Fair enough. Although I would point out that a Venn diagram of the terms in use would consist of a large circle labeled “Human Being,” a second smaller circle totally enclosed in the first called “Child,” and a third even smaller circle, totally inside the second, labeled “Unborn Child.”
So in my view, it’s absolutely accurate to refer to a fetus as a human being, or a child, or an unborn child.
No. I linked to the (post-Heller) onerous requirements:
Hell, let’s just call everyone an “undead person”; it’s as accurate as “unborn child”.
Which was the work of the city council overseen by Congress.
The usual bullshit from anti-abortionists who don’t give a fuck about women. Paying child support does not literally require someone to literally risk their lives. Going through with a pregnancy does. As I pointed out in an another thread, over seven hundred women in the US alone die each year from pregnancy and thousands more suffer serious consequences as a result. My girls and I and any other woman on the planet should not be forced into a pregnancy we don’t want because of your religious and moral beliefs.
A grown woman should always be more important than any fetus she carries. Men who believe otherwise should not be let near grown women.
This, plus rights of bodily autonomy. Everyone has (or should have) the right to expel anything or anyone from their body that they don’t want inside. At any time, and for any reason, whether it’s a parasite, a fetus, or a tiny violinist. No one has the right to anyone else’s bodily functions unless they want them to.
Because you say so?
It’s perfectly all right to tell someone he has to work two jobs and hand over the greater part of his earnings to support a child for eighteen years, but it’s a violation of basic rights to involve the inside of their body. And this distinction is the correct one, because it feels right to you?
A city council utterly dominated by Democrats, yes, which meets the requirements of the example I was asked to provide.
You keep announcing these determinations as though they had the force of scientific law.
Why do you imagine that your pronouncements are correct? Is it because you repeat them so stridently? Or because you have such awesome consequences for those who ignore them?
Why do you think that a woman should be forced to go through a pregnancy because of your religious and/or moral beliefs, Bricker?
And, do you think it’s wrong for courts to order fathers to pay child support? Your post above seems to imply that.
Why don’t you just call me a shrill little woman who doesn’t really know what’s good for her and be done with it, you smug prick?
Women don’t die from pregnancy? Really? Did I just make that up? They don’t get pre-eclampsia? They don’t get gestational diabetes? They don’t have C-sections? They don’t risk strokes from high blood pressure? A pregnancy doesn’t aggravate ms? Is it all just made up so we can kill babies?
Working to support a child already here is not the same thing as forcing someone to literally risk their life and health to support a fetus. If you were an honest human being instead of someone who cares more the unborn than people already here, you would admit this.
Why don’t you just shut the fuck up already on this issue. You’re not the one who spent three weeks in the hospital with a pregnancy unable to keep food down and in so much pain you were begging the nurse for morphine. You’re not the one trying to lose twenty pounds two years after giving birth. You’re not the one who dealt with heart beating too fast because you were pregnant. You’re not the one who was on three different meds as a result of the pregnancy and spent six months before you finally felt better after you gave birth. You don’t want an abortion then don’t get one. What me and my girls choose to do with our uteri is none of your concern. You need to get over it.
If I got pregnant again despite using two forms of birth control, I would think long and hard and probably have an abortion. At no point in time would your beliefs, morals or religion enter into that decision. The assertion that it should is both laughable and unbelievably arrogant.
No, I agree that the law should be able to compel monetary child support. And by the same general reasoning, I believe the law should be able to compel non-monetary life support.
You seem to think it’s just my moral and religious beliefs that I’m relying upon. To the contrary: I’m relying on the fact that the legislature passed and the governor signed a law. I would never sit here and say that my belief, alone, was sufficient reason to compel anyone to do anything. I have constantly pointed out the fact that we live in a representative democracy, and thus have a system for creating and interpreting laws, and what I’m speaking in support of right now is such a law.
Philosophically, yes, but this was also how I understood the Supreme Court’s view of the “right to privacy”.
People can actually make arguments on message boards that are based on feelings, emotions, philosophy, etc., they don’t always need to be based on legal precedent.
That worked so well for the Jim Crow laws.
Because the basis of my disagreement with you is not your XX chromosones, but the logic of your position.
Yes, all those things happen.
Perhaps I should have been more clear: you made a series of statements. Some are objective facts. Others are conclusory. It is the latter which engender my opposition.
It’s not precisely the same thing, but it’s a strong enough analogy that I regard it as persuasive.
No. It seems obvious that the way this country works baffles you in some very fundamental ways. I welcome your continued – if incoherent – attempts to declare by fiat what the law should be. And I decline your kind invitation to shut up.
And that would be your right under the law. Of course, if you were a resident of Wisconsin, a necessary prior step would be getting an ultrasound, which is ALSO a facet of the law. And one I’m pleased to see.
Sure. But since the discussion at hand – and the OP of the thread itself – relates to various LEGAL attempts to limit or regulate abortion, it sure seems like a legal argument is at hand.
And my response to the feelings, emotions, philosophy argument is simply: I disagree. And I’m highlighting the fact that one who argues from feelings or emotions has no particular claim to the unvarnished truth - correct? A statement that arises from feelings or emotions cannot be presented as some delivered-from-on-high fact. It’s simply one person’s feelings. All are welcome to their own feelings, of course, but by what right does someone say, “My feelings are the only ones which may inform the discussion?”
Well, ultimately it did: the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was obviously an act of legislature.
But let’s take your argument – what’s the alternative? King Runner Pat I ?
Bricker, out of curiosity- if you engaged in risky behavior one day (or took precautions but the precautions failed), and the next day woke up with something growing inside of you that you didn’t want there that caused pain, discomfort, a reduction in your faculties and abilities, and an increased risk of death, how would you feel if the law said you could not expel this thing? What would you do? I’m not asking “what if you were a pregnant woman”, I’m asking about who you are now, with something growing inside of you. If it matters, we’ll say that this dangerous object is a tiny, shrunken person who needs to feed off your bodily fluids for several months to grow or he’ll die.
Because of the existence of paternal support requirements, we should mandate maternal gestation requirements?
I recognize the basic biological inequity, but this just seems spiteful.
As others have pointed out, where your attempt at analogy fails is in the “24 hours a day with no choice” part of things.
No father is told where he has to work or what he has to do for money when he is ordered to pay child support. In contrast a woman is bound 24/7 in a potentially life-threatening position by what you would like to be the law, with no choice of what kind of child she carries or when she carries it.
Would you support a law that required a parent to donate organs to save their child’s life, even if it meant that the parent would die?
Remind me again: what purpose does the law you refer to serve? Why was it passed? It sure seems to me that the only reason, or at least the overriding reason, was to align the law with someone’s religious and/or moral belief. The fact that it’s law doesn’t change the fact that it’s done simply to force women to conform to someone else’s religious and/or moral beliefs, does it? And so why should that be alright, if there isn’t a clear and strong majority of people, from all belief systems, who support it?
We didn’t make it illegal to kill someone because of the Decalogue; we made it illegal because by any rational thought the idea is abhorrent.
The law you speak of doesn’t have anywhere near that same level of support by people, regardless of their religious stance. How is it justified as a law, then?