument Topic: 23

John_C_87 said:

No one has the RIGHT to kill someone else, and that is just what abortion does, it kills an innocent human life.
 

The above premise contains at least two logical fallacies    

1)   There is no "Someone"  that can be shown to exist  (aka - Person)  - at least until around 22 weeks
2)  " Innocent Human life"     -  there is no Person here either ... least not one respected by law .... not unless one wishes to make law respecting human feces. 

Feces containes billions of innocent human bacteria ..     these bacteria are both Innocent and Human   .. and also alive.     This is the common mistake of conflating the descriptive adjective form of the word  "Human"  .. something that is described as human    (human cell, human being,  human feces,  human life)    .. and the noun form     "A Human"  -  "A Living Human" ..   where the entity being described is a Human. 

Let us not make law on the basis of Fallacy --- that is a bad thing.   

John_C_87

@Sargonski

Let us not make law on the basis of Fallacy --- that is a bad thing. 

The laws written using the word abortion are a lie not fallacy. The argument is sound and has reason which does not render the argument invalid. The argument is however untrue, and the perjury calls the law into question of malpractice of law. The United State that had been created by Law is a poor state of the union made with established justice. This is self-evident as it has been held in courts for decades in limbo set on an illegally collected admission of murder. The fact of American constitution is the person who is presumed innocent is not emancipated so by law is not a ward of the state.

Birth is a form of immigration and the documentation for immigration is marriage or civil union. The United State Constitutional state of the union as a right is over a woman stopping a process of immigration in which all women’s lives are put at risk. A woman seeks female specific amputation in order to safely stop the immigration that is a threat to all women’s lives during pregnancy. The matter is a federal court grievance and is over malpractice of law not murder. Murder is at this point only a single possibility of multiple reasons how a immigration into a nation is terminated by the trial held by the ambassador assigned by law of nature to the immigration candidate. 

The grievance is further complicated by an accusation of discrimination held against the American United States Constitution. The allegation used as an alibi to not participate in actual make the more perfect union that is to be missing due to discrimination and attack the American Untied States Constitution. There is a pattern that has been noticed to be repeated and can be connected to harm, damages, and organized aggression on American United States Constitution.  

Sargonski

John_C_87 said:

@Sargonski

Let us not make law on the basis of Fallacy --- that is a bad thing. 

The laws written using the word abortion are a lie not fallacy. The argument is sound and has reason which does not render the argument invalid. The argument is however untrue, and the perjury calls the law into question of malpractice of law. The United State that had been created by Law is a poor state of the union made with established justice. This is self-evident as it has been held in courts for decades in limbo set on an illegally collected admission of murder. The fact of American constitution is the person who is presumed innocent is not emancipated so by law is not a ward of the state.

Birth is a form of immigration and the documentation for immigration is marriage or civil union. The United State Constitutional state of the union as a right is over a woman stopping a process of immigration in which all women’s lives are put at risk. A woman seeks female specific amputation in order to safely stop the immigration that is a threat to all women’s lives during pregnancy. The matter is a federal court grievance and is over malpractice of law not murder. Murder is at this point only a single possibility of multiple reasons how a immigration into a nation is terminated by the trial held by the ambassador assigned by law of nature to the immigration candidate. 

The grievance is further complicated by an accusation of discrimination held against the American United States Constitution. The allegation used as an alibi to not participate in actual make the more perfect union that is to be missing due to discrimination and attack the American Untied States Constitution. There is a pattern that has been noticed to be repeated and can be connected to harm, damages, and organized aggression on American United States Constitution.  

An Untrue Argument is a fallacy by definition          Fallacy =   "False Argument"      and an false argument is not valid. 

The claim of the anti aborts is that a person exists --  a "Someone"  from conception.    This is a falsehood .. something that can not be proven ..  it is an idea based on Religious belief .. and a particularly bad one .. one not even Biblical .   is based on  "The Pope Said So"      Same office that Gave us  Cats are tools of the devil spurring a bunch of Cat killing and torture in the middle ages.  The Popes have said all kinds of dumb things through the ages .. some of which later Popes have taken Back. 

Neither is there any secular justification for this position until around 23 weeks ..  

So this is law on the basis of fallacy .. law on the basis of falsehood.

You are making a different argument .. which is also true .. as the constitutional protections do not extend to Fetuses .. not being citizens ..  

John_C_87

@Sargonski
lol............

It is a malpractice of law, for a lawyer as a practitioner of religion from a church, any church can fabricate the malpratice for the purpose to earn money as the lie does not hold constitutional Right. Abortion written in any legislation of law is not a fallacy because it is within reason for a woman to admit she had murdered here own child for some reason, in some way. Pregnancy Abortion said in slang Abortion is an admission to murder which is argued to be untrue once the admission is made. The purgery on offical document is admitted with the murder but never given an alibi it is that simple. A broken state of the union made on the 1st Amendment does not apply to the writing of law.

The malpractice grievance directs the mistake in practice against the states and office performing the perjury not the writers of the perjury. An Armed Service court of law can address the Office of source to the filed grievance as no law restricts the preservation of American Constitutional right by State of American law or Congress. Yes, there is a crime of perjury committed by legal counsel, but it is the malpractice of law which is the United State of admission of guilt which would be addressed in the judicial proceedings. Legal counsel has protection of law as a licensed practice in respected states it is what gave the false impression to women as a united state that abortion was made legal by the ruling of Roe Vs Wade. The ruling describes an unconstitutional action made by the State of Texas and the common defense toward federal welfare was left open by the legislators of Texas law. Female specific amputation is the common defense assigned to the Supreme Court as the state of the union binding all women as equal before the Courts of law.

You are making a different argument .. which is also true .. as the constitutional protections do not extend to Fetuses .. not being citizens .. 
I am making a more perfect state of the union with conditions of Preamble in American Constitution and all women as a united State of law. This was unbelievably easy as there was none given. To spite all grievances set forth by women and men alike the attack and not argument was directed against United States Constitutional Right. For no other reason than presumption of guilt of the American Constitution itself.

John_C_87

You are making a different argument .. which is also true .. as the constitutional protections do not extend to Fetuses .. not being citizens ..  

It can be said as fact, I am making the only United States Constitutional Argument...the argument made by abortion in legislation was found unconstitutional in the Supreme Court. There is the perfect right, there is wrong.....The connection to the fetus and egg of all women young and old alike is made by United States Constitutional Right. Not a man’s contributions to a female’s pregnancy. It is the women who alone is assigned by law of nature the ambassadorship of the egg within her. The egg being the start of life as it is as fact to all women as a united state of law by their creator the human egg.