[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Vassenor]

So why do women not have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

They do, why does their child not?

Yet you want to deprive them of liberty by dictating what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Also you still haven't answered my question. What procedure is used to re-implant ectopic pregnancies, as required by the Ohio law?

[Antityranicals]

Marbury v. Madison is not in the constitution.

And yet, its a foundational basis for judicial review. A concept defended within the dicta of Marbury by plenty of extrinsic evidence, including the understanding of the Founders on the Court regarding the intended role of SCOTUS.

That they did not use strict textualism, as you may have wished, isn't relevant to the legal analysis. If you had sat a bar exam in your life, you'd probably be familiar with the concept.

What SCOTUS did in Marbury v. Madison was invent itself a power. Nobody should have listened to it. But it was a fine opportunity to expand the power of the central government, which the central government was happy to do.

[Godular]

I do not, and the US constitution says fuck that bullshit too.



We wouldn't have much need for the foster system if every kid found a forever home so quickly. While Gallo's statement that there are plenty of families waiting to adopt babies may be so, it doesn't assist those older children that could use help just as much.

Besides, it does not rectify the problem of an unwanted pregnancy

Yes... Bette kill them... Maybe your constitution Is not so great on that point

No, it's perfectly fine, I'd say. It could use a few points of improvement here and there, but not on that particular point. There are quite a large variety of situations in which it is perfectly permissible to terminate the life of another born person in order to protect one's life and property (and in some states even the life and property of others). If we apply similar criteria to a pregnancy, it becomes quite easily evident that the fetus does not deserve any kind of special treatment even if we were to accede to the argument that a fetus is a person.

[Kernen]

And yet, its a foundational basis for judicial review. A concept defended within the dicta of Marbury by plenty of extrinsic evidence, including the understanding of the Founders on the Court regarding the intended role of SCOTUS.

That they did not use strict textualism, as you may have wished, isn't relevant to the legal analysis. If you had sat a bar exam in your life, you'd probably be familiar with the concept.

What SCOTUS did in Marbury v. Madison was invent itself a power. Nobody should have listened to it. But it was a fine opportunity to expand the power of the central government, which the central government was happy to do.

Thats one theory. It isn't the theory held by basically any legal scholars, so it does you about as much good as screaming at a wall.

[Galloism]

They do, why does their child not?

Yet you want to deprive them of liberty by dictating what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Also you still haven't answered my question. What procedure is used to re-implant ectopic pregnancies, as required by the Ohio law?

Notably, it's not the first time we've required people do impossible things or face penalties, but it's the first one I can think of where the penalty is prison.

[Alessandretta]

No, take abortion Is a way to avoid responsability

You are exceedingly incorrect. It is taking responsibility in recognizing that one is not ready for parenthood, and going through a process that is neither cheap nor particularly pleasant in order to rectify the situation.

No. I dont.

People became parents from the dawn of humanity. Ready or not... Is not a shame or a crime.

Killing babies Is.

There are solutions that do not require murder, maybe better take more responsables ones.

[Godular]

So why do women not have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

They do, why does their child not?

It is not their child yet, and the rights held in the US constitution rather specifically state that they only take effect when one is born.

[Godular]

You are exceedingly incorrect. It is taking responsibility in recognizing that one is not ready for parenthood, and going through a process that is neither cheap nor particularly pleasant in order to rectify the situation.

No. I dont.

People became parents from the dawn of humanity. Ready or not... Is not a shame or a crime.

Irrelevant.

Killing babies Is.

Which an abortion is not.

There are solutions that do not require murder, maybe better take more responsables ones.

Like getting an abortion, which is neither murder nor irresponsible! Astounding how that works.

[Galloism]

You are exceedingly incorrect. It is taking responsibility in recognizing that one is not ready for parenthood, and going through a process that is neither cheap nor particularly pleasant in order to rectify the situation.

No. I dont.

People became parents from the dawn of humanity. Ready or not... Is not a shame or a crime.

Killing babies Is.

There are solutions that do not require murder, maybe better take more responsables ones.

Same question:

But actually so nonetheless.

Here's an interesting question.

A guy who was drugged against his will goes crazy and breaks into my house and tries to rape my wife. I'm aware of this via the six o clock news. Through whatever means necessary, I can be very sure (but not absolutely positive) he won't kill her. She will be invaded, harmed, but almost certainly not killed.

I have a gun. Can I shoot him to protect her from that? Is it murder? Why or why not?

[Galloism]

They do, why does their child not?

It is not their child yet, and the rights held in the US constitution rather specifically state that they only take effect when one is born.

Constitution does not actually state that. That's a common law principle inherited from England.

[Alessandretta]

Yes... Bette kill them... Maybe your constitution Is not so great on that point

No, it's perfectly fine, I'd say. It could use a few points of improvement here and there, but not on that particular point. There are quite a large variety of situations in which it is perfectly permissible to terminate the life of another born person in order to protect one's life and property (and in some states even the life and property of others). If we apply similar criteria to a pregnancy, it becomes quite easily evident that the fetus does not deserve any kind of special treatment even if we were to accede to the argument that a fetus is a person.

There are many situations in which ending another life is an inevitable or logical solution.

But this assumption does not imply that all circumstances are legitimate to end a human life.

[Kernen]

No, it's perfectly fine, I'd say. It could use a few points of improvement here and there, but not on that particular point. There are quite a large variety of situations in which it is perfectly permissible to terminate the life of another born person in order to protect one's life and property (and in some states even the life and property of others). If we apply similar criteria to a pregnancy, it becomes quite easily evident that the fetus does not deserve any kind of special treatment even if we were to accede to the argument that a fetus is a person.

There are many situations in which ending another life is an inevitable or logical solution.

But this assumption does not imply that all circumstances are legitimate to end a human life.

It does suggest that ending a human life is permissible under certain circumstances, and that life is not, ipso facto, precious.

[Antityranicals]

They do, why does their child not?

Yet you want to deprive them of liberty by dictating what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Also you still haven't answered my question. What procedure is used to re-implant ectopic pregnancies, as required by the Ohio law?

Re-implanation is not required to save the life of a child in ectopic pregnancies. There have been hundreds of survivors.

[Antityranicals]

What SCOTUS did in Marbury v. Madison was invent itself a power. Nobody should have listened to it. But it was a fine opportunity to expand the power of the central government, which the central government was happy to do.

Thats one theory. It isn't the theory held by basically any legal scholars, so it does you about as much good as screaming at a wall.

Legal scholars can go ahead and be wrong. Read the damn constitution.

[Alessandretta]

There are many situations in which ending another life is an inevitable or logical solution.

But this assumption does not imply that all circumstances are legitimate to end a human life.

It does suggest that ending a human life is permissible under certain circumstances, and that life is not, ipso facto, precious.

Life is precious if you need right, unavoidable cause for kill other people

[Godular]

It is not their child yet, and the rights held in the US constitution rather specifically state that they only take effect when one is born.

Constitution does not actually state that. That's a common law principle inherited from England.

Okay, mayhap I should rephrase.

This bit:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Seems to rather specifically state that one does not get full 'citizenship' until such time as they have popped through that birth canal or a C-section has been performed. Before this juncture, attempting to legislate restrictions on a woman's right to control her body, such as by getting an abortion if one is deemed necessary, to be working against this specific amendment.

[Nuroblav]

Getting an abortion is taking responsibility whether you like it or not. Also, you should not presume that a woman only got pregnant because she and her partner were not using contraception.

No, take abortion Is a way to avoid responsability

This brings me back to a post I made a few weeks ago about some who hold this opinion on the far left. Oh well, that's one rather shit argument there. Wouldn't it be more responsible to have an abortion if she knows she won't be able to provide for her child?

Overall, if you don't like abortion, simply don't have an abortion.

[Antityranicals]

No. I dont.

People became parents from the dawn of humanity. Ready or not... Is not a shame or a crime.

Irrelevant.

Killing babies Is.

Which an abortion is not.

There are solutions that do not require murder, maybe better take more responsables ones.

Like getting an abortion, which is neither murder nor irresponsible! Astounding how that works.

A fetus is a baby! A baby is defined as "a very young child," while a child is defined as "a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority." A fetus is therefore a child, and a very young one at that, making him or her a baby.

[Godular]

No, it's perfectly fine, I'd say. It could use a few points of improvement here and there, but not on that particular point. There are quite a large variety of situations in which it is perfectly permissible to terminate the life of another born person in order to protect one's life and property (and in some states even the life and property of others). If we apply similar criteria to a pregnancy, it becomes quite easily evident that the fetus does not deserve any kind of special treatment even if we were to accede to the argument that a fetus is a person.

There are many situations in which ending another life is an inevitable or logical solution.

But this assumption does not imply that all circumstances are legitimate to end a human life.

It does not have to. I'm simply pointing out to you that it falls under those exact circumstances where it is very much permissible to do so.

[Antityranicals]

No, take abortion Is a way to avoid responsability

This brings me back to a post I made a few weeks ago about some who hold this opinion on the far left. Oh well, that's one rather shit argument there. Wouldn't it be more responsible to have an abortion if she knows she won't be able to provide for her child.

Overall, if you don't like abortion, simply don't have an abortion.

No, it would be more responsible to put the child up for adoption, as, as already been stated, there are plenty of willing adoptive parents.

[Kernen]

It does suggest that ending a human life is permissible under certain circumstances, and that life is not, ipso facto, precious.

Life is precious if you need right, unavoidable cause for kill other people

Using lethal force to protect yourself from substantial physical harm is considered appropriate, even though you can often survive substantial physical harm.

An unavoidable cause, then, needn't be inherently deadly. Which opens up quite a bit of room to argue that avoiding a pregnancy is itself an unavoidable cause.

[Galloism]

Constitution does not actually state that. That's a common law principle inherited from England.

Okay, mayhap I should rephrase.

This bit:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Seems to rather specifically state that one does not get full 'citizenship' until such time as they have popped through that birth canal or a C-section has been performed. Before this juncture, attempting to legislate restrictions on a woman's right to control her body, such as by getting an abortion if one is deemed necessary, to be working against this specific amendment.

Not really no - that's about who is a citizen, but there's no requirement to be a citizen to have rights, otherwise aliens (legal or illegal) would have no rights at all. We could summary execute them just because.

Your argument is akin to saying legislating against citizens shooting illegal aliens "just because" is working against the 14th amendment, because they weren't born or naturalized in the United States.

Which would be retarded.

[Godular]

Irrelevant.



Which an abortion is not.



Like getting an abortion, which is neither murder nor irresponsible! Astounding how that works.

A fetus is a baby!

It has not yet been born, which is a very critical distinction. Before birth, it presents an imposition upon the rights of the woman within whom it resides. After birth, it does not. It is wrong to force a woman to allow another born person to use the woman's body without her consent, and it is by the same logic wrong to force a woman to allow an 'unborn' person to use the woman's body without her consent.

[Antityranicals]

Life is precious if you need right, unavoidable cause for kill other people

Using lethal force to protect yourself from substantial physical harm is considered appropriate, even though you can often survive substantial physical harm.

An unavoidable cause, then, needn't be inherently deadly. Which opens up quite a bit of room to argue that avoiding a pregnancy is itself an unavoidable cause.

No, lethal force is only justified if there is a substantial risk of death. Otherwise, it is not proportional.

[Alessandretta]

No, take abortion Is a way to avoid responsability

This brings me back to a post I made a few weeks ago about some who hold this opinion on the far left. Oh well, that's one rather shit argument there. Wouldn't it be more responsible to have an abortion if she knows she won't be able to provide for her child?

Overall, if you don't like abortion, simply don't have an abortion.

But you can give child in foster care if you feel inadeguate as parent.