Author Topic: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest  (Read 10579 times)

wachtwoord

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
Quote
I never understand bans on abortion and suicide exist while countries maintain to uphold their constitution above all else. Isn't the right for self-determination in there? Banning abortion and suicide is in direct conflict with that.

How is the discussion here longer than what I just wrote? Oh yeah people are irrational, emotional and inconsistent. Carry on I guess .... :(

Suicide is self harm, where abortion is taking the life of another being. I don't see them on the same playing field. The argument is that "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be guaranteed to that unborn child whom was forced into the world.

Abortion is not taking a life. It's removing an unwanted, parasitic and harmful organism from your body. The consequence of this removal may be death sure, but that is not the goal in itself.

Self-determination includes the right to remove things from your body, since the inside of ones body is part of the self.


It's a separate human. It has its own feet, hands, toes and unique dna. You can count the arms on it. Does that mean the woman has 4 arms?  And two unique DNAs???  ::)

If someone eats a worm (or anything else living) does that mean that the worm is no longer its own being just because its location changed? Now eventually the worm would become part of the body as the body digests it...but I don't think it works that way with a baby. By your reasoning, it certainly seems so.

By the way, we're all organisms.  ;)

Lol you didn't understand what I wrote at all. Of course they are biologically separate organisms and logically distinct entities (albeit one relatively much less complex).

I'm saying the inside of the body (in this case the inside of a woman,'s uterus, but any part suffices) is part of a person.Therefore the person (by the right of self determination) may remove things from there. A thing can be anything from foreign objects (eg swallowed pen), to other organisms (eg human fetus, parasitic worm) to parts of the person itself (eg taking out part of your own liver).

It's you body and only you has the right of allowing things to remain inside or not. People should stop telling (or in this case forcing) others what to do with their body.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2019, 02:26:37 AM by wachtwoord »
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"


stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2933
Legal abortions reduce crime rates.

http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

I agree.

If our goal to reduce crime, though, a better course of action is to terminate first offenders. This would dramatically reduce crime rates even more than abortion. And, you're not terminating innocent humans.
Paul

Castanza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Quote
Now, if you follow your logic, since every human has "zero right" to grow inside another human, we should be experiencing extinction in the next... 120 years or so. The government should stop all of these rights violations immediately.
Paul, it wasn't my logic, you made the point by saying these fetuses were "separate humans". I think they are pretty obviously part of the woman's body - if you removed it, it could not survive.

Quote
So now its a life? Which is it?
Castanza, you can call it whatever you want. It's semantics.

To all the points on child support etc. I thought this was addressed? Men and women both have equal say pre-intercourse and post-pregnancy. During these periods both parties are assuming equal risk. But during pregnancy, women have more rights because they're the ones taking all the risk.

Life vs not a life is not semantics....

Also, a small child couldn't survive on it's own either.....That excuse is semantics

Castanza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Sanj,


Thanks for the answer. For the parent question, in the beginning of the thread you seemed to express displeasure by saying how abortion is "always decided by men."

By this reasoning, should the way parents treat their children only be decided by parents? Obviously, if men shouldn't have moral opinions about abortions, I don't see why it's fair for non-parents to have moral opinions about what parents do.

Hi StahleyP,

You've answered your own question. 

The vast majority of decision makers (legislators, social service authorities, etc) over the welfare of children ARE parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc, and ALL were children once.

From what I understand about human biology, a nearly unanimous majority of the male decision makers (legislators, authorities, etc) making decisions for women, ARE NOT women who can carry a child to term and NEVER were girls.  And that doesn't change even if Catelynn Jenner becomes a Congresswoman or Senator!  :)  Cheers!

Sanj,

By the way, do you know who signed the Alabama bill into law? Do you know who signed the New York bill into law?

All these male legislators telling women what to do. The nerve of them!

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state?  You are going to the Constitution when it comes to guns, and then ignoring it when it comes to women's rights...you can't have your cake and eat it too!  Either you make decisions on a fundamental human and constitutional basis, or you admit that the rules are arbitrary and made to fit whatever the whim of the day is based on who is in power.  Cheers!

One person may have referenced God but that doesn't mean the majority of people think of abortion as a religious argument. I don't think it is at all. Morality (specifically the right to life) exists outside of every religion and that my friend IS in the constitution. That unborn child is and should be protected by the constitution. Is it not a duty of government to speak for those who cannot? That's the exact reason why we have laws which prevent parents from abusing their children etc. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness applies to that unborn baby.

Castanza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Quote
I never understand bans on abortion and suicide exist while countries maintain to uphold their constitution above all else. Isn't the right for self-determination in there? Banning abortion and suicide is in direct conflict with that.

How is the discussion here longer than what I just wrote? Oh yeah people are irrational, emotional and inconsistent. Carry on I guess .... :(

Suicide is self harm, where abortion is taking the life of another being. I don't see them on the same playing field. The argument is that "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be guaranteed to that unborn child whom was forced into the world.

Abortion is not taking a life. It's removing an unwanted, parasitic and harmful organism from your body. The consequence of this removal may be death sure, but that is not the goal in itself.

Self-determination includes the right to remove things from your body, since the inside of ones body is part of the self.


It's a separate human. It has its own feet, hands, toes and unique dna. You can count the arms on it. Does that mean the woman has 4 arms?  And two unique DNAs???  ::)

If someone eats a worm (or anything else living) does that mean that the worm is no longer its own being just because its location changed? Now eventually the worm would become part of the body as the body digests it...but I don't think it works that way with a baby. By your reasoning, it certainly seems so.

By the way, we're all organisms.  ;)

Lol you didn't understand what I wrote at all. Of course they are biologically separate organisms and logically distinct entities (albeit one relatively much less complex).

I'm saying the inside of the body (in this case the inside of a woman,'s uterus, but any part suffices) is part of a person.Therefore the person (by the right of self determination) may remove things from there. A thing can be anything from foreign objects (eg swallowed pen), to other organisms (eg human fetus, parasitic worm) to parts of the person itself (eg taking out part of your own liver).

It's you body and only you has the right of allowing things to remain inside or not. People should stop telling (or in this case forcing) others what to do with their body.

This is unbelievable wrong. You can't compare a biological process to someone ingesting an inanimate object. Apples or oranges.....

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2933
Sanj,


Thanks for the answer. For the parent question, in the beginning of the thread you seemed to express displeasure by saying how abortion is "always decided by men."

By this reasoning, should the way parents treat their children only be decided by parents? Obviously, if men shouldn't have moral opinions about abortions, I don't see why it's fair for non-parents to have moral opinions about what parents do.

Hi StahleyP,

You've answered your own question. 

The vast majority of decision makers (legislators, social service authorities, etc) over the welfare of children ARE parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc, and ALL were children once.

From what I understand about human biology, a nearly unanimous majority of the male decision makers (legislators, authorities, etc) making decisions for women, ARE NOT women who can carry a child to term and NEVER were girls.  And that doesn't change even if Catelynn Jenner becomes a Congresswoman or Senator!  :)  Cheers!

Sanj,

By the way, do you know who signed the Alabama bill into law? Do you know who signed the New York bill into law?

All these male legislators telling women what to do. The nerve of them!

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state?  You are going to the Constitution when it comes to guns, and then ignoring it when it comes to women's rights...you can't have your cake and eat it too!  Either you make decisions on a fundamental human and constitutional basis, or you admit that the rules are arbitrary and made to fit whatever the whim of the day is based on who is in power.  Cheers!

The Constitution does separate church from state but it doesn't separate a person's conscience from their decision making.

Personally, I'm in favor of tighter gun laws. If one values human life, why wouldn't you want to try to protect it through tighter gun laws?







Paul

bearprowler6

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76


She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state?  You are going to the Constitution when it comes to guns, and then ignoring it when it comes to women's rights...you can't have your cake and eat it too!  Either you make decisions on a fundamental human and constitutional basis, or you admit that the rules are arbitrary and made to fit whatever the whim of the day is based on who is in power.  Cheers!
[/quote]

One person may have referenced God but that doesn't mean the majority of people think of abortion as a religious argument. I don't think it is at all. Morality (specifically the right to life) exists outside of every religion and that my friend IS in the constitution. That unborn child is and should be protected by the constitution. Is it not a duty of government to speak for those who cannot? That's the exact reason why we have laws which prevent parents from abusing their children etc. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness applies to that unborn baby.
[/quote]

If you are referencing the laws...then you must look to Roe vs Wade...that is the law of the land decided at the highest court in the land. You may disagree with that judgement as many do however until it is overturned then it applies.

Furthermore, laws do not prevent any action...they may deter...they may punish...but laws do not prevent. So I would have to disagree with your comment that existing laws `prevent`parents from abusing their children.

Your morality is not my morality and no the Constitution does not grant `life, liberty and happiness`to unborn children.

cwericb

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916

“It's you body and only you has the right of allowing things to remain inside or not. People should stop telling (or in this case forcing) others what to do with their body.”

“Your morality is not my morality and no the Constitution does not grant `life, liberty and happiness`to unborn children.”


Correct.

Next will these people demand the right to tell you when you can and cannot go to the bathroom? After all, they firmly believe they have a right to control what goes on inside your own body.

Throughout history many wars have been fought because one group of people believed they have the RIGHT to impose their personal beliefs on everybody else. Some people have learned nothing from history. 

What gives someone the right to tell someone else what they can do within their own body? Is it not the height of arrogance for someone to think that they have a right to force someone else to follow their personal beliefs?
Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason. - Mark Twain

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2933
Quote
I never understand bans on abortion and suicide exist while countries maintain to uphold their constitution above all else. Isn't the right for self-determination in there? Banning abortion and suicide is in direct conflict with that.

How is the discussion here longer than what I just wrote? Oh yeah people are irrational, emotional and inconsistent. Carry on I guess .... :(

Suicide is self harm, where abortion is taking the life of another being. I don't see them on the same playing field. The argument is that "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be guaranteed to that unborn child whom was forced into the world.

Abortion is not taking a life. It's removing an unwanted, parasitic and harmful organism from your body. The consequence of this removal may be death sure, but that is not the goal in itself.

Self-determination includes the right to remove things from your body, since the inside of ones body is part of the self.


It's a separate human. It has its own feet, hands, toes and unique dna. You can count the arms on it. Does that mean the woman has 4 arms?  And two unique DNAs???  ::)

If someone eats a worm (or anything else living) does that mean that the worm is no longer its own being just because its location changed? Now eventually the worm would become part of the body as the body digests it...but I don't think it works that way with a baby. By your reasoning, it certainly seems so.

By the way, we're all organisms.  ;)

Lol you didn't understand what I wrote at all. Of course they are biologically separate organisms and logically distinct entities (albeit one relatively much less complex).

I'm saying the inside of the body (in this case the inside of a woman,'s uterus, but any part suffices) is part of a person.Therefore the person (by the right of self determination) may remove things from there. A thing can be anything from foreign objects (eg swallowed pen), to other organisms (eg human fetus, parasitic worm) to parts of the person itself (eg taking out part of your own liver).

It's you body and only you has the right of allowing things to remain inside or not. People should stop telling (or in this case forcing) others what to do with their body.

If they are separate humans, why does the mother have the "right" to terminate it? Does a dictator have the "right" to terminate people living in his country? He certainly believes in "self-determination".
Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2933


She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state?  You are going to the Constitution when it comes to guns, and then ignoring it when it comes to women's rights...you can't have your cake and eat it too!  Either you make decisions on a fundamental human and constitutional basis, or you admit that the rules are arbitrary and made to fit whatever the whim of the day is based on who is in power.  Cheers!

One person may have referenced God but that doesn't mean the majority of people think of abortion as a religious argument. I don't think it is at all. Morality (specifically the right to life) exists outside of every religion and that my friend IS in the constitution. That unborn child is and should be protected by the constitution. Is it not a duty of government to speak for those who cannot? That's the exact reason why we have laws which prevent parents from abusing their children etc. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness applies to that unborn baby.
[/quote]

If you are referencing the laws...then you must look to Roe vs Wade...that is the law of the land decided at the highest court in the land. You may disagree with that judgement as many do however until it is overturned then it applies.

Furthermore, laws do not prevent any action...they may deter...they may punish...but laws do not prevent. So I would have to disagree with your comment that existing laws `prevent`parents from abusing their children.

Your morality is not my morality and no the Constitution does not grant `life, liberty and happiness`to unborn children.
[/quote]

The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Wouldn't it be fair to say that all men and women are "created" at the same time - inception? I don't think a person is "created" at birth since you can certainly see the person's feet kicking or on an ultrasound.

Let's say that your morality is different. Why do you feel yours is superior? What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?


« Last Edit: May 21, 2019, 07:13:51 AM by stahleyp »
Paul