Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
My point is not about the Supreme Court's ruling nor about the Constitution; and, as I pointed out a while back (post 224), I'm pro-choice because I think a civilization has to make some tough choices and allow society actions like this on the margins.
My problem is with the way the Left has chosen to defend abortion by pretending that a fetus is not life, which is so intellectually dishonest as to be insulting. I've seen a fetus compared to any number of inanimate objects, and it just doesn't stop.
The pro-choice movement doesn't need to lie like this, but it continues. That's one of the hazards of commitment to an ideology - ideologues often have to put themselves in absurd positions just to defend an indefensible point. It's much easier to just be honest, but that's not the way they want to play the game.
A fetus is not life; Wednesday does not follow Tuesday; water is not wet. Okay, fine, I'm used to being insulted by partisan ideologues who think they're getting away with dishonesty and absurdity, but this is getting ridiculous.
.
Guy, a fetus is not the same as a baby.
I've known women who've lost babies
I've known women who've had miscarriages.
I've known women who've had abortions.
The three categories aren't even close to each other.
A fetus isn't "life" because it's not viable outside of the womb before 22 weeks. Remove it from the womb, it dies. It can't live on its own, so it's not life.
But to grant a kidney-bean sized fetus more rights than the woman it is in, is just insanity on an epic scale.
Incidently, all this whinging about "life" is a fairly recent tacit. Abortion used to be illegal because it was about controlling women and their sexuality. Now that they aren't putting up with that shit anymore, suddenly, everyone is sooooooo concerned about "life".
Meanwhile, while the religious stupids are working themselves up in a lather over this NON-issue, the Plutocrats are sneaking out the back door with your middle class lifestyle.
You can take a new born and leave it alone and it will live maybe 3 days- That is not a litmus test for the argument about human life and abortion. We could place a grown; born human in any number of conditions not suited for its survival and it will die- It is a lame argument and NEVER should have been considered as a legal argument- period!
The Court argued that the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution grant an individual a right to privacy against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in a "zone of privacy." Thus privacy was granted to a woman's decision to have an abortion. Further, the court ruled that prenatal life was not enough to grant the fetus the protection that "persons" receive under the law, citing the lack of a consensus of when protections were given to fetuses in criminal and civil law. Finally, the decision did not preclude narrower state laws that would stop abortions from being done once the fetus was termed medically viable. This question of viability still remains today though as medical techniques get more advanced the window of viability has increased calling into question this part of the ruling.
The fetus is viable as soon as it implants. The only thing that can kill the unborn child is an outside force.
After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally."
[A]n abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
[
You need to re-work the grammar of your last sentence; it's incomprehensible.
Right, you want abortion on demand- because you don't believe the unborn are worthy of protection- That is the same attitude that is the foundation of every historical human slaughter and diminished rights. Proving there really is nothing new under the sun.
Roe was based on faulty science; logic; and legal interpretation. It can and should be over-turned.
No, I want abortion on demand because it is a big FUCK YOU to all you religious idiots.
please don't pretend it's about anything else for me. Religious nuts want abortion banned, I want it legal, and done proudly.
Roe was decided on reality. Women were ALREADY having abortions in their doctor's offices, and they were writing something else on the chart.
You can't answer to the logic of scientific fact so you resort to your more base truths-
No, asshole, it's a BIG FUCK YOU to the babies being slaughtered by arrogant idiots such as yourself...
So you mean Dr.s not back alley butchers and coat-hangers were not being engaged? Why can't you liberal jackasses ever pick a square and land on it? (rhetorical question)
No, I want abortion on demand because it is a big FUCK YOU to all you religious idiots.
please don't pretend it's about anything else for me. Religious nuts want abortion banned, I want it legal, and done proudly.
Roe was decided on reality. Women were ALREADY having abortions in their doctor's offices, and they were writing something else on the chart.
You can't answer to the logic of scientific fact so you resort to your more base truths-
No, asshole, it's a BIG FUCK YOU to the babies being slaughtered by arrogant idiots such as yourself...
So you mean Dr.s not back alley butchers and coat-hangers were not being engaged? Why can't you liberal jackasses ever pick a square and land on it? (rhetorical question)
I've never claimed that the "back alley Abortion" was anything but a myth. Well, it might have been true in the 1940's, but by the 1960's, mainstream doctors were performing them.
The logic of scientific fact is- her body, her decision. Period. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. (Although a lot of you Bible thumpers can't even hit that low standard.)
But fetuses aren't "Babies", no one really sees them as "Babies".
Guy, a fetus is not the same as a baby.
I've known women who've lost babies
I've known women who've had miscarriages.
I've known women who've had abortions.
The three categories aren't even close to each other.
A fetus isn't "life" because it's not viable outside of the womb before 22 weeks. Remove it from the womb, it dies. It can't live on its own, so it's not life.
But to grant a kidney-bean sized fetus more rights than the woman it is in, is just insanity on an epic scale.
Incidently, all this whinging about "life" is a fairly recent tacit. Abortion used to be illegal because it was about controlling women and their sexuality. Now that they aren't putting up with that shit anymore, suddenly, everyone is sooooooo concerned about "life".
Meanwhile, while the religious stupids are working themselves up in a lather over this NON-issue, the Plutocrats are sneaking out the back door with your middle class lifestyle.
You can take a new born and leave it alone and it will live maybe 3 days- That is not a litmus test for the argument about human life and abortion. We could place a grown; born human in any number of conditions not suited for its survival and it will die- It is a lame argument and NEVER should have been considered as a legal argument- period!
The Court argued that the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution grant an individual a right to privacy against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in a "zone of privacy." Thus privacy was granted to a woman's decision to have an abortion. Further, the court ruled that prenatal life was not enough to grant the fetus the protection that "persons" receive under the law, citing the lack of a consensus of when protections were given to fetuses in criminal and civil law. Finally, the decision did not preclude narrower state laws that would stop abortions from being done once the fetus was termed medically viable. This question of viability still remains today though as medical techniques get more advanced the window of viability has increased calling into question this part of the ruling.
The fetus is viable as soon as it implants. The only thing that can kill the unborn child is an outside force.
Nonsense.
After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally."
[A]n abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
One is entitled to his inalienable rights only as a consequence of his live birth, therefore an embryo/fetus is not a person, implanted or otherwise, as viability is not the only factor concerning when the states interests override the right to privacy and bodily integrity.
The fact that a newborn can only survive unattended for a few days does not undermine its Constitutional rights, so too that a fetus might survive due to medical technology does not contrive for the fetus the same rights afforded the newborn.
So that's why you're called 'ErroneousJoe'!!
No, the real problem is you have this weird, OCD, all over the map way of making a point instead of just writing straighfowardly.
Seriously, the numbering thing is just weird.
A consequence of the conservative cut n paste mentality.
...........The fetus is viable as soon as it implants. The only thing that can kill the unborn child is an outside force.
As a pro-Life'er I need to applaud Texas senator John Cornyn. He's set up a Pro-Life petition/campaign here on USMB (see below). It's affiliated with the "Texas Right to Life" organization. Not sure if the other posters on USMB get the same advertisement, but I get it quite often (almost every other time). Good and effective strategy by senator Cornyn as USMB has credibility and a large audience.
[
No, what you promote is not scientific fact, but tyranny- The woman is not aborting her body- she is aborting (killing) another human being...that's the scientific fact- This is what I mean by the stupidity of a liberal-
I have never used a biblical argument or comment in my discussions regarding abortion with you- only you have-
Another thing is that the leftist garbage men think of the child as a "negative" thing, but they just want to avoid parenting so they can continue partying, and living their leftist life style.
Is taking a life really an acceptable form of birth control?
Is banning abortion really an effective way to end the practice?
I have no problem with abortion. If you don't want it growing inside you, get rid of it. It would have been better though, if condoms, or abortion pills, et cetera, would be readily available, so you don't have to go through with an abortion.
not very clevergirl
...........The fetus is viable as soon as it implants. The only thing that can kill the unborn child is an outside force.
Did this come from some website? Or it is just your opinion?
Surely, you know its just plain wrong but I'd be interested in seeing your source.
(Bet its not Rick Our Abortion Was Different Santorum)
Oh yeah, and my comment on the subject ...
MYOB.
The future of the Republican Party . Save all baby's so they can grow up to be welfare recipients , prison numbers , wards of the state , sucking off the government tit . So they can rile against them the rest of their lives . Because they know what it's like growing up being kicked home to home or even never adopted , Go through their whole lives being unwanted . No the repukes think its Andy fucking Griffith , as soon as the kids born she is a unwed mother , as soon as she struggles , she a welfare queen . You can go fuck your self with the self righteous bull shit .
[
No, what you promote is not scientific fact, but tyranny- The woman is not aborting her body- she is aborting (killing) another human being...that's the scientific fact- This is what I mean by the stupidity of a liberal-
I have never used a biblical argument or comment in my discussions regarding abortion with you- only you have-
Yeah, but all your arguments are based on, "It makes Baby Jesus cry."
If only Mary had the option of Abortion when she had her "unplanned pregnancy".
Fetuses aren't people. They can't survive outside the womb.
