Abortion-clinic picketers.

[cosmosdan]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Uh-huh. Here. Let’s follow how the conversation really went and see who’s being “illogical” and “jumping all over the place”, shall we?

Yes Please!!

There’s nothing “illogical” about it nor am I “jumping around”. Those are legitimate points you have absolutely no answer for without some large dose of hypocrisy.

That’s exactly what they are for reasons I’ve already explained.
I was making a general comment about the relationship between the people in society and the law, NOT a comment about how I personally valued people’s opinions. That’s called pulling something out of your ass, and/or “jumping around”

How can you say that people’s opinions matter because they “influence the writing of, the interpretation of, and the enforcement of the law”, when “the writing of, the interpretation of and the enforcement of the law” is not indicative of people’s opinions?

for example; You said the SCOTUS made the current law based on Roe v Wade. Turns out the members of the Supreme Court are people with opinions who certainly influence the law. The people involved in the case itself, those who struggled to get it to the SC and argued before the court, are also people with opinions who influenced the law. So on and so forth. That’s what I was making an observation about. The people who have continued to lobby for or against the decisions or for the state laws limiting access, also people with opinions.
It was NEVER a comment on to what degree I personally value people’s opinions. You made it into that by…

I haven’t pulled anything out of my ass.

yep , you did. {insert obligatory denial here}

I’m reading precisely what you’re typing out.

Then I guess it’s a comprehension problem exacerbated by your need to be correct, and your overestimation of your ability to be logical within the quality of your arguments.

What I said was that if you really “valued” people’s opinions, that you’d agree that their opinions-- even if they’re contrary to your own-- should be allowed to shape the law.

That’s quite clear thanks. That’s how I took it. It’s still a big logical fail because one does not necessarily follow the other. There are many ways and degrees to consider and value others opinions without wanting the majority opinion to be the law. For example ; I value** Bricker**'s posts and opinions because they are well expressed and help me to better understand the mindset, opinions, and position of pro-life. That doesn’t mean I want them to be law. Your conclusion is erroneous and illogical. {insert another obligatory denial here}

This has nothing to do with you “having shit to do”, but rather willfully choosing not to defend those “points” you know are wrong or refuse to respond to points which prove you wrong. For example:

Here you go with your mind reading hogwash again.

Unsurprisingly enough, you disappeared, never choosing to take that bet. I wonder why?

no need to wonder. I just don’t value your posts or your opinion enough to make it a priority over anything else. Feel free to believe whatever bolsters your ego.

You know, I’ve figured you out. When the going gets tough, and someone asks you for proof of your assertions or provides proof which is contrary to your assertions, you run away.

Really? It’s actually that I respond when I have the time and the interest but believe as you will.

And here is Cosmosdan trying to back off of his “people’s opinions matter because people influence the writing of, the interpretation of, and the enforcement of the law” (exact quote!) line.

I’m not backing off of anything I said. I’m telling you that you either misunderstood them in a profoundly stupid manner, or deliberately misrepresented them.

EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THE ANSWER WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO RESPOND.

I think that is generally true, except for those who just gave up reading your posts because the sheer quantity of nonsense was too much for them. I see you’ve been here a few months. I’ve been a member for a few years as have others. I’ve seen posters like you before who think their arguments and logic are ever so fabulous. You’re not that unique. I engaged you to see if you had any interesting arguments to offer. Your stubborn refusal to admit an error or any flaws in your logic tells me what I need to know.

[Zeriel]

@classyladyhp

:rolleyes:whacko.

Now aren’t you sweet. Man there’s some really unhappy and cranky people on this board.

[villa]

@villa

No you haven’t. You’ve said you support exemptions but steadfastly refused to say why when the same exemptions are not available for those who kill already born people.

Take the death penalty out of it to avoid your weaseling here. Do you then support life sentences for doctors and those who drive people to clinics? And for those (including my ex girlfriend) who provided the phone number of abortion clinics overseas to pregnant women?

Still waiting, classyladyhp.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@cosmosdan

those who just gave up reading your posts because the sheer quantity of nonsense was too much for them.

<raises hand>

[classyladyhp]

[…

[classyladyhp]

@villa

No you haven’t. You’ve said you support exemptions but steadfastly refused to say why when the same exemptions are not available for those who kill already born people.

Please rephrase.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Euphonious_Polemic

<raises hand>

Are you me?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@classyladyhp

Yes and you are innocent. Isn’t this the pit?

What a bizarre reply. You’re the one who makes these “thank you for being civil” as if they are the only ones who replied civily and snarky comments about being picked on while overlooking real attempts at dialog.

I get it now. You are only here to stir shit.

[Zeriel]

@classyladyhp

[..

Dude, she’s a cyborg!

[villa]

@classyladyhp

Please rephrase.

If killing you increases my chances of survival, whereas, if I don’t kill you, then I will die, and you may die, the law does not give me the right to kill you. Even if there is the smallest chance that you will survive, I don’t have the legal right to kill you.

If you truly believe that fetuses are fully human, why not treat them the same. Just because killing the fetus improves the chance of the mother living shouldn’t mean we give the mother priority.

Note this isn’t about a situation where both will automatically die absent the abortion. This is a situation where there is a non-zero chance that the fetus will survive even if the mother dies.

And as for the part you snipped out, to be consistent shouldn’t you support a law that would have sent my ex-girlfriend to prison for life for giving the telephone number of an abortion provider in the UK to pregnant women in the Republic of Ireland? After all, if the fetus is fully human, and abortion is murder, she was an accessory, just as much as someone who puts a person in touch with an assassin in full knowledge of what they are doing.

Incidentally, she was a great example of the pro-choice mentality. While she volunteered to work the phone lines, including facing legal action from anti-abortion rights individuals, she also got pregnant in her final year of college, and chose not to have an abortion because of her personal opposition to the practice.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

During the 2004 election, the Republican strategy was to focus on the “War on Terror”. The fact that many states had proposeed gay marriage laws on their ballots were purely incidental, though it did help the Republicans overall.

You’re right, the War on Terror and gay marriage were more important than abortion in that election. So what was the last election where abortion was among the top issues?

Fact is, you’ve made a number of claims recently and I’m not certain that some of them are correct:

[ul][li]Abortion is an important issue to most Americans, more so than gay marriage - (possible, I guess… though how much time they spend dwelling on it is unclear)[/li][li]Current abortion law is “nowhere near what society as a whole wants them to be” - (possible, I guess, if we could say for sure where American society as a whole wanted these laws to be, and preferably not just a vague “it would be nice if…” )[/li][li]American desires regarding these laws are being thwarted by the “bad guy” courts who not allow “abortion laws [to] be set as society wants” (I asked why the courts would do this, the answer is still pending)[/ul][/li]

Because Constitutional amendments are easy to pass?

Well, surely the American people are not hostages to their courts. An amendment is the ultimate response, and it does have precedent, but there are other approaches, including electing presidents who will appoint anti-Roe justices and senators who will confirm those justices.

And if they won’t, if the only effect is that some additional Americans vote Republican, then I’d wonder if American society “as a whole” feels the way you describe and even if they do, why they don’t act.

[AlienVessels]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

It’s not the pregnancy that’s punishment; it’s forcing the woman to carry the pregnancy to term that is punishment. In a “you made your bed, now you have to lie in it” way. Well, guess what: having sex isn’t necessarily making the bed.

The natural consequence of having sex is orgasm more often than it is pregnancy. Given the fact that we are biologically built to engage in sex anytime we want and generally want to do so often regardless of the small window of fertility, it can be argued that procreation is not even the primary reason for sex. It’s possible we as a species have evolved to the point where sexual activity engages social cohesion to the benefit of our continued survival. Simply, it’s our social bonding that determines our success as a species and not, at this point, the extent to which we procreate.

In fact, you can easily gauge the extent to which the proliferation of our species is having a measurable negative impact on the survival of vast swaths of the human population as our resources to support the population is depleted. Many people already realize that if we don’t drastically reduce consumption of finite resources, we are putting our very species at grave risk. Regulating (preferably self-driven regulation) procreation is what will ultimately reduce the population crisis. Although, this is not intended to be a justification for abortion or a call to forcefully regulate births on a governmental scale.

It is a way to better understand the human species, IMHO. Like it or not, we are essential animals ourselves, albeit very intelligent animals. We can to, a large extent, determine the paths our lives take, but there is interaction with the world around us that breeds a measure of uncertainty. We don’t control everything. The single bit of iron-clad control we have is our decision-making. For all that is right and good, I believe self-determination and bodily autonomy are the most essential of ideals.
That’s a reasonable thing to hope for. It seems quite clear, however, that legal partial or complete prohibition of abortion is not going to achieve that ideal. On the contrary, it will create more suffering as women are forced into desperation and more children are brought into the world unwanted or unhealthy or destined for a future of pain and suffering.
So? What’s your point?

Well, this paints a picture so broad and pretty I’m gonna leave the whole thing in.

Bottom line: I don’t think bodily autonomy overrides the rights of the increasingly human offspring, and I think most people are in agreement past a certain stage of development.

IMO, even if everything you say is correct, it’s in society’s interest to act as if being pregnant was a magical thing deserving of societal intervention in both the support of the mother-child relationship and the growing rights of the fetus. I’d rather that then everyone behave as if the pregnant women was just having a parasite problem that was between her and her healthcare provider to deal with.

You’d made the point in the post I was replying to that some people objected to things I was saying. I was just replying that people finding things I say objectionable doesn’t really factor in.

For example, the people that think the right to bodily autonomy is absolute would of course object. I can write that off immediately because rights aren’t absolute.

[curlcoat]

@AlienVessels

So there is a fairy there waiting to dust the baby as it emerges.

If that’s what you want to believe. I personally believe that until it lives and breathes on it’s own, a fetus isn’t a human.

@Lobohan

I have to say, I generally can’t stand you. But that is a fucking fantastic way to state that.

Thank you. I have noticed that when people agree with whatever my position is, they tend to like my posts better…

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

No matter how many times you say this, it’s still factually incorrect. Fetus denotes a stage of development. Human a species. Sixth grade biology-- learn it.

fetus-- an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

No matter how many times you want to dance around it, a fetus is not yet a human. Repeating it doesn’t make it fact.

@classyladyhp

A book isn’t a human, a tree isn’t a human, a paper clip isn’t a human, a dog isn’t a human. Yes, genius, that is correct.
HOWEVER, a fetus is a fucking human. If it is not a human what the fuck is it?
You’re delusional or just really really stupid or both.
Do you live in the land of fairies where unicorns and “becoming a human exist.”
The fetus is created by 2 humans. The offspring of two humans can be nothing but a HUMAN:smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:
This is the most ridiculous argument used by pro-abortionists I have ever see,

I love it when you flail around with insults and a bunch of smilies while completely missing the point.

@classyladyhp

We are all familiar with animal right activists right? If you abuse an animal you can be charged with animal cruelty. Why is it that an animal, which is clearly non-human has more rights than a fetus which is a human?
Some pro-choicers says the fetus is a potential person. Why is it ok that an animal should have more rights than a human or a so-called “potential person?”.

Animals actually have fewer rights than humans. You may kill an animal (in a humane manner) legally, you may lock it in a room for hours legally, you can feed them only once a day legally (and in some species, even less than that), etc. You can also abort their fetuses (feti?) and force them to be sterilized and no one pickets the vet’s office.

Your problem is that you don’t notice, or don’t want to admit to, the difference between a fetus and a (born) human. At the time that 99% of abortions are performed, the fetus is not self aware, cannot feel pain, doesn’t look a thing like a human, and would require months of a parasitic existence to get to the point where it could be a human. So obviously, it is cruel to abuse an animal but not to “abuse” a fetus since the latter cannot feel anything and is completely unaware that anything unusual is going on.

You feel all human life is sacred, and that a fetus (of some undetermined age) is a human - fine, you have the right to believe these things. What you do not have the right to do is force your personal beliefs off onto others. It’s really as simple as that.

@classyladyhp

Thanks for the visual:rolleyes:
We’ve been though this before. A sperm is not a potential human.

A fetus is a potential human?

@classyladyhp

It is a human though. There is no non-human fetus.

Uh, actually, all mammals incubate fetuses…

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@AlienVessels

For example, the people that think the right to bodily autonomy is absolute would of course object. I can write that off immediately because rights aren’t absolute.

I should think one could apply the same attitude to the “absolute rights” of a fetus. Take the fetus out and you can bestow rights on it.

[Zeriel]

@AlienVessels

Bottom line: I don’t think bodily autonomy overrides the rights of the increasingly human offspring, and I think most people are in agreement past a certain stage of development.

Why is that? Why is pregnancy the only situation where a person is forced to continue using their very blood and organs to support another.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked classy: If I stab you in both kidneys (thus I’m the cause of your need for organ-based support), and I am an exact donor match for you, should I be forced by the justice system to donate a kidney to you preserve your life? If not, what basis do you have for differentiating that scenario from a woman getting pregnant (thus, the cause of the fetus’ need for support), and deciding not to support the fetus with her uterus?
Presume we could mandate an abortion technique that merely severed the link between the mother’s circulatory system and the fetus, but did not kill the fetus directly.

For example, the people that think the right to bodily autonomy is absolute would of course object. I can write that off immediately because rights aren’t absolute.

In itself an absolute belief.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Zeriel

Why is that? Why is pregnancy the only situation where a person is forced to continue using their very blood and organs to support another.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked classy: If I stab you in both kidneys (thus I’m the cause of your need for organ-based support), and I am an exact donor match for you, should I be forced by the justice system to donate a kidney to you preserve your life? If not, what basis do you have for differentiating that scenario from a woman getting pregnant (thus, the cause of the fetus’ need for support), and deciding not to support the fetus with her uterus?
Presume we could mandate an abortion technique that merely severed the link between the mother’s circulatory system and the fetus, but did not kill the fetus directly.

Another apt analogy that disregards any intent whatsoever: If a person’s liver is destroyed by hemachromatosis, a genetic disease inherited from one’s parents, should the law require one of said parents, who unwittingly passed on the disease, to donate their own liver to save their offspring?

[AlienVessels]

@Zeriel

Why is that? Why is pregnancy the only situation where a person is forced to continue using their very blood and organs to support another.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked classy: If I stab you in both kidneys (thus I’m the cause of your need for organ-based support), and I am an exact donor match for you, should I be forced by the justice system to donate a kidney to you preserve your life? If not, what basis do you have for differentiating that scenario from a woman getting pregnant (thus, the cause of the fetus’ need for support), and deciding not to support the fetus with her uterus?
Presume we could mandate an abortion technique that merely severed the link between the mother’s circulatory system and the fetus, but did not kill the fetus directly.

I appreciate your interest in debate, but this stuff is absurd. Could you at least pretend to acknowledge that you’re presenting ideas in a public forum and construct hypotheticals that are within reason?

If you don’t agree that the fetus is ever a person, we don’t have a common ground for discussion.

A more likely analogous situation would be one in which you put yourself on a donor list and when the doctors are in the middle of the procedure (point of no return for the recipient of the organ), you ask the doctors to end the procedure, knowing that would kill the recipient. I don’t think the doctors comply at that moment and I think
society would be behind that decision as well

In itself an absolute belief.

I’ll change my mind when I find a right that’s absolute.

[classyladyhp]

@Zeriel

Why is that? Why is pregnancy the only situation where a person is forced to continue using their very blood and organs to support another.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked classy: If I stab you in both kidneys (thus I’m the cause of your need for organ-based support), and I am an exact donor match for you, should I be forced by the justice system to donate a kidney to you preserve your life? If not, what basis do you have for differentiating that scenario from a woman getting pregnant (thus, the cause of the fetus’ need for support), and deciding not to support the fetus with her uterus?
Presume we could mandate an abortion technique that merely severed the link between the mother’s circulatory system and the fetus, but did not kill the fetus directly.

In itself an absolute belief.

I’ve already answered this. In cases other than rape the pregnancy is a consequence of an action…having sex. The woman and her partner created this needy fetus that needs food, shelter and protection provided by the mother’s womb. The fetus is the mother’s unborn child. Don’t parents have a responsibilty to protect their own children?
We do not have eye for an eye justice in this country. Perhaps that could be done in Iran. We just don’t do that here. The person who stabbed you would go to jail.

[cosmosdan]

@curlcoat

No matter how many times you want to dance around it, a fetus is not yet a human. Repeating it doesn’t make it fact.

.

Nitpick; It technically is a fact and a relevant one. There are some interesting pages about how society has dealt with the issue of fetal rights, and exactly what rights a developing human does or does not have such as
this
and this

concerning fetal rights. That’s really the question at hand.

A zygote or an embryo are fully human with unique DNA even before it’s designated a fetus. They are unarguably stages of human development just as infant and adult are. That’s not in question.

There are relevant questions about brain development {consciousness} and viability out side the mother’s body. You might argue that a fetus is not yet a person, IYO, but arguing that it’s not a human is factually incorrect. The thing that makes this so complex and unique IMO, is the fetus being totally dependent on the body of the mother and the woman’s right to choose concerning her body, weighed against the uncertain rights of the embryo or fetus.

We certainly don’t legally require people to give transfusions to others even to save their lives.

[classyladyhp]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

Another apt analogy that disregards any intent whatsoever: If a person’s liver is destroyed by hemachromatosis, a genetic disease inherited from one’s parents, should the law require one of said parents, who unwittingly passed on the disease, to donate their own liver to save their offspring?

No. The parents had no intent of passing on their genetic condition to the fetus. It is not their fault that the fetus was born with this condition. We can’t control which chromosomes are going to come together to create the fetus. We can’t choose the healthy chromosomes.
I have a feeling most parents would give their own life willingly for the lives of their children.