[Abortion][REVISED POLL] If you had the power...

[Godular]

It doesn’t have to be strictly and specifically stated. It is COVERED. by the 14th amendment saying the government can’t fuck with a person’s property without due process of law. It is not possible to have something more fundamentally ‘your property’ than your own body.

Outlawing abortion is not taking away any property any more than housing codes

Yes actually it is. It would be taking away the woman’s right to control her own body/property without due process of law. You might as well deny her the right to defend herself, as the two are fundamentally similar.

[The Parkus Empire]

If there is no God, then then are no "natural" rights.

You don't have the right to do whatever you want with your property.

You are seriously not doing your argument any favors here. Somehow, you've managed to create this deluded paradoxical world where it either works your way or it doesn't work at all. Even when I tried using your logic, ignoring the whole "God" part, you somehow managed to twist it around.

Seriously, are you just that desperate to not be in the wrong?

I am saying "natural rights" in Anglo jurisprudence, in William Blackstone, is a theological idea. So unless you are bringing theology into this debate, drop "natural rights" altogether and focus on Constitutional ones. There is no Constitutional right to "bodily sovereignty".

[Gharrow]

If somebody is willing to go that far out of their way to kill their own child, then they deserve whatever they get.

Except for the fact that with legal abortions, the timeframe in which they happen is mainly the first trimester. In that timeframe, there is no cognitive thought pattern within the clump of cells within the woman's uterus.

I have yet to see any logical explanation why abortions should be banned in the 1st trimester that doesn't include religious reasons.

Doesn't matter, it's simply an earlier stage of human development. A human life is still being erased from the earth, and to do this before it can experience any real life in that earth at all seems almost worse.

Besides, you were talking about illegal abortions anyway. The fact that most legal ones take place in the first trimester is irrelevant, although informative.

[The Parkus Empire]

Outlawing abortion is not taking away any property any more than housing codes

Yes actually it is. It would be taking away the woman’s right to control her own body/property without due process of law. You might as well deny her the right to defend herself, as the two are fundamentally similar.

Nope, no more than building codes or business regulations.

[Godular]

You are seriously not doing your argument any favors here. Somehow, you've managed to create this deluded paradoxical world where it either works your way or it doesn't work at all. Even when I tried using your logic, ignoring the whole "God" part, you somehow managed to twist it around.

Seriously, are you just that desperate to not be in the wrong?

I am saying "natural rights" in Anglo jurisprudence, in William Blackstone, is a theological idea. So unless you are bringing theology into this debate, drop "natural rights" altogether and focus on Constitutional ones. There is no Constitutional right to "bodily sovereignty".

Yes there is. The right to not have one’s liberties fucked with without due process says exactly that thing. Just because alt+f ‘bodily sovereignty’ finds zero matches in the text does not mean it does not exist in the document.

[The V O I D]

You are seriously not doing your argument any favors here. Somehow, you've managed to create this deluded paradoxical world where it either works your way or it doesn't work at all. Even when I tried using your logic, ignoring the whole "God" part, you somehow managed to twist it around.

Seriously, are you just that desperate to not be in the wrong?

I am saying "natural rights" in Anglo jurisprudence, in William Blackstone, is a theological idea. So unless you are bringing theology into this debate, drop "natural rights" altogether and focus on Constitutional ones. There is no Constitutional right to "bodily sovereignty".

Bodily sovereignty is dictating that your body is your property to do with as you please, which is a right, because you can do whatever you want with your property so long as it doesn't harm other people's properties or beings.

[Godular]

Yes actually it is. It would be taking away the woman’s right to control her own body/property without due process of law. You might as well deny her the right to defend herself, as the two are fundamentally similar.

Nope, no more than building codes or business regulations.

Yes, and your efforts to simply repeat your flawed declaration ad nauseation will not assist your argument.

[Gharrow]

Outlawing abortion is not taking away any property any more than housing codes

Yes actually it is. It would be taking away the woman’s right to control her own body/property without due process of law. You might as well deny her the right to defend herself, as the two are fundamentally similar.

Nobody has the right to kill anyone, no matter whose property it's on, except in places where the Castle Doctrine is in place.

[The Parkus Empire]

I am saying "natural rights" in Anglo jurisprudence, in William Blackstone, is a theological idea. So unless you are bringing theology into this debate, drop "natural rights" altogether and focus on Constitutional ones. There is no Constitutional right to "bodily sovereignty".

Yes there is. The right to not have one’s liberties fucked with without due process says exactly that thing. Just because alt+f ‘bodily sovereignty’ finds zero matches in the text does not mean it does not exist in the document.

That means you can't confiscate property or imprison people without due process. It doesn't mean NO regulation (as ALL regulations pertain to property or persons) is allowed

[Shazbotdom]

Except for the fact that with legal abortions, the timeframe in which they happen is mainly the first trimester. In that timeframe, there is no cognitive thought pattern within the clump of cells within the woman's uterus.

I have yet to see any logical explanation why abortions should be banned in the 1st trimester that doesn't include religious reasons.

Doesn't matter, it's simply an earlier stage of human development. A human life is still being erased from the earth, and to do this before it can experience any real life in that earth at all seems almost worse.

Besides, you were talking about illegal abortions anyway. The fact that most legal ones take place in the first trimester is irrelevant, although informative.

Still doesn't give any reason (besides a religious one) in which Abortion should be illegal. I have yet to see any logical reasoning for that.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Yes actually it is. It would be taking away the woman’s right to control her own body/property without due process of law. You might as well deny her the right to defend herself, as the two are fundamentally similar.

Nobody has the right to kill anyone, no matter whose property it's on, except in places where the Castle Doctrine is in place.

Self-defence is wrong unless it happens in your own house now? What's next?!

[The Parkus Empire]

I am saying "natural rights" in Anglo jurisprudence, in William Blackstone, is a theological idea. So unless you are bringing theology into this debate, drop "natural rights" altogether and focus on Constitutional ones. There is no Constitutional right to "bodily sovereignty".

Bodily sovereignty is dictating that your body is your property to do with as you please, which is a right, because you can do whatever you want with your property so long as it doesn't harm other people's properties or beings.

Nope. Prostitution is illegal, for example

[The V O I D]

Yes actually it is. It would be taking away the woman’s right to control her own body/property without due process of law. You might as well deny her the right to defend herself, as the two are fundamentally similar.

Nobody has the right to kill anyone, no matter whose property it's on, except in places where the Castle Doctrine is in place.

Actually, if someone is illegally trespassing - even in a non-Castle Doctrine state - if you feel your life is in danger or if they do not leave your property, it is covered under self-defense laws. Not as thoroughly or as solidly as having a Castle Doctrine protecting you, but self-defense exists on a federal and state level across the US.

[Godular]

Yes actually it is. It would be taking away the woman’s right to control her own body/property without due process of law. You might as well deny her the right to defend herself, as the two are fundamentally similar.

Nobody has the right to kill anyone, no matter whose property it's on, except in places where the Castle Doctrine is in place.

Self-defense is a thing, and one cannot get more castle-doctrine-ish than when someone is preventing someone else from using their body without consent.

[Gharrow]

Doesn't matter, it's simply an earlier stage of human development. A human life is still being erased from the earth, and to do this before it can experience any real life in that earth at all seems almost worse.

Besides, you were talking about illegal abortions anyway. The fact that most legal ones take place in the first trimester is irrelevant, although informative.

Still doesn't give any reason (besides a religious one) in which Abortion should be illegal. I have yet to see any logical reasoning for that.

>a human life is being terminated
>no reason given
I mean, maybe murder isn't illegal where you're from, but it is where I am, that being the United States.

[Cekoviu]

Yes actually it is. It would be taking away the woman’s right to control her own body/property without due process of law. You might as well deny her the right to defend herself, as the two are fundamentally similar.

Nobody has the right to kill anyone, no matter whose property it's on, except in places where the Castle Doctrine is in place.

What do you mean by "anyone"? Because everybody would be in jail if you mean anything living.

[Godular]

Yes there is. The right to not have one’s liberties fucked with without due process says exactly that thing. Just because alt+f ‘bodily sovereignty’ finds zero matches in the text does not mean it does not exist in the document.

That means you can't confiscate property or imprison people without due process. It doesn't mean NO regulation (as ALL regulations pertain to property or persons) is allowed

Incorrect, and you should feel bad for demonstrating such a shallow understanding of constitutional principles.

[Gharrow]

Nobody has the right to kill anyone, no matter whose property it's on, except in places where the Castle Doctrine is in place.

What do you mean by "anyone"? Because everybody would be in jail if you mean anything living.

Anyone human, sorry. I thought that was more clear.

[Vassenor]

Still doesn't give any reason (besides a religious one) in which Abortion should be illegal. I have yet to see any logical reasoning for that.

>a human life is being terminated
>no reason given
I mean, maybe murder isn't illegal where you're from, but it is where I am, that being the United States.

Haven't we covered how Abortion is very much not murder before?

[The Parkus Empire]

Hey if I own a bakery is it my right to choose not to cater to homosexual couples?

[Godular]

Still doesn't give any reason (besides a religious one) in which Abortion should be illegal. I have yet to see any logical reasoning for that.

>a human life is being terminated
>no reason given
I mean, maybe murder isn't illegal where you're from, but it is where I am, that being the United States.

Self-defense is a thing, and one cannot suffer a more personal violation than when another person is using your body without permission. The reason is very much extant.

[Cekoviu]

What do you mean by "anyone"? Because everybody would be in jail if you mean anything living.

Anyone human, sorry. I thought that was more clear.

What makes humans so special, though?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Bodily sovereignty is dictating that your body is your property to do with as you please, which is a right, because you can do whatever you want with your property so long as it doesn't harm other people's properties or beings.

Nope. Prostitution is illegal, for example

And besides the religiously prude esteemed individuals nobody believes that it should be. Regulated and legal for the one's prostituting, but not completely illegal because that punishes the wrong parts unless you believe in mores of the 17th century puritans.

[The Parkus Empire]

That means you can't confiscate property or imprison people without due process. It doesn't mean NO regulation (as ALL regulations pertain to property or persons) is allowed

Incorrect, and you should feel bad for demonstrating such a shallow understanding of constitutional principles.

I understand the Amendment the way it was understood by its authors

[The V O I D]

Bodily sovereignty is dictating that your body is your property to do with as you please, which is a right, because you can do whatever you want with your property so long as it doesn't harm other people's properties or beings.

Nope. Prostitution is illegal, for example

And? Selling/renting out one's property is entirely fucking different than having sovereignty over it. The former is asking for money in return for a service. The latter is having dominion over your property to use it as you see fit, no money involved.