Against abortion and against person-hood?

[Town Heretic]

To begin a discussion of rights by side-stepping the ninth amendment (retained rights) is an odd step for a man studied in law. Nuff said there.

Well, no. I'm not side stepping, I'm addressing an argument to the supposition, mistaken as I believe it was and for the reasons set out, that the Court was justified in its insertion of an arbitrary distinction regarding being and right.

Yes, we do have all sorts of rights while you could make similar arguments for most of them...defining such limits regarding this particular right is the crux of the debate. Preemption fails the entire process.

The only presumption is carried by the Court and every other person beating a drum on the point of vestment.

Again, I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of abortion but rather arguing against (while personally surprised by) your mode of reasoning which completely fails to give "woman's rights" (in relation to abortion) equal time.

Rather, the right you're speaking to rests on the very foundation my argument counters. Without the Court saying, in essence, "At this arbitrary point right vests and the woman cannot do what she could do a breath before" there is no right. The question of vestment is then the determination of that judgment.

If you desire to claim a rational approach then you must rebut the opposition instead of furtively sequestering it.

Rather, if any argument is less than rational it can be taken apart in parts. Years still standing and mostly the attempt is to start another argument, not address the one proffered. Else, supra.

This quote from you deftly illustrates the driving force behind a woman's right to her own body.

How?

You simply cannot establish positive rights-to-life for the unborn whilst ignoring said right's inherent limitations.

Again, I'm not attempting to establish the point at all. That's not the argument. And where that line falls the Court doesn't limit it at all.

 

[glassjester]

'You knew me in the womb' is obviously a construct of predestination.
God would not make the mistake of placing a soul into something that will die due to intentional abortion, as it bear no meaning or purpose to do so.

Does God place souls into babies that die the day after they're born?

 

[glassjester]

We'll start here. Clearly you reserve - justly so - the legal option of killing another human being in the defense of your own.

Except I didn't.
I said I would try to stop my attacker.
I said that others should try to stop him, too.

I would not and should not intentionally try to kill him.

Since we're discussing limitations of rights to life by way of one human being's encroachment upon another human being....I believe the unborn equally qualify as the effective encroach-er

Pregnancy is not a crime. Being conceived is not a crime, either. It's how humans are made.

If you're going to liken pregnancy to a criminal situation (as farfetched as that is), then if anything, the unborn human is the victim - he has been wrongfully imprisoned. The unborn did not encroach or attack or trespass; the unborn was put there by someone else.

 

[Crucible]

Does God place souls into babies that die the day after they're born?

There's purpose in that.

 

[glassjester]

There's purpose in that.

I agree.

What do you say the purpose is?

 

[Crucible]

I agree.

What do you say the purpose is?

God works in mysterious ways. It's different in all situations.

 

[glassjester]

God works in mysterious ways. It's different in all situations.

Indeed.

 

[quip]

Except I didn't.
I said I would try to stop my attacker.
I said that others should try to stop him, too.

I would not and should not intentionally try to kill him.

That's swell, pat yourself on the back... though its entirely irrelevant to the point.

The fact is that you hold a just option to take a human beings life in defense of yours. (not that you must. Read: choice)

Pregnancy is not a crime. Being conceived is not a crime, either. It's how humans are made.

No one said anything about a crime. Try again.

 

[glassjester]

That's swell, pat yourself on the back... though its entirely irrelevant to the point.

The fact is that you hold a just option to take a human beings life in defense of yours. (not that you must. Read: choice)

How is abortion killing in self-defense? Defense against what?
What is the attempted attack against the mother, and who is attempting it?

 

[quip]

Again, I'm not attempting to establish the point at all. That's not the argument.

Then that's that.

There's simply no need to belabor upon idle palaver.

 

[quip]

How is abortion killing in self-defense? Defense against what?
What is the attempted attack against the mother, and who is attempting it?

You're losing track of the argument. Go back a few post...then get back to me.

 

[glassjester]

You're losing track of the argument. Go back a few post...then get back to me.

You've likened abortion to using lethal force to stop an attacker. Get real.
The differences between the two scenarios outnumber the similarities a million to one.

What right of the mother is defended by abortion? The right to bodily autonomy? All sorts of laws limit what we do with our bodies.
The right to "not be pregnant"? Ridiculous.
Pregnancy is a normal bodily function.

Does my "right to bodily autonomy" mean that anything I don't want in my body must be immediately removed by a doctor? Do I have a "right" to not have legs?

Can I go to a doctor and say he must remove my legs simply because I don't want them there?

 

[quip]

You've likened abortion to using lethal force to stop an attacker. Get real.
The differences between the two scenarios outnumber the similarities a million to one.

What right of the mother is defended by abortion? The right to bodily autonomy? All sorts of laws limit what we do with our bodies.
The right to "not be pregnant"? Ridiculous.
Pregnancy is a normal bodily function.

Does my "right to bodily autonomy" mean that anything I don't want in my body must be immediately removed by a doctor? Do I have a "right" to not have legs?

Can I go to a doctor and say he must remove my legs simply because I don't want them there?

You don't take direction very well...do you?

 

[Lon]

That is something which is contrary to many things, including the sovereignty of God, as it would say that we have control even over an ethereal realm.

Disagree or there would be no murders at all. I see it as a thin veneer of theology rather than being substantial.

The biggest buster of the claim that abortion is murder can be found in Exodus when the fetus is outright made synonymous to property- the woman is the subject of concern, as she can have more children.

For me: :nono: I count "if there is no harm" as waiting to see what happens after childbirth and see that passage as completely opposed to that rendering that would devalue the human life.

 

[glassjester]

I believe the unborn equally qualify as the effective encroach-er, a scenario replete with the mother holding every moral and legal choice to alleviate...much like yours above.

You do not seem to know what you are saying.

Do you believe that a woman has the right to kill her unborn child for the same reason that a woman has a right to defend herself from an attacker?

That seems to be what you're arguing for.
It's an absurd analogy.

Please explain to me how I have misunderstood you.
I really hope that I have.

 

[quip]

You do not seem to know what you are saying.

Do you believe that a woman has the right to kill her unborn child for the same reason that a woman has a right to defend herself from an attacker?

That seems to be what you're arguing for.
It's an absurd analogy.

Please explain to me how I have misunderstood you.
I really hope that I have.

They're extreme cases whereas the underlying principle remains consistent. You're simply exploiting the circumstantial differences for rhetorical/dramatic purpose. But this doesn't need be.. the simple (otherwise innocuous) act of snipping another's lock of hair may not be allowed sans consent under the identical principle which entails encroachment upon another's body..no matter how boring or sensational the physical circumstance may be.

 

[Crucible]

I believe women have the right to perform their own abortion, and not through means of an abortionist.

Abortion is due to a women's mental illness. To have a practice of serving that mental illness is absurd.

 

[Rusha]

I believe women have the right to perform their own abortion, and not through means of an abortionist.

Abortion is due to a women's mental illness.

Of course you do ... because as long as the mother dies, the unborn baby is expendable. This type of blatant disdain towards unborn babies and their mothers is due to .... mental illness.

 

[WizardofOz]

I believe women have the right to perform their own abortion, and not through means of an abortionist.

Abortion is due to a women's mental illness. To have a practice of serving that mental illness is absurd.

Just don't let anyone here catch you claiming to be anything but pro-choice. Deal?

Now, what if a friend of the woman helps her somehow? Would that then be a criminal act or only if they have a medical license of some sort? I don't think you've thought this one through.

 

[Crucible]

Of course you do ... because as long as the mother dies, the unborn baby is expendable. This type of blatant disdain towards unborn babies and their mothers is due to .... mental illness.

Nah.

You focus on the fetus was to deter the attention of the 'murderer'.

See, you all call it murder, but have crafted it to emphasize anyone else EXCEPT the damn woman herself.

In reality, if you all actually believed your condemnation of 'murder', it's simply eye for eye for a women to lose her life performing an abortion.

There's so many logical flaws in your thinking on this subject, and it's due to you all's mental illness