Bronx Zoo Elephant Not a Person Court Rules

You have it the wrong way round. If they do not want to be pregnant, then they can have an abortion. The aim of abortion is to end the pregnancy. The death of the unborn child is what the American military would call unavoidable and regrettable collateral damage.
Except that it isn't unavoidable, regrettable collateral damage. It is perfectly avoidable. All the woman has to do is--NOT have an abortion. Then, her child does not have to die.

How is this entirely unavoidable?

As the poster above said----the new life within the woman trumps her right to sovereignty. As you have pointed out yourself: the right to bodily autonomy and sovereignty is not absolute. The government may infringe on bodily autonomy and sovereignty for the good of society as a whole. One example of this necessary infringement is in mandating vaccines. And I have no problem with vaccine mandates-precisely becasue---no right is absolute. Protecting rights is always a balancing act between individual vs society at large.

Another example of this infringement comes with anti-prostitution laws. The government tells women that though they have bodily autonomy and sovereignty over their body, they may NOT sell their body for sex. This, despite the woman's belief that she can best make money in doing so. The government has decided that prostitution is bad, whatever the woman thinks and so violates her sovereignty with said laws.

Yet still another example of this infringement comes with anti-drug laws. Woman may not put drugs into their body. The government has decided doing so is bad--and so outlaws drug use.

Even still another example is in gun restrictions. Some liberal state governments have decided that the right of a woman to choose to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense must take a back seat to the overall right of the government to ban guns becasue for some reason, legal gun ownership for the purposes of self defense is bad. Legal gun ownership causes people to commit mass killings. Legal gun ownership for the purposes of self defense is the reason mass killings with guns are happening. This, even when a woman wants to choose to keep and bear arms to defend her rights.

Want still more examples? In liberal states, government has decided that the right of a woman to choose which school to send her children takes a back seat. Women may not use their tax dollars and choose schools. For that matter, women may not even choose which public schools to send their children. Government will tell her where to send her children. If she doesn't like it and is wealthy, and can afford private education, only then may she have school choice.

So government violates sovereignty all the time and I hear no complaints from liberals.

All you have to do is apply the exact same logic to abortion. Women DO have the right to bodily autonomy and sovereignty----as long as----it involves ONLY the woman and no one else. The woman's right to bodily autonomy and sovereignty stops once she is pregnant becasue she is carrying another life. The issue isn't her body, but what she wants to do to someone else's body. Thus, the government in that case limits her bodily autonomy.

If we get to mandate vaccines for the good of society, we get to outlaw abortion for much the same reason.

The solution to pregnancy is simple: if you do not want to be pregnant, do not get pregnant! This isn't rocket science, but for you it seems so. Not getting pregnant is like asking a woman to cut off her right arm for you for some reason.

And once again, you prove my point: liberals only seem to care about sovereignty when it concerns the Sacrament of abortion. "Choice" means "The right to murder your off-spring." Outside of that---liberals don't seem to care much about "choice" "sovereignty" or "bodily autonomy."

Why not just drop the euphemisms and say "I stand for abortion. I support abortion." What is do hard about that? Why not just admit what you are for? Why can't you just say the words "I love abortion. I stand for abortion. I am proud to stand for abortion!" Just say it! At least then--you are being honest.
 
Last edited:
Another poster reminded me of an exception:

if they want you to.

I am in favour of the right to assisted dying.
I am not.

However, since there you are dealing with a consenting adult who can defend themselves and protect themselves---I find it difficult to argue why we should legislate against doctor assisted suicide. My concern is protecting the rights of those who cannot protect themselves--like the unborn.

But I think the reason many are against legalized doctor assisted suicide is becasue they see it as a slippery slope. They fear that suicide might be imposed in situations where doctors feel fighting for life isn't worth it, costs too much, etc.
 
This sums up the issue. A great many people disagree with this statement. A great many people do agree with it. How do you resolve this? Other nations have found a workable compromise, as have other religious traditions. Why cannot the American debate be brought to a close that all will accept, if not actively agree with?
What do you think that compromise would look like?
 
Except that it isn't unavoidable, regrettable collateral damage. It is perfectly avoidable. All the woman has to do is--NOT have an abortion. Then, her child does not have to die.

How is this entirely unavoidable?
The primary aim is to end the pregnancy. Not attempting the primary aim is worse than the inevitable collateral damage. I am ex-military. Not many missions would be achieved if protecting soldiers lives was more important than the mission. If you want to see where that kind of thinking gets you, watch the video from Uvalde.
As the poster above said----the new life within the woman trumps her right to sovereignty.
And as other posters, myself included, pointed out, this is not anywhere near a universal view.
As you have pointed out yourself: the right to bodily autonomy and sovereignty is not absolute. The government may infringe on bodily autonomy and sovereignty for the good of society as a whole. One example of this necessary infringement is in mandating vaccines. And I have no problem with vaccine mandates-precisely becasue---no right is absolute. Protecting rights is always a balancing act between individual vs society at large.
Quite, though vaccines are a red herring, as has been pointed out. The government can mandate strict population control and compulsory abortion. We call that China.
Another example of this infringement comes with anti-prostitution laws. The government tells women that though they have bodily autonomy and sovereignty over their body, they may NOT sell their body for sex. This, despite the woman's belief that she can best make money in doing so. The government has decided that prostitution is bad, whatever the woman thinks and so violates her sovereignty with said laws.
Prostitution is legal in many places, but yes, the government can indeed regulate who has sex with whom and who can marry whom. Such laws have recently been amended.
Yet still another example of this infringement comes with anti-drug laws. Woman may not put drugs into their body. The government has decided doing so is bad--and so outlaws drug use.
Here the anti-social consequences of drug use are a major factor.
Even still another example is in gun restrictions. Some liberal state governments have decided that the right of a woman to choose to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense must take a back seat to the overall right of the government to ban guns becasue for some reason, legal gun ownership for the purposes of self defense is bad. Legal gun ownership causes people to commit mass killings. Legal gun ownership for the purposes of self defense is the reason mass killings with guns are happening. This, even when a woman wants to choose to keep and bear arms to defend her rights.
This is certainly the case in the civilised world, where bearing arms for self-defence is unnecessary. You will catch up, I'm sure.
Want still more examples? In liberal states, government has decided that the right of a woman to choose which school to send her children takes a back seat. Women may not use their tax dollars and choose schools. For that matter, women may not even choose which public schools to send their children. Government will tell her where to send her children. If she doesn't like it and is wealthy, and can afford private education, only then may she have school choice.
Yes, and?
So government violates sovereignty all the time and I hear no complaints from liberals.
No complaints from me either. Government is not violating sovereignty, it is defining it. Government grants and takes away rights. We agree so far.
All you have to do is apply the exact same logic to abortion. Women DO have the right to bodily autonomy and sovereignty----as long as----it involves ONLY the woman and no one else.
It does.
The woman's right to bodily autonomy and sovereignty stops once she is pregnant becasue she is carrying another life. The issue isn't her body, but what she wants to do to someone else's body. Thus, the government in that case limits her bodily autonomy.
I am all in favour of abortion being regulated and controlled, with appropriate limitations.
If we get to mandate vaccines for the good of society, we get to outlaw abortion for much the same reason.
No, we get to ALLOW abortion for the same reasons. It is good for society, even if detrimental to individuals (which I do not concede).
The solution to pregnancy is simple: if you do not want to be pregnant, do not get pregnant! This isn't rocket science, but for you it seems so. Not getting pregnant is like asking a woman to cut off her right arm for you for some reason.
Not getting pregnant is the ideal. It doesn't fit all circumstances. Abortion is a fail safe.
And once again, you prove my point: liberals only seem to care about sovereignty when it concerns the Sacrament of abortion. "Choice" means "The right to murder your off-spring." Outside of that---liberals don't seem to care much about "choice" "sovereignty" or "bodily autonomy."
Choice is limited where necessary. It is necessary to limit abortions. It is not necessary to ban them.
Why not just drop the euphemisms and say "I stand for abortion. I support abortion." What is do hard about that? Why not just admit what you are for? Why can't you just say the words "I love abortion. I stand for abortion. I am proud to stand for abortion!" Just say it! At least then--you are being honest.
Because you are urging me to lie. Your whole argument is based on telling me what I believe, getting it wrong and urging me to lie about it anyway. Instead of demanding I say what you want me to say, try arguing against what I DO say. Oh, you can't. That's why.
 
What do you think that compromise would look like?
Really not for me to say. I can describe the 60 year old solution from the UK, which still works well. I don't think that would apply in the US though, because there are different starting positions. It may be that lifting Roe will galvanise the debate to a point where compromise is possible. A prerequisite though is not treating opponents as if they were moral lepers. That applies to all sides.
 
The primary aim is to end the pregnancy. Not attempting the primary aim is worse than the inevitable collateral damage. I am ex-military. Not many missions would be achieved if protecting soldiers lives was more important than the mission. If you want to see where that kind of thinking gets you, watch the video from Uvalde.
How is a child NOT being murdered collateral damage? I mean what--if the woman--egad---isn't allowed to murder her unborn child and has to bring the child to term--what--is she going to turn into a Pumpkin or something? Is she going to melt away? Is she going to cease existing? What bad thing is going to happen? Will the earth stop turning? Why is it so bad--that a child would actually get to live, rather than having the abortion doctor go in with surgical tools and cut it up, or burn it, or suck out its brains, etc?
And as other posters, myself included, pointed out, this is not anywhere near a universal view.
So?
Quite, though vaccines are a red herring, as has been pointed out. The government can mandate strict population control and compulsory abortion. We call that China.
Yes; this does not entail they are correct or right to do so, nor does it entail that people should stand by and let this happen without a fight. Governments do unjust things all the time. China is an example of what happens when governments get too much power. That is exactly what our founders were trying to protect against.
Prostitution is legal in many places, but yes, the government can indeed regulate who has sex with whom and who can marry whom. Such laws have recently been amended.
Right. So why can't the government tell women they are not allowed to murder their unborn children?
Here the anti-social consequences of drug use are a major factor.
Right. So why can't the government tell women they are not allowed to murder their unborn children?
This is certainly the case in the civilized world, where bearing arms for self-defence is unnecessary. You will catch up, I'm sure.
In what magic world do you live--where there will be no more crime?
Yes, and?
"Yes, and?" "Yes, and?"

Dude!

I thought my point was clear. Abortion supporters use euphemisms like "choice" "reproductive freedom" "autonomy" and such becasue they want to market themselves as being for those things. Yet as I have shown, they aren't really for those things. What they are really for is abortion. Any other time choice is brought up, abortion supporters show they are decidedly anti-choice, anti-freedom, and anti-sovereignty.
No, we get to ALLOW abortion for the same reasons. It is good for society, even if detrimental to individuals (which I do not concede).
How is abortion good for society? How is it good when government allows people to be murdered based on someone else's arbitrary whims?
Not getting pregnant is the ideal. It doesn't fit all circumstances.
Right: like cases of rape or incest--where the woman could not consent to sex, and thus, could not consent to a pregnancy.
Abortion is a fail safe.
Abortion is not contraception. If the women consented to sex, she consented to the pregnancy. If a woman does not want to get pregnant she can take whatever steps she feels she needs to take to ensure she will not get pregnant. The only true fail safe is--don't have sex. Otherwise, use a condom and or take contraception. If the man refuses to use a condom, don't consent to have sex with him.
Choice is limited where necessary. It is necessary to limit abortions. It is not necessary to ban them.
Why?
 
How is a child NOT being murdered collateral damage?
It's not always a child and, where abortion is legal, it is not murder in any way that matters.
I mean what--if the woman--egad---isn't allowed to murder her unborn child and has to bring the child to term--what--is she going to turn into a Pumpkin or something? Is she going to melt away? Is she going to cease existing? What bad thing is going to happen? Will the earth stop turning? Why is it so bad--that a child would actually get to live, rather than having the abortion doctor go in with surgical tools and cut it up, or burn it, or suck out its brains, etc?
"Your carrying your unwanted child to term isn't so bad, because I say so."

Dismissive, arrogant, and solipsistic.
All at once.
How is abortion good for society?
It gives women the right not to be pregnant.
And it reduces the number of unwanted (and possibly unloved) children.
 
How is a child NOT being murdered collateral damage? I mean what--if the woman--egad---isn't allowed to murder her unborn child and has to bring the child to term--what--is she going to turn into a Pumpkin or something? Is she going to melt away? Is she going to cease existing? What bad thing is going to happen? Will the earth stop turning?
I have assisted three women with regard to abortion. The two that decided to do so, did so because had they not done so their families would have murdered them. Have you learned nothing from the 10 year old raped in Ohio? Abortions happen for a great number of reasons, some of which really are as serious as life or death.
Why is it so bad--that a child would actually get to live, rather than having the abortion doctor go in with surgical tools and cut it up, or burn it, or suck out its brains, etc?
I would settle for what actually happens, which is that the woman takes two pills 24 hours apart. Save your propaganda claptrap for the gullible and ignorant.
So why bring it up?
Yes; this does not entail they are correct or right to do so, nor does it entail that people should stand by and let this happen without a fight. Governments do unjust things all the time. China is an example of what happens when governments get too much power. That is exactly what our founders were trying to protect against.
You are entitled to attempt to get the government to do what you want by any legal means, just as those with the opposite view are entitled to attempt to thwart your efforts. If you are trying to persuade people to join you, you are going about it the wrong way.
Right. So why can't the government tell women they are not allowed to murder their unborn children?
They can do so. That they have not done so is an indication that they think that actually women are entitled to an abortion, within limits of course.
Right. So why can't the government tell women they are not allowed to murder their unborn children?
See above. The government, any government can do what you want. They haven't because governments tend to be made up of people with some sense.
In what magic world do you live--where there will be no more crime?
I live in the real world, where carrying weapons "for self-defence" is both unnecessary and counterproductive.
"Yes, and?" "Yes, and?"

Dude!

I thought my point was clear. Abortion supporters use euphemisms like "choice" "reproductive freedom" "autonomy" and such becasue they want to market themselves as being for those things. Yet as I have shown, they aren't really for those things. What they are really for is abortion. Any other time choice is brought up, abortion supporters show they are decidedly anti-choice, anti-freedom, and anti-sovereignty.
Wrong. Saying something is not the same as showing it to be the case. What you are saying is false. No one is for abortion. Most people are for the right to have an abortion.
How is abortion good for society? How is it good when government allows people to be murdered based on someone else's arbitrary whims?
No abandoned and unwanted children living in crack houses. Reduced poverty.. Increased economic growth and most important of all, increased autonomy for women.
Right: like cases of rape or incest--where the woman could not consent to sex, and thus, could not consent to a pregnancy.
Or where an initially wanted pregnancy becomes dangerous, or the developing child is severely malformed, or the partnership breaks down, or the mother becomes seriously ill or....
Abortion is not contraception.
Actually the most effective contraceptives, the pill and the coil, are both abortificants.
If the women consented to sex, she consented to the pregnancy.
Tosh. Driving is not consent to an accident. Besides, nobody can see nine months into the future. Women are entitled to change their minds.
If a woman does not want to get pregnant she can take whatever steps she feels she needs to take to ensure she will not get pregnant. The only true fail safe is--don't have sex. Otherwise, use a condom and or take contraception. If the man refuses to use a condom, don't consent to have sex with him.
How very repressed of you. The main function of sex, in the vast majority of cases, is pair-bonding. Why should everyone constrict their sex lives to adhere to your repressed morality? Women are entitled to a free sex life, to take contraceptives if they wish and to manage pregnancy, whether expected or not, how they wish.
Wrong question. Unless you want to live in a country where all rights are restricted without reason. Nevertheless, I will answer. Because the consequences of removing the rights to early, accessible and cheap abortion are worse for society as a whole than the consequences of allowing it.
 
I have assisted three women with regard to abortion. The two that decided to do so, did so because had they not done so their families would have murdered them. Have you learned nothing from the 10 year old raped in Ohio? Abortions happen for a great number of reasons, some of which really are as serious as life or death.
What does anything you said above have to do with abortion on demand? I am debating abortion on demand, sir. I have told you this countless times. The rare cases of rape, incest, or danger of death are simply not relevant in this discussion.
You are entitled to attempt to get the government to do what you want by any legal means, just as those with the opposite view are entitled to attempt to thwart your efforts. If you are trying to persuade people to join you, you are going about it the wrong way.
Oh? And what should we pro-lifers be doing? What would convince you not to support abortion on demand?
The government, any government can do what you want. They haven't because governments tend to be made up of people with some sense.
I would not say that Joe BIden, AOC or Nancy Pelosi have sense. They are intelligent to be sure--and that intelligence is their own undoing. They over-intellectualize everything and fail to see the forest for the trees.
I live in the real world, where carrying weapons "for self-defence" is both unnecessary and counterproductive.
No, you live in a world where carrying weapons for self defense is illegal.
No one is for abortion. Most people are for the right to have an abortion.
Fine. If I told you that I am not for slavery, I am just for the right of people to choose whether to own slaves, am I a racist? Am I pro-slavery, or am I just for "choice" "freedom" and "self determination?"

Are those who support the right to choose to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense pro-gun?
No abandoned and unwanted children living in crack houses. Reduced poverty.. Increased economic growth and most important of all, increased autonomy for women.
So---murdering children in the womb is the solution to unwanted children living in crack houses, poverty, etc? How about this: just kill the children who are unwanted and living in crack houses, or who are poor? Problem solved right? What is the difference between murdering an unwanted child in a crack house, vs, murdering an unwanted child in the womb?
Or where an initially wanted pregnancy becomes dangerous, or the developing child is severely malformed, or the partnership breaks down, or the mother becomes seriously ill or....
Irrelevant. I am talking about abortion on demand.
Actually the most effective contraceptives, the pill and the coil, are both abortificants.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am willing to concede that contraceptives that work as abortifacients are fine.
Tosh. Driving is not consent to an accident.
When one drives, the goal of driving is to transport one's self from point A to point B in a timely manner. The goal of driving is NOT an accident. Accidents are a risk of driving, not the purpose of driving.

The purpose of sexual intercourse is pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a risk of having sex, it is the entire purpose and goal behind sex. In order to avoid a pregnancy, women and men have to do unnatural things to their body. They have to take medication or surgery that stops the body from working as it should. Or they have to use a barrier.
Besides, nobody can see nine months into the future. Women are entitled to change their minds.
Can women change their minds once the child is born? If not, why not?
How very repressed of you. The main function of sex, in the vast majority of cases, is pair-bonding.
No, it is reproduction. Though pair-bonding does happen as a result.

One's subjective reasons for having sex do not change the purpose of sex. One may be having sex for pleasure and or pair-bonding. That is fine. But that does not change the biological intent and purpose of sex.
Why should everyone constrict their sex lives to adhere to your repressed morality? Women are entitled to a free sex life, to take contraceptives if they wish and to manage pregnancy, whether expected or not, how they wish.
Sure they are. But once an innocent person is involved in the equation, the woman's rights are limited by that other person. Women can manage themselves all they want. As I said-if an abortion effected only the woman and her body, no one would care about it.

Does any pro-lifer object to a woman having breast reduction surgery or breast augmentation surgery? Does any pro-lifer object to women who want their breasts removed because of disease or cancer? Does any pro-lifer object to a woman having a kidney removed, a finger, a leg, etc, due to medical necessity? No. Do pro-lifers object to women having plastic surgery? No. Do pro-lifers object to any medical treatment a woman wants or feels she needs--outside cases of pregnancy? No. All of those things are valid choices that are between a woman and her doctor. Those things effect only the woman.

We care about abortion becasue the object of abortion is not the body of a woman but that of her child.
 
What does anything you said above have to do with abortion on demand? I am debating abortion on demand, sir. I have told you this countless times. The rare cases of rape, incest, or danger of death are simply not relevant in this discussion.
The cases I mention were abortion on demand. Who are you proposing vets whether an abortion is for a serious enough reason? You? A priest? An elected official? Or a doctor?
Oh? And what should we pro-lifers be doing? What would convince you not to support abortion on demand?
Telling the truth about what other people actually say would be a good start.
I would not say that Joe BIden, AOC or Nancy Pelosi have sense. They are intelligent to be sure--and that intelligence is their own undoing. They over-intellectualize everything and fail to see the forest for the trees.
I'm sure that they would say the same about you, if they knew you existed. Besides, I was referring to governments, all governments in all Western Liberal democracies, none of which implement the policies you support because all of them recognise that they are crazy.
No, you live in a world where carrying weapons for self defense is illegal.
Yes. They are illegal because they are unnecessary, counter-productive and dangerous. Use Viagra instead.
Fine. If I told you that I am not for slavery, I am just for the right of people to choose whether to own slaves, am I a racist? Am I pro-slavery, or am I just for "choice" "freedom" and "self determination?"
Sure, but first show me that sometimes slavery is better than not allowing slavery, that in some circumstances, slavery is a necessary evil, and that the enslaved person has no cerebral cortex and hence no sense of being alive, let alone enslaved.
Are those who support the right to choose to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense pro-gun?
Just poorly informed, easily led and testosterone challenged.
So---murdering children in the womb is the solution to unwanted children living in crack houses, poverty, etc? How about this: just kill the children who are unwanted and living in crack houses, or who are poor? Problem solved right? What is the difference between murdering an unwanted child in a crack house, vs, murdering an unwanted child in the womb?
Murdering children is one of the lies about abortion that if you stopped telling, a more meaningful dialogue would be possible.
Irrelevant. I am talking about abortion on demand.
So am I, in so far as it exists.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am willing to concede that contraceptives that work as abortifacients are fine.
Ok.
When one drives, the goal of driving is to transport one's self from point A to point B in a timely manner. The goal of driving is NOT an accident. Accidents are a risk of driving, not the purpose of driving.

The purpose of sexual intercourse is pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a risk of having sex, it is the entire purpose and goal behind sex. In order to avoid a pregnancy, women and men have to do unnatural things to their body. They have to take medication or surgery that stops the body from working as it should. Or they have to use a barrier.
Wrong. The purpose of 99.99%of sex is pleasurable pair-bonding, not pregnancy. Should pregnancy occur, whether or not precautions are taken, abortion is, and always will be an option. It is my view that this option should be legal and safe, while reducing demand for it by sensible sex ed.
Can women change their minds once the child is born? If not, why not?
Sure. Kids are abandoned or given up for adoption. That doesn't stop the pregnancy happening though. You seem to have difficulty grasping the fact that frequently it is the pregnancy that is the problem for the woman.
No, it is reproduction. Though pair-bonding does happen as a result.
Are you claiming, honestly, that the purpose of every sexual encounter you ever had was to get pregnant?
One's subjective reasons for having sex do not change the purpose of sex. One may be having sex for pleasure and or pair-bonding. That is fine. But that does not change the biological intent and purpose of sex.
Biology doesn't have intent. The human body is used by its owner, who determines its purpose.
Sure they are. But once an innocent person is involved in the equation, the woman's rights are limited by that other person.
Then show that an innocent person is involved. What makes a person, in your view? Innocent is irrelevant since it implies the capacity for guilt.
Women can manage themselves all they want. As I said-if an abortion effected only the woman and her body, no one would care about it.
Then why do you care? Since up until the unborn child is sufficiently developed to register on any meaningful scale of what makes a person, she is the only one involved.
Does any pro-lifer object to a woman having breast reduction surgery or breast augmentation surgery? Does any pro-lifer object to women who want their breasts removed because of disease or cancer? Does any pro-lifer object to a woman having a kidney removed, a finger, a leg, etc, due to medical necessity? No. Do pro-lifers object to women having plastic surgery? No. Do pro-lifers object to any medical treatment a woman wants or feels she needs--outside cases of pregnancy? No. All of those things are valid choices that are between a woman and her doctor. Those things effect only the woman.
As does abortion.
We care about abortion becasue the object of abortion is not the body of a woman but that of her child.
Wrong. At least not strictly accurate. The object of abortion is to stop what's happening to and in the woman's body by removing the unborn child. Done sufficiently early, this involves no-one else.
 
The cases I mention were abortion on demand. Who are you proposing vets whether an abortion is for a serious enough reason? You? A priest? An elected official? Or a doctor?

Telling the truth about what other people actually say would be a good start.

I'm sure that they would say the same about you, if they knew you existed. Besides, I was referring to governments, all governments in all Western Liberal democracies, none of which implement the policies you support because all of them recognise that they are crazy.

Yes. They are illegal because they are unnecessary, counter-productive and dangerous. Use Viagra instead.

Sure, but first show me that sometimes slavery is better than not allowing slavery, that in some circumstances, slavery is a necessary evil, and that the enslaved person has no cerebral cortex and hence no sense of being alive, let alone enslaved.

Just poorly informed, easily led and testosterone challenged.

Murdering children is one of the lies about abortion that if you stopped telling, a more meaningful dialogue would be possible.

So am I, in so far as it exists.

Ok.

Wrong. The purpose of 99.99%of sex is pleasurable pair-bonding, not pregnancy. Should pregnancy occur, whether or not precautions are taken, abortion is, and always will be an option. It is my view that this option should be legal and safe, while reducing demand for it by sensible sex ed.

Sure. Kids are abandoned or given up for adoption. That doesn't stop the pregnancy happening though. You seem to have difficulty grasping the fact that frequently it is the pregnancy that is the problem for the woman.

Are you claiming, honestly, that the purpose of every sexual encounter you ever had was to get pregnant?

Biology doesn't have intent. The human body is used by its owner, who determines its purpose.

Then show that an innocent person is involved. What makes a person, in your view? Innocent is irrelevant since it implies the capacity for guilt.

Then why do you care? Since up until the unborn child is sufficiently developed to register on any meaningful scale of what makes a person, she is the only one involved.

As does abortion.

Wrong. At least not strictly accurate. The object of abortion is to stop what's happening to and in the woman's body by removing the unborn child. Done sufficiently early, this involves no-one else.
The crux of the matter is to also consider the offspring as the human being it is.
Until you can do that you would be wrong to assume people are bothered with your biased wingeing
 
The crux of the matter is to also consider the offspring as the human being it is.
Until you can do that you would be wrong to assume people are bothered with your biased wingeing
No. The crux of the matter is deciding whether the unborn child should have rights. This is not a biological question, but a sociological one. Most societies have answered it in the negative. The whinging is come from your side of the fence.
 
No. The crux of the matter is deciding whether the unborn child should have rights. This is not a biological question, but a sociological one. Most societies have answered it in the negative. The whinging is come from your side of the fence.
Not quite. The crux of the matter is whether the unborn offspring should have a to live. No is one suggesting a baby should have the right to drive a car either, but both as human beings should have the right to live. And its a biological issue.
 
Not quite. The crux of the matter is whether the unborn offspring should have a to live. No is one suggesting a baby should have the right to drive a car either, but both as human beings should have the right to live. And its a biological issue.
Yes it is about the right to live. Why is this a biological question. Rights are not given us by biology.
 
Telling the truth about what other people actually say would be a good start.
The problem is that abortion supporters attempt to redefine the terminology so they can reframe the debate. In other words---abortion supporters control the terminology so they can control the debate. Thus, abortion is reframed as "choice" "reproductive freedom" "health care" "women's rights" blah, blah, blah, so that pro-lifers can be framed as Neanderthals who want control women, or uneducated, unenlightened, backwater hicks that are anti-science.

I am do not accept the characterization of abortion in the language abortion supporters use. I refuse to allow them control over the terminology. I see abortion supporters as disingenuous in attempting to reframe or redefine the terminology.
I'm sure that they would say the same about you, if they knew you existed.
I care as much about what they think of me as they care what I think of them. (If they knew and or cared that I existed.)
Yes. They are illegal because they are unnecessary, counter-productive and dangerous.
Dangerous to whom? How is a gun in the hands of a legal gun owner who desires to protect themselves dangerous and counter-productive? I mean--dangerous and counter-productive to a would be thug, yes. But how are guns in the hands of law abiding citizens dangerous and unproductive?
Sure, but first show me that sometimes slavery is better than not allowing slavery, that in some circumstances, slavery is a necessary evil, and that the enslaved person has no cerebral cortex and hence no sense of being alive, let alone enslaved.
The south fought so hard for slavery becasue ending slavery would decimate their economy. They also fought hard for slavery becasue they felt slavery was a state's rights issue. The point is that for the south, slavery was very necessary for the good of the economy and state sovereignty.

The point? The point is that for the south, maintaining slavery was better than not allowing slavery---for----everyone but the salves.

Maintaining abortion is certainly better than not allowing abortion---for----everyone but unborn children. See---since the people who supported slavery weren't slaves, they had no problem with slavery. Since you are born and have life, easy for you to support abortion. (Sorry---I meant easy for you to support-----"choice.")
Just poorly informed, easily led and testosterone challenged.
Yes--so law abiding citizens who desire to carry a gun for self defense are testosterone challenged. So typical of liberals. Just assume people who do not agree with them--have some kind of challenge.
Murdering children is one of the lies about abortion that if you stopped telling, a more meaningful dialogue would be possible.
If I accepted your characterization of abortion, as NOT murder, I would be pro-abortion, sir. As I said--if abortion is NOT actual murder of an unborn child--I would support abortion rights.

If abortion did not murder a child, no one would care about it.
 
Dangerous to whom? How is a gun in the hands of a legal gun owner who desires to protect themselves dangerous and counter-productive?
They lose their rag and shoot somebody in a fit of rage because they happen to be armed.

You think this has never happened?

And let's not forget that legal guns means more guns, and, therefore, more illegal guns.
Maintaining abortion is certainly better than not allowing abortion---for----everyone but unborn children. See---since the people who supported slavery weren't slaves, they had no problem with slavery. Since you are born and have life, easy for you to support abortion. (Sorry---I meant easy for you to support-----"choice.")
The slavery analogy fails because the slaves did not live inside the slave owners.

The only reason I am pro-choice is that I think a person should have the right to decide what is and is not allowed to live inside them, using their bodies.
 
The problem is that abortion supporters attempt to redefine the terminology so they can reframe the debate. In other words---abortion supporters control the terminology so they can control the debate. Thus, abortion is reframed as "choice" "reproductive freedom" "health care" "women's rights" blah, blah, blah, so that pro-lifers can be framed as Neanderthals who want control women, or uneducated, unenlightened, backwater hicks that are anti-science.

I am do not accept the characterization of abortion in the language abortion supporters use. I refuse to allow them control over the terminology. I see abortion supporters as disingenuous in attempting to reframe or redefine the terminology.

I care as much about what they think of me as they care what I think of them. (If they knew and or cared that I existed.)

Dangerous to whom? How is a gun in the hands of a legal gun owner who desires to protect themselves dangerous and counter-productive? I mean--dangerous and counter-productive to a would be thug, yes. But how are guns in the hands of law abiding citizens dangerous and unproductive?

The south fought so hard for slavery becasue ending slavery would decimate their economy. They also fought hard for slavery becasue they felt slavery was a state's rights issue. The point is that for the south, slavery was very necessary for the good of the economy and state sovereignty.

The point? The point is that for the south, maintaining slavery was better than not allowing slavery---for----everyone but the salves.

Maintaining abortion is certainly better than not allowing abortion---for----everyone but unborn children. See---since the people who supported slavery weren't slaves, they had no problem with slavery. Since you are born and have life, easy for you to support abortion. (Sorry---I meant easy for you to support-----"choice.")

Yes--so law abiding citizens who desire to carry a gun for self defense are testosterone challenged. So typical of liberals. Just assume people who do not agree with them--have some kind of challenge.

If I accepted your characterization of abortion, as NOT murder, I would be pro-abortion, sir. As I said--if abortion is NOT actual murder of an unborn child--I would support abortion rights.

If abortion did not murder a child, no one would care about it.
You are attempting to warp the terminology. Your falsehoods regarding murder being but one example. You also repeat falsehoods about what pro-choice means, what pro-choice advocates think and say, what abortion is and how it is carried out in most cases. You don't understand the motivations that drive people to abortion or the most effect ways of preventing and reducing abortions. All in all your arguments are a complete mess, and all you can do is bleat about pro-choice people controlling the agenda. Of course they control the agenda. Most people, not just "liberals", but most thinking, ordinary, regular people, know that you are wrong, that your arguments don't hold water and that your policies would lead to a huge increase in misery, injury and death if by mischance they were ever carried out. There is a sensible, moral case to be made for limiting abortion very markedly. "It is murdering children" isn't it.
 
Back
Top