OK, lets assume that something drastically reshapes the court such that they’re willing to rule beyond a narrow judgement that that particular law is void. If the SC really made a judgement as described, I think you’d get immediate action from Congress.
And it would entail more than just the abortion issue. It’d be a major slap in the face of state’s rights advocates. On a 2-fer like that, you’d a tea party resurgence larger than the original.
I meant clinic in a more generic sense. Rural people don’t have great access to hospitals and anything more than a GP may be hours away. And I think you want anything past 1st trimester performed by someone that does it on a regular basis.
You always have to take another country’s policies with a grain of salt. What works for one country may be completely impractical for another.
And I’d be more at ease if people weren’t so ready to push later abortions irrespective of the status of the fetus.
So there’s no compromise for you on the autonomy issues regardless of the state of the fetus?
Yet the fact that it does work in another country suggests that maybe we should be looking at why it works and whether it can work here, not simply dismissing it because it ain’t the US freaking A.
And it was exactly as I predicted.
If you look at the numbers from your own Gallup poll and use simple math you’ll see you’re incorrect.
Abortions in the first trimester (58-65% favor)
Abortions in the second trimester (15%-26% favor)
Abortions in the third trimester (7%-13% favor)
You scoffed when I called polls dubious , but all polls are dubious. Some are better and and more complete than others, but they do vary based on the details of the questions asked. That’s why we see what looks like conflicting information in these polls. It depends on how the question is phrased and other things.
Here’s a page on it
FTR; I’m not claiming the polls PROVE anything because I know better. I’m only pointing out that you cherry picked poll data and ignored conflicting data to make your claim.
that said: I don’t know what “most” is and neither do you. I think it’s pretty reasonable given the choose between legal in most or illegal in most, that the latter fits your restrictions better than the former. It puts your claim in question.
What these numbers indicate is that when given a choice between something almost exactly the restrictions you mentioned , and something that common sense indicates would be fewer restrictions than those, they chose the latter by a wide margin. It fits quite well with the info from the LA poll
It means given the opportunity to express support for the specific restrictions you mentioned , they chose to support choice instead by a significant margin. That’s why I chose that one, but it’s far from the only one. Looking down through Polling report there are numbers that seem to support your position, but there are also more than few that do not.
This question
Numbers indicate in favor of leaving it up to the woman and her doctor. That’s the pro choice position.
This one;
Easier and no change consistently higher than more difficult. {more restrictions}
This one;
Of the first two options “no matter the reason” is 6 points higher than a specific mention of your restrictions.
I could list quite a few more, but that’s enough to prove my point. There’s plenty of data to contradict you and you ignored it.
I remind you again, I’m not making any claims about what these polls prove, because I know polls don’t do that. I’m only pointing out that , using the very polls you linked to, an honest reading of that casts considerable doubt on your assertion and demonstrates you cherry picked the data.
The questions refer specifically to the restrictions you mentioned, and those asked chose something that could only reasonably mean, “less restrictions than that”. They had the perfect opportunity to say " I agree with those restrictions" and they didn’t.
As the LA Times poll points out, people have their personal opinions, but still favor allowing the woman and her doctor make the final choice, especially in the first three months, where they don’t see the embryo the same as the next 6.
I understand the point quite well. I also understand that when given the opportunity to endorse the restrictions you mentioned, they chose the other.
I just did, and I demonstrated how you cherry picked the data from the various polls. I’m sure you won’t acknowledge it.
When you link to poll data you leave it all open to be used, not just the bits you want to allow. I’ll repeat, using polls as if they prove anything is generally a foolish endeavor.
A grain of salt = dismissing. Ok, learn something new every day.
Is abortion a major election issue? I figure if your answer is “yes”, all this “show me where” stuff becomes moot and if it’s “no”, then you’d have contradicted yourself by saying it was a much bigger issue than gay marriage, as gay marriage was a major issue, at least in 2004.
I’m just going to assume you believe it’s a major issue, whether you specifically said “major” or not.
In fact, show me where I said “abortion is a major issue”. Time and post number, please. If you’re not going to do that, then you’d be well served not engaging in this straw man anymore, though I suspect you won’t do any of aforementioned ask and will continue on this path. While I’m waiting, I suppose I’ll take this time to quote myself so we can all see what I really said.
So it’s a regional thing, is it?
Oh, be careful if you give me the leeway of “[or] something similar”. You’re better off saying “show me where I said [exact phrasing]”. Your original use was:
Now that can be interpreted a few different ways (including the possibilities that “society as a whole” wants all abortion laws stricken, or that society as a whole is neatly divided into pro-choice and pro-life camps that each declare the current compromise laws either go way too far or not a fraction far enough and thus neither is satisfied) but my follow-up questions always ran along the lines of “Well, if this is true, why doesn’t society as a whole do something about it?”
And now, as I see it, your responses are:
[ul][li]American society as a whole wants the change the laws, but can’t because the courts won’t let them, for reasons you haven’t explored. I was using the phrase “bad guys” facetiously to suggest the courts had evil spiteful motives, but you (rather surprisingly) embraced it, which strikes me as a defense mechanism to avoid the possibility that Roe and similar decisions might be just decisions.[/li][li]The process of bypassing the courts and getting a constitutional amendment is just too difficult. Well, a number of amendments have been passed in a lot less time than the almost-forty-years since Roe.[/ul][/li]
Because all I actually know about him is that he’s particularly opposed to abortion. Maybe other Republican hopefuls are as opposed or even more opposed, but I admit I haven’t been keeping track. If you know of a candidate more likely than Santorum to get support through a pro-life platform, I invite you to name him or her.
Show me where I said “redefined”.
Heh, just kidding. I remember in the eighties, though, some complaints that a “health” exception was being abused (at least in some people’s eyes) because it also covered mental health, and thus a doctor could justify aborting a pregnancy by claiming its continuation put his patient at risk for depression, which is conveniently something that can’t be proved or disproved. Thus, all a woman needed was a doctor who would play along with the legal fiction (thus abortion was effectively legal upon request), the names of such doctors being quietly circulated among women.
There was talk at the time of trying to write the laws more carefully, to specify that physical health must be at risk, trying to chip away at Doe V. Bolton.
I’m generously prepared to split the difference, compromise in that ~26% of the population didn’t notice any change because of Roe, though I think even my original 42% guess may have been too conservative and a woman in the U.S. before 1973 who really wanted an abortion could probably get one, despite the laws in place, and women who couldn’t get an abortion were disproportionately the ones who had the fewest resources to raise a child (or another child), which has always struck me as the the most willfully short-sighted aspect of the pro-life position.
Uh-huh… and did this resulting conflict lead to civil war? Mass unrest? Genocide of undesirables? Some group losing its civil rights (like what’s apparently going to happen in Canada sometime in the next 15 years)? Sure, it’s continued to be legally contentious, but I figure that’s just American politics in action, starting roughly in 1980 when it became clear that evangelicals could be manipulated for political gain.
Let’s assume that Roe was a radical departure from… something. Whatever that something was, is it something you want the U.S. to return to?
Show me a cite, post a link that actually says sperm contains human life. Either you are incredibly stupid, insane or both.
Once again. A sperm is not a human. If ti joins with an egg cell and fertilizes the egg cell then a human is created. :smack:some sense into yourself.
If the only thing you have to say about it is “It may be impractical in the US” without backing it up with an actual argument, then yeah, it is dismissive.
I’m anti-abortion, but pro-choice. for me abortion is kind of a deal breaker if I’m the father and there is no valid medical reason like triplody, but, I feel that women should not be denied all options in terms of reproductive health. the only anti-abortion protest I’ve seen that I have ever approved of was done by Franciscan priests in Fort Worth, Texas. They lined up along a public roadway, no where near a planned parenthood, or a womens health clinic, or any place like that. they held their signs, and didn’t say a word. The people who picket in front of the clinics are tasteless whack jobs who aren’t simply expressing their opinion on the matter, they’re attempting to force their subjective interpretation of morality on other people. What really gets me is that these are the only people who have become actively violent towards me for taking their picture…well, other than the Taliban. I’m a journalist, if you are in a place with no reasonable expectation of privacy, guess what? I’m going to take your picture whether you like it or not. If these people have the time to worry about what total strangers are doing with their bodies…maybe they should find something beneficial to do with their time…like…oh, I don’t know…masturbating caged animals for artificial insemination.
Does it really bother you that people don’t agree with you? I personally think that a zygote is not a human… it’s a human zygote, but not A human.
Yeah, I can understand dismissing the Netherlands example - them’s like Martians or sumpin’, but Canada’s, like, right next door!
It really wasn’t, but we’ll play this game.
I wonder about your ability to form a coherent argument sometimes. You said, and I quote verbatim, “it seems to [you] that if people actually supported only the strict limitations you claim, the numbers between trimesters would be closer”. As I said, one would only expect that to be the case if everyone agreed to the strict limitations I “claim”, instead of simply a majority (>50%) doing so, which all those polls I’ve posted attest to.
No, I scoffed when you called the polls I provided dubious, as I took great care to only use the ones which asked people whether abortion should be legal or illegal in certain circumstances.
No, it really doesn’t. If anything, it puts into question your ability to read and to form any kind of real response. “Some” and “most” can mean different things to different individuals, which is why I didn’t focus on those polls, but rather the polls which gave explicit reasons for having an abortion. I don’t know how many times I’ve said this prior only to have you ignore it, but I’d be willing to bet that I’m going to have to say it a few more times in the future.
Really? Is that what it means? I don’t think it does (actually, I know it doesn’t), especially since people hold a very consistent view of what they believe to be morally correct/incorrect and what should legally be allowed/disallowed by the law (see: the Gallup quote you callously disregarded). And you know it doesn’t, too, as evidenced by the fact that when I asked you a very simple, non-trick question, you completely, utterly and totally disregarded it, instead choosing to act as if it didn’t exist. Therefore, I’ll ask you this again.
[QUOTE=Me, again]
What does “between a woman and her doctor” mean? Does it mean that abortion should always be legal at the discretion of the woman and her doctor? Does it mean that abortion should be within the confines of the law and done at the discretion of the woman of her doctor? Or does it mean something else?
[/quote]
You’re trying to pass off people believing that abortion should be “between a woman and her doctor” to mean “abortion should always be legal, as it’s between a woman and her doctor”. Yet anyone and everyone with at least one working dendrite knows how ridiculously untrue that is. A minority of people believe abortion should always be legal. That, right there, instantly discredits any assumption that people treat “between a woman and her doctor” to mean "abortion should always be legal, as it’s “between a woman and her doctor” (I pointed this out before, yet you ignored it), which essentially means that people believe that abortion should be “between a woman and her doctor” in certain circumstances. Ergo, we need to figure out what those circumstances under which people believe that abortion should be “between a woman and her doctor” are and what those instances in which abortion would be disallowed are. For example, an overwhelming majority of people would agree that abortion should be “between a woman and her doctor” if she was going to die. Few, though, would agree that the decision to abort her baby because she doesn’t like its sex to be a decision “between a woman and her doctor”. And this is where my continued request for you to show me that Americans would support abortion, at any time, for reasons outside of the hard cases comes in.
-Show me a poll which says that a majority of Americans would allow a woman to have an abortion because she doesn’t want any more children. Just one.
-Show me a poll which says that a majority of Americans would allow a woman to have an abortion because she feels the timing is wrong for her. Just one.
-Show me a poll which says that a majority of Americans would allow a woman to have an abortion because she wants to go to school. Just one.
-Show me a poll which says that a majority of Americans would allow a woman to have an abortion because she wants to have a career. Just one.
-Show me a poll which says that a majority of Americans would allow a woman to have an abortion because she’s having relationship problems. Just one.
-Show me a poll which says that a majority of Americans would allow a woman to have an abortion because she doesn’t like the sex of her baby. Just one.
-Show me a poll which says that a majority of Americans would allow a woman to have an abortion outside of the “hard” cases. Just one.
But guess what? That’s just the thing. You can’t do it. You CANNOT do it.
…Oh, and name me any pro-lifer who has stated that the decision to have an abortion should be made by anyone other than a woman and her doctor.
No, it doesn’t. do you know know what “in general” means? Again, this goes right back to the above point which you adamantly refuse to acknowledge. What instances are those? They most certainly aren’t all (I went over this in post #2,161 already and will go over it again in this post).
Easier and no change consistently higher than more difficult. {more restrictions}.
[/quote]
Does that apply to, say, parental consent laws? Spousal notification laws? Waiting periods? Etc.?
I’ve noticed something about the way you argue. You like to take general statements and then extrapolate even though you can provide no logical basis upon why one should do so, whereas I like to look at specific instances and argue based on that. Of course, your way is great when you’re trying to obfuscate, as then you can say “Yeah, well… Loads of people agree with me because I laid out a nebulous condition!”. But it doesn’t quite work when people ask for specific instances of people supporting or opposing something (as it doesn’t in the case of abortion, where I’m still waiting for you to show me public support for abortions outside of the hard cases).
Uh-huh… Now if this isn’t proof that you willingly ignore the things I write out, I don’t know what is. If you would have fully read-- and I know you didn’t-- post #2,161, you would very clearly see I said:
Of course, since you probably won’t understand any of that, I’ll break it down and make it easy for even you to comprehend Let’s say, for shits and giggles, we have the following six cases in which abortion is considered; the mother’s health, rape, incest, because she doesn’t want a kid, because she doesn’t like the sex of her baby and because she wants to have a career. Forty-six percent of respondents will say yes to all of those; 40% of respondents will say ‘yes’ to the first three and ‘no’ to the latter three; and 10% of respondents will say ‘no’ to all. That means, in each of those cases, the aggregate ‘yes’/‘no’ would be:
The mother’s health: 86% yes and 10% no.
Rape: 86% yes and 10% no.
Incest: 86% yes and 10% no.
Because she doesn’t want a kid: 46% yes and 50% no.
Because she doesn’t like the sex of her baby: 46% yes and 50% no.
Because she wants to have a career: 46% yes and 50% no.
In other words, abortions wouldn’t be unrestricted as they’d only be allowed in the instances where the ‘always’ and ‘legal in certain’ agree and disallowed where the ‘legal in certain’ and ‘never’ agree. Which is what I said the first time, which is what you ignored. You ignoring something which doesn’t work in your favor? Go figure! eyeroll
I’m still waiting for you to post this data that I ignored and that contradicts my claims because, at present, you’ve yet to present any of it. And quite frankly, I doubt you ever will.
lolwut? No, they don’t. Again I find myself asking, what does “illegal in some/most” constitute? Since you know, then it shouldn’t be too hard to tell me. And if “illegal all/most” constitutes a larger percentage of the pie than does “legal in all/most” then what, exactly, does that mean?
No it didn’t. You just made this shit up which, for you, is par for the course.
So let me make sure I understand this correctly.
After I pointed out that Americans only support abortions in the hard cases, you accused me of “cherry picking” the data by (1) asserting that since the majority of people believe abortion should be a decision “between a woman and her doctor”, that that must mean that the majority of Americans support the pro-choice position even though Americans, themselves, do not believe that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion for any reason (as evidenced by ‘always legal’ usually hovers in the mid-20’ish percent), which is the very thing you’re implying, but rather that abortion should be a decision “between a woman and her doctor” for “morally acceptable” reasons, which would necessitate you proving my original assertion (that Americans support abortion only in the hard cases) as incorrect, which you’ve (2) failed to as you’ve yet to even provide a single poll which breaks down abortions by reason which shows that reasons outside of the hard cases have public approval. Hmmm, is that so? I really can’t figure out if you’re just dumb, or just really incredibly very stupid. Either way, I can only laugh. We can go at this all day. The fact is you’ve got nothing. I know it. You know it. AUL knows it. NARAL knows it. Anyone reading this thread knows it. And pretty much anyone with an inkling of knowledge regarding the abortion debate in the U.S. knows it. But do continue on as you are. I could use the amusement.
(Incredible run-on sentence, ftl.)
You know, you’re a moron, and I get unbridled joy from watching you squirm about.
Bigger than gay marriage, yes.
…And, seriously, even though you keep saying this, gay marriage wasn’t a big issue in the 2004 election.
No, but those were the first to come to mind, especially since Democrats generally only win these regions by being anti-abortion.
Well, see. If, say, Florida were to pass a law declaring abortions to be illegal, it’d be tossed out in court. If we amended our Constitution to say abortion is illegal, it’d be rendered invalid by SCOTUS. See how that works?
Good luck arguing that, especially given the nature of your arguments.
So your argument is that if I want abortion banned I should ratify the Constitution? One could argue why abortion proponents didn’t go that route, but that’s probably because they couldn’t even win at the state level prior to 1973, let alone the Federal level. But I digress. Do you know how many amendments have been proposed? Literally thousands of them, and only 27 have been ratified. It’s not “easy” by any stretch of the imagination.
Either that or you constantly mention Rick Santorum as some kind of way to argue that if I’m right about how being pro-life/pro-choice works on a national scale, that then he should be POTUS or something equally as asinine like that.
I don’t think Doe v. Bolton had any effect on abortion laws prior to 1973.
And I’m generous enough to not accept that, because you’re still ignoring the fact that only four states didn’t have their laws overturned by Roe v. Wade. No matter how you try to slice it or dress it up, that would be classified as instituting a radical change.
Nope. Just an ongoing culture war that’ll last until all the pro-aborts die off 
Because it’s not like prior to 1980 either party was exactly supportive of abortion.
You mean each state setting its own abortion laws in accordance with the populace? Yes.
No you didn’t. You misrepresented my point, even after I explained it to you, but I’m sure you’ll never admit it.
Except this wasn’t the argument you were making before. You posted repeatedly about how peoples opinions don’t matter to me personally, as if I said they did, even though I never said that. {insert expected denial here}
responses don’t really matter to you. Any reasonable argument is just twisted in some semantic convoluted mess {like the one I snipped above this} It saves a lot of time to just realize that any argument to you will elicit the “I’m right no matter what you say or what evidence you present” response, and the classic, “My arguments are always logical and yours aren’t”
Just for yucks can you find one or two posts from you where you acknowledge that someone who doesn’t agree with you made a good solid point, or one incident where you admitted an error other than a typo.
Given the standard of logic you’ve demonstrated in your posts as your frame of judgement, I’ll take this as a compliment.
I never argued that society couldn’t create a legal definition.
Yes I can because of the unavoidable and connected bodily autonomy issue. Making a law that denies abortion rights automatically means that women are biologically enslaved. Tell me one other situation where it’s okay for the law to force someone to be biologically enslaved to another? {try not to avoid this question}
This is why your arguments are illogical. When you make them you ignore the connection of the other issues involved. On some side issues your logic just doesn’t follow. You present something like, because of X we conclude that Y is true, when Y isn’t the only or even likely conclusion. “could possibly follow” isn’t the same as “necessarily follows” at all. You seem aware of that when you want to discount arguments , but ignore it when making a lot of yours.
I did explain this before in a general comment about why your arguments fail and your logic isn’t really logic post # 2157 which you just dismissed.
Your approach to this issue seems to be to separate the points, i.e. person-hood, bodily autonomy, human rights, etc. and argue that with what you refer to as “logical conclusions” It appears your thinking is , if you can discount them independently, then you have dismantled the pro choice argument as a whole.
This in itself is illogical.
These points, come together in the abortion issue in a unique way and can’t be separated if we are to consider the issue with intellectual honesty. The issue is complex because we do value human life and we do value women’s rights and bodily autonomy. It forces us to make a judgement call we might like to avoid. Is the embryo a person? Does that person have the right to life in a way that we can compel another person to be biologically bound? Not simple questions, but ones we are bound to answer to some degree when it comes to writing societies laws.
Not at all. It’s your interpretation of my words that results in a misrepresentation. I don’t know if it’s intentional and don’t care at this point. I NEVER claimed that moral arguments had NO influence. I said according to the link it appears many of the laws passed had other motives.
I appreciate the links. I accept that there was indeed a moral argument being made, {never claimed there wasn’t} The anti abortion laws were passed over quite a stretch of years from state to state. Your proves the presence a moral argument , but not that it was the primary consideration from state to state.
Let me note that your 1st link actually does mention the fact that midwives and women doctors {OH NO!!} were among those preforming abortions. At least Horatio was right up front with wanting harsher penalties for those having or assisting in abortions. He didn’t even want a requirement that pregnancy be proven. It also mentions the doctors that objected.
Bryan was correct in noting that women’s rights and their position in society was quite different back then. They couldn’t vote yet. That makes me wonder if the AMA was a real reflection of society.
Not directly in the presidential race, but it was clear at the time that Bush supporters wanted gay marriage on as many state ballots as possible, on the reasoning the people who didn’t care enough about Bush v. Kerry to bother going to the polls just for that would go to the polls if they thought it would stop gay marriage and the people who would do this were more than likely to vote for Bush and other Republicans (New York Times cite).
So, seriously, it was a big issue, a net positive for Bush and various state Republicans in tight races. Abortion was not, or at least I don’t recall so.
Are you talking about the Florida constitution or the national constitution? If the latter, that’s not how SCOTUS works.
My arguments are just fine, thanks, and it’s not at all out of line to suggest your argument hinges on abortion remaining legal only because the courts are forcing it to remain so, against the will of the American people. It’s well in keeping with the pervasive victimology of modern American politics.
That’s one possible route. The other is to work as hard as possible to get pro-life presidents and pro-life senators elected, so the former can nominate pro-life justices and the latter can confirm them.
Heck, there’s been serious talk of constitutional amendments specifically banning gay marriage. If abortion is way more important to the American people than that…
And of course it’s not easy. It’s deliberately designed to not be easy. So?
Hey, feel free to suggest any other Republican candidate who can better serve the pro-life cause. I don’t care who it is - I just grabbed Santorum because it’s one of the few things I know about him.
On paper, maybe, but abortions were going on even in the states where the restrictions were toughest. As you’ve said, there weren’t thousands of deaths due to botched abortions prior to Roe because medical doctors were performing them. The main change after Roe was that something that was happening anyway could now happen legally.
I typically use 1980 (and Reagan’s election) as the benchmark for modern political evangelical influence, probably because I expect if they’d tried it with Nixon, he would have told them to go fuck themselves.
Cool. And what if no state manages to set a pro-Roe standard without causing a major backlash? I’d kinda like to see what would happen, actually - Utah and some other states finally getting their shot to ban abortion, then activists groups set up “underground railroad” transports for women to neighboring, more liberal states, and after a few years of this, renewed clamoring for Roe’s return…
Except I didn’t, and a cursory glance at the way the argument went will prove this.
See. The more you type, the more you prove that you don’t read what I write out. I’m going to quote myself:
[QUOTE=Yup, Me]
And yet again, I point out to you how untrue and a load of BS this is. If this were true, and if people’s opinions mattered, as you say, then you would have to agree that abortion is murder (since the majority of respondents in the U.S. view abortion to be murder, with the majority of people who believe abortion is murder to equate it to killing a born child) and that abortion should be limited to cases of rape, incest, maternal health and severe fetal defects (as those are the only cases in which abortion support is greater than 50%). If, as you want us to believe (scoffs), the opinions of the people matter, then why exactly aren’t you fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade and let the people, whose opinions you say matter, determine what abortion laws are?
[/quote]
It’s funny how you say people’s opinions matter, but then say that those same people who’s opinions matter shouldn’t be allowed to have their opinions influence the law on abortion. That’s called speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Or, at least, trying to. Unsuccessfully, I might add.
Reasonable arguments? Reasonable to whom? Simply because you refuse to take your arguments to their logical conclusions doesn’t mean I’m making them a “semantic, convoluted mess”. You, and many pro-choicers, have this knack of using certain arguments, and then try to restrict those arguments as being valid only in the case of abortion, or only up to a certain point. This doesn’t work. Same what you will about it, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with me pointing out that your arguments aren’t logical. Or, more specifically, that your arguments are nonsensical because you refuse to carry them through to their logical position. Anyone who refuses to do so does so because they know something is inherently flawed in their rationale.
Find me said posts I’ve missed and I’ll gladly respond to them. See? That’s the difference between you and I. You’ll purposely ignore something, even after it’s brought to your attention. Me? Not at all.
And, as they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Great! So then society can come up with a legal definition of personhood that includes the unborn, and the argument that “people are entitled to their own beliefs and opinions” won’t matter a lick. Now tell that to your fellow pro-cohicers who want to argue differently.
Yes I can because of the unavoidable and connected bodily autonomy issue. Making a law that denies abortion rights automatically means that women are biologically enslaved. Tell me one other situation where it’s okay for the law to force someone to be biologically enslaved to another? {try not to avoid this question}
LOL! Wtf does this mean? It doesn’t even make sense. Let me help you out, because you obviously don’t understand the argument that has been made and responded to.
Here’s what pro-choicers in this very thread have argued (Tell me how this isn’t true, because I can provide exact quotes): “Others have no right to force a definition of personhood onto others!”
All right, fine. If this is true, and individuals have no right to force a definition of personhood onto others, then this means that you have no right to force someone to adhere to a definition of personhood that isn’t there own, which means that someone who holds a definition of personhood should be allowed to act in accordance to those beliefs. So if someone doesn’t beleive that a newborn is a person and they kill that newborn, then that action is therefore justified as they were acting in accordance to those beliefs which you’ve allowed that they should be able to have.
But, as you’ve demonstrated time and time again, you reject this notion and thusly argue that people should only be allowed to define who is and isn’t a person as it relates to abortion. But this leads to one asking why this should only be the case in abortion, and not everywhere, to which you thusly respond with something along the lines of something amounting to “Because one deals with the woman’s body and the other doesn’!”, which completely begs the question as it doesn’t explain why bodily autonomy is important to being allowed to define someone as a person or not. I mean, really. So what? If, as you want to implicitly assume, the right to bodily autonomy includes the right to act regardless of the effect it has on another, then whether someone is inside of your body or outside of it is immaterial. If the right to bodily autonomy does not include the right to act as you see fit regardless of the effect it has on another, then abortion is impermissible because having an abortion requires violating the unborn’s right to bodily autonomy. I’m going to ignore the first of those statements because I don’t think you’d argue the right to bodily autonomy to include the right to act regardless of the effect it has on another. Therefore, I’ll focus on the second. The only way you could possibly argue against the latter is to assume that the unborn aren’t persons, but then we’re back to issue one. Of course, since you’ve already stated that people can have a definition of personhood forced upon them by the law, then you agree that we can force a definition of personhood onto pro-choicers and have them abide by.
Therefore, the real argument isn’t about bodily autonomy or any of that garbage, but rather the unborn. So you care to argue that or do you want to continue to focus on irrelevant stuff?
…Because post #2,161 (which you cherry-picked your responses to, mind you) doesn’t exist.
Nope. See a few posts above. Also, on a side note, you click on that link I gave you about pro-lifers being far more effective at framing the abortion debate and influencing public opinion than are pro-choicers, did you? Oh well. Sad stuff.
You can unecessarily complicate any issue. Just because you can throw out a lot of BS, doesn’t mean an issue is complex. Life versus convenience? Life wins. See how simple that was.
Uh-huh. Anyway, good luck with citations for the bold. A select quote from one guy in 1868 doesn’t prove this as true.
So, in essence, you’re content to play a game you can’t lose?
Wasn’t it your cite in the first place? It’s not our fault you brought a pancake to a gunfight.
So ignoring the links I provided prior, I do remember specifically saying in post #2,332 that the fact that many states had proposeed gay marriage laws on their ballots were purely incidental, though it did help the Republicans overall. As far as gay marriage being a big issue, again, incorrect.
Pretty close to the stuff that other link I provided said.
Rest assured that if a state ever amends its constitution to ban abortion, SCOTUS will eventually end up taking it.
Well, for one, you can’t argue whether an action is just or injust while ignoring the effects that action has on another. Anyway, ah yes, victimology. That’s what it is. It’s not like that has any basis in truth whatsoever. I happen to like this quote, which comes from McCorvey v. Hill a few years back when Norma McCorvey tried to get Roe v. Wade reversed:
Which, again, seems to be working since (1) going back to 1980, Republicans have won more presidential elections than Democrats (even though Democrats have more registered) voters and (2) Planned Parenthood v. Casey being decided 5 - 4 versus the 7 - 2 decision of Roe v. Wade. But I’d rather not argue like that, personally.
Except there’ve actually been serious amendments to try to ban abortion via the Constitution. None serious with gay marriage.
It’s just as I said. A majority of people could believe something should be a certain way, but that doesn’t translate to being able to amend the Constitution to reflect it.
So you’re saying that if something happens when it’s illegal, that making it legal tomorrow wouldn’t constitute “that big of a change” even if making it illegal overturns all but the laws of four states?
Well, unless you’re going to assume that 90% of pro-lifers disappeared tomorrow, we wouldn’t have to worry about that.
But since you asked, if that happened, then we’d get legalized abortion again as those people clamoring for legalized abortion would just vote in people they agree with, and they’d make new laws indicative of what the people want. Pretty simple, really.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Wasn’t it your cite in the first place? It’s not our fault you brought a pancake to a gunfight.
[/quote]
Yes, it was my cite, but now I’m not the one saying that it doesn’t much matter because society didn’t much care for women back then, anyway.
After all this time in this thread, you can’t differentiate between human, life, human being, etc. with trite, simple explanations. This is the problem that you’ll never see. You can’t say a sperm is not a human life because it is a cell which is life and it is derived from a human. A Human being is a multicellular organism, not a cell. A zygote is a single cell. You don’t get to have your clear cut, simple little world. It’s just not there. Never will be.
A cell:
Sperm cell:
Human sperm cell:
Now human beings or Homo sapiens the organism: