Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Czernobog]

Actually they are. A DNA test can quite readily prove this.

funny lefties will believe a made up model for proof of global warming

yet

wonder if human zygotes are people

--LOL

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

Wow... You don't handle fail well at all... You've resorted to using memes to defend your failure... Might I suggest a safe space, and a warm glass of milk?

--LOL

indeed even as troll this guy is total failure

--LOL

i didnt even bother to respond to that one

--LOL

It was pretty telling that he holds child rapists in such high esteem... I wonder if he regrets making such info public?

Fuck you. I don't hold them in high regard. I hold them in higher regard than you, you racist fuck!

 

[jon_berzerk]

Except it does. The point of Sophie's Choice thought experiments is to expose relative moral value. It is to demonstrate that not all moral imperatives are equal. In this case, the moral value of an actual child, and that of a potential child. If ylu would save the child, you admit that the two are not equivalent, so quit calling fetuses children, or babies.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up being Anti-Abortion; only that you have to find some new argument against abortion that doesn't rely on a false moral equivalency designed to elicit an emotional response to counter a rational one.

It means nothing, because as a thought problem it is binary solution to a non-binary question.

I disagree. It is binary. Either a fetus is the moral equivalent to a child, or it isn't. Saying that it isn't morally equivalent to a child is not synonymous with saying it has no value - only that its moral value is not equivalent to that of an actual child.

it depends on the context and situation. In this situation the child wins, in a situation where there is nothing else at risk, the fetus, by the logic of equivalency, should win.

A fetus can be more important than the happiness of a person who's pregnant, but less important than that person's physical health.

TO THE BOLD: Ah, but you see, you are talking about the choice of the individual directly involved in the decision. Someone pointed out, earlier, that the owner of one of those embryos might well choose the embryos over the child, as well. And that is okay. I have always maintained that the individual who is pregnant should be allowed to decide how much moral value a fetus has. My only point is that you don't have that authority, as you have no dog in that hunt.

As a citizen in the United States I have a dog in every hunt. Just because I am not a firefighter doesn't mean I can't say firefighters should fight fires.

The fallacy of "it doesn't impact you" would mean that women shouldn't have a vote on going to war because they can't get drafted. Silly when you look at it that way.

the guy is a failed troll

nothing more nothing less

 

[Czernobog]

Except it does. The point of Sophie's Choice thought experiments is to expose relative moral value. It is to demonstrate that not all moral imperatives are equal. In this case, the moral value of an actual child, and that of a potential child. If ylu would save the child, you admit that the two are not equivalent, so quit calling fetuses children, or babies.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up being Anti-Abortion; only that you have to find some new argument against abortion that doesn't rely on a false moral equivalency designed to elicit an emotional response to counter a rational one.

It means nothing, because as a thought problem it is binary solution to a non-binary question.

I disagree. It is binary. Either a fetus is the moral equivalent to a child, or it isn't. Saying that it isn't morally equivalent to a child is not synonymous with saying it has no value - only that its moral value is not equivalent to that of an actual child.

it depends on the context and situation. In this situation the child wins, in a situation where there is nothing else at risk, the fetus, by the logic of equivalency, should win.

A fetus can be more important than the happiness of a person who's pregnant, but less important than that person's physical health.

TO THE BOLD: Ah, but you see, you are talking about the choice of the individual directly involved in the decision. Someone pointed out, earlier, that the owner of one of those embryos might well choose the embryos over the child, as well. And that is okay. I have always maintained that the individual who is pregnant should be allowed to decide how much moral value a fetus has. My only point is that you don't have that authority, as you have no dog in that hunt.

As a citizen in the United States I have a dog in every hunt. Just because I am not a firefighter doesn't mean I can't say firefighters should fight fires.

The fallacy of "it doesn't impact you" would mean that women shouldn't have a vote on going to war because they can't get drafted. Silly when you look at it that way.

No it's not. Apples and oranges. Whether we go to war or not does affect women, whether they can be drafted, or not. They are mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, girlfriends. so, while they may not, personally, be forced to fight, the decision to go to war absolutely affects them, personally.

How does Jaunita in Boise having an abortion affect you personally? It doesn't. So, by what authority do you think you should be allowed to dictate what she can, and cannot do with her fetus in her body?

As to your firefighter analogy, of course you support them fighting a fire, even when it isn't your house. That's because, you absolutely want them there if it should be your house, one day. We act like our support of socialist public services is altruistic, but it isn't. It's insurance. By financing, and supporting public services like firefighters, and police, even when we have never taken advantage of their service means that we have a promise that they will be there for us, should the need ever come. I mean, most of us don't really think about it like that, any more, because it's all just kinda baked into the cake, but that was the moral calculus that led to public services like that.

 

[Vastator]

funny lefties will believe a made up model for proof of global warming

yet

wonder if human zygotes are people

--LOL

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

Wow... You don't handle fail well at all... You've resorted to using memes to defend your failure... Might I suggest a safe space, and a warm glass of milk?

--LOL

indeed even as troll this guy is total failure

--LOL

i didnt even bother to respond to that one

--LOL

It was pretty telling that he holds child rapists in such high esteem... I wonder if he regrets making such info public?

Fuck you. I don't hold them in high regard. I hold them in higher regard than you, you racist fuck!

You even referenced your self committing a vile act...
On the issue of moral equivalencies..
Per your own words "You will never have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! I could be raping a 12-year-old girl, "...
So you could be raping a 12 year old; and maintain the moral high ground over me, for expressing a bias toward a familial, and genetic relationship in a life or death situation.
You need help...

 

[martybegan]

It means nothing, because as a thought problem it is binary solution to a non-binary question.

I disagree. It is binary. Either a fetus is the moral equivalent to a child, or it isn't. Saying that it isn't morally equivalent to a child is not synonymous with saying it has no value - only that its moral value is not equivalent to that of an actual child.

it depends on the context and situation. In this situation the child wins, in a situation where there is nothing else at risk, the fetus, by the logic of equivalency, should win.

A fetus can be more important than the happiness of a person who's pregnant, but less important than that person's physical health.

TO THE BOLD: Ah, but you see, you are talking about the choice of the individual directly involved in the decision. Someone pointed out, earlier, that the owner of one of those embryos might well choose the embryos over the child, as well. And that is okay. I have always maintained that the individual who is pregnant should be allowed to decide how much moral value a fetus has. My only point is that you don't have that authority, as you have no dog in that hunt.

As a citizen in the United States I have a dog in every hunt. Just because I am not a firefighter doesn't mean I can't say firefighters should fight fires.

The fallacy of "it doesn't impact you" would mean that women shouldn't have a vote on going to war because they can't get drafted. Silly when you look at it that way.

No it's not. Apples and oranges. Whether we go to war or not does affect women, whether they can be drafted, or not. They are mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, girlfriends. so, while they may not, personally, be forced to fight, the decision to go to war absolutely affects them, personally.

How does Jaunita in Boise having an abortion affect you personally? It doesn't. So, by what authority do you think you should be allowed to dictate what she can, and cannot do with her fetus in her body?

How does me having a AR-15 affect Juanita in Boise personally?

And its not my authority, its the constitution's authority, and since the Constitution is silent when it comes to Abortion, it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

 

[Czernobog]

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

Wow... You don't handle fail well at all... You've resorted to using memes to defend your failure... Might I suggest a safe space, and a warm glass of milk?

--LOL

indeed even as troll this guy is total failure

--LOL

i didnt even bother to respond to that one

--LOL

It was pretty telling that he holds child rapists in such high esteem... I wonder if he regrets making such info public?

Fuck you. I don't hold them in high regard. I hold them in higher regard than you, you racist fuck!

And even referenced your self commuting the act. So...
On the issue of moral equivalencies..
Per your own words "You will never have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! I could be raping a 12-year-old girl, "...
So you could be raping a 12 year old; and maintain the moral high ground over me, for expressing a bias toward a familial, and genetic relationship in a life or death situation.
You need help...

yeah...in higher regard than you. The fact that a racist piece of shit like you thinks I need help is worthless. Take the plank from your own eye, racist fuck.

 

[Czernobog]

I disagree. It is binary. Either a fetus is the moral equivalent to a child, or it isn't. Saying that it isn't morally equivalent to a child is not synonymous with saying it has no value - only that its moral value is not equivalent to that of an actual child.

it depends on the context and situation. In this situation the child wins, in a situation where there is nothing else at risk, the fetus, by the logic of equivalency, should win.

A fetus can be more important than the happiness of a person who's pregnant, but less important than that person's physical health.

TO THE BOLD: Ah, but you see, you are talking about the choice of the individual directly involved in the decision. Someone pointed out, earlier, that the owner of one of those embryos might well choose the embryos over the child, as well. And that is okay. I have always maintained that the individual who is pregnant should be allowed to decide how much moral value a fetus has. My only point is that you don't have that authority, as you have no dog in that hunt.

As a citizen in the United States I have a dog in every hunt. Just because I am not a firefighter doesn't mean I can't say firefighters should fight fires.

The fallacy of "it doesn't impact you" would mean that women shouldn't have a vote on going to war because they can't get drafted. Silly when you look at it that way.

No it's not. Apples and oranges. Whether we go to war or not does affect women, whether they can be drafted, or not. They are mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, girlfriends. so, while they may not, personally, be forced to fight, the decision to go to war absolutely affects them, personally.

How does Jaunita in Boise having an abortion affect you personally? It doesn't. So, by what authority do you think you should be allowed to dictate what she can, and cannot do with her fetus in her body?

How does me having a AR-15 affect Juanita in Boise personally?

And its not my authority, its the constitution's authority, and since the Constitution is silent when it comes to Abortion, it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

Well...it did until the Supreme Court weighed in. They get to do that, and decided the rights of an actual person outweigh the wellbeing of a mere fetus.

 

[martybegan]

it depends on the context and situation. In this situation the child wins, in a situation where there is nothing else at risk, the fetus, by the logic of equivalency, should win.

A fetus can be more important than the happiness of a person who's pregnant, but less important than that person's physical health.

TO THE BOLD: Ah, but you see, you are talking about the choice of the individual directly involved in the decision. Someone pointed out, earlier, that the owner of one of those embryos might well choose the embryos over the child, as well. And that is okay. I have always maintained that the individual who is pregnant should be allowed to decide how much moral value a fetus has. My only point is that you don't have that authority, as you have no dog in that hunt.

As a citizen in the United States I have a dog in every hunt. Just because I am not a firefighter doesn't mean I can't say firefighters should fight fires.

The fallacy of "it doesn't impact you" would mean that women shouldn't have a vote on going to war because they can't get drafted. Silly when you look at it that way.

No it's not. Apples and oranges. Whether we go to war or not does affect women, whether they can be drafted, or not. They are mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, girlfriends. so, while they may not, personally, be forced to fight, the decision to go to war absolutely affects them, personally.

How does Jaunita in Boise having an abortion affect you personally? It doesn't. So, by what authority do you think you should be allowed to dictate what she can, and cannot do with her fetus in her body?

How does me having a AR-15 affect Juanita in Boise personally?

And its not my authority, its the constitution's authority, and since the Constitution is silent when it comes to Abortion, it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

Well...it did until the Supreme Court weighed in. They get to do that, and decided the rights of an actual person outweigh the wellbeing of a mere fetus.

They got it wrong. The SC has been overstepping its bounds for decades.

Roe is terrible case law.

 

[Vastator]

Wow... You don't handle fail well at all... You've resorted to using memes to defend your failure... Might I suggest a safe space, and a warm glass of milk?

--LOL

indeed even as troll this guy is total failure

--LOL

i didnt even bother to respond to that one

--LOL

It was pretty telling that he holds child rapists in such high esteem... I wonder if he regrets making such info public?

Fuck you. I don't hold them in high regard. I hold them in higher regard than you, you racist fuck!

And even referenced your self commuting the act. So...
On the issue of moral equivalencies..
Per your own words "You will never have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! I could be raping a 12-year-old girl, "...
So you could be raping a 12 year old; and maintain the moral high ground over me, for expressing a bias toward a familial, and genetic relationship in a life or death situation.
You need help...

yeah...in higher regard than you. The fact that a racist piece of shit like you thinks I need help is worthless. Take the plank from your own eye, racist fuck.

I just wanted to be clear on your position when it comes to child rape... Thanks for clearing that up. Feel free to carry on, informing the board, on how to be appropriately moral.

 

[koshergrl]

it depends on the context and situation. In this situation the child wins, in a situation where there is nothing else at risk, the fetus, by the logic of equivalency, should win.

A fetus can be more important than the happiness of a person who's pregnant, but less important than that person's physical health.

TO THE BOLD: Ah, but you see, you are talking about the choice of the individual directly involved in the decision. Someone pointed out, earlier, that the owner of one of those embryos might well choose the embryos over the child, as well. And that is okay. I have always maintained that the individual who is pregnant should be allowed to decide how much moral value a fetus has. My only point is that you don't have that authority, as you have no dog in that hunt.

As a citizen in the United States I have a dog in every hunt. Just because I am not a firefighter doesn't mean I can't say firefighters should fight fires.

The fallacy of "it doesn't impact you" would mean that women shouldn't have a vote on going to war because they can't get drafted. Silly when you look at it that way.

No it's not. Apples and oranges. Whether we go to war or not does affect women, whether they can be drafted, or not. They are mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, girlfriends. so, while they may not, personally, be forced to fight, the decision to go to war absolutely affects them, personally.

How does Jaunita in Boise having an abortion affect you personally? It doesn't. So, by what authority do you think you should be allowed to dictate what she can, and cannot do with her fetus in her body?

How does me having a AR-15 affect Juanita in Boise personally?

And its not my authority, its the constitution's authority, and since the Constitution is silent when it comes to Abortion, it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

Well...it did until the Supreme Court weighed in. They get to do that, and decided the rights of an actual person outweigh the wellbeing of a mere fetus.

Er..no. They decided the desires of a woman outweighed the rights of the unborn.

And they were wrong to do so.

Women already had, and still have, the right to medically necessary abortion.

That is the only thing they have a right to, and they had it without RvW. And they will have it after RvW falls.

Which it will. It's on borrowed time now, and everybody knows it.

 

[Czernobog]

TO THE BOLD: Ah, but you see, you are talking about the choice of the individual directly involved in the decision. Someone pointed out, earlier, that the owner of one of those embryos might well choose the embryos over the child, as well. And that is okay. I have always maintained that the individual who is pregnant should be allowed to decide how much moral value a fetus has. My only point is that you don't have that authority, as you have no dog in that hunt.

As a citizen in the United States I have a dog in every hunt. Just because I am not a firefighter doesn't mean I can't say firefighters should fight fires.

The fallacy of "it doesn't impact you" would mean that women shouldn't have a vote on going to war because they can't get drafted. Silly when you look at it that way.

No it's not. Apples and oranges. Whether we go to war or not does affect women, whether they can be drafted, or not. They are mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, girlfriends. so, while they may not, personally, be forced to fight, the decision to go to war absolutely affects them, personally.

How does Jaunita in Boise having an abortion affect you personally? It doesn't. So, by what authority do you think you should be allowed to dictate what she can, and cannot do with her fetus in her body?

How does me having a AR-15 affect Juanita in Boise personally?

And its not my authority, its the constitution's authority, and since the Constitution is silent when it comes to Abortion, it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

Well...it did until the Supreme Court weighed in. They get to do that, and decided the rights of an actual person outweigh the wellbeing of a mere fetus.

They got it wrong. The SC has been overstepping its bounds for decades.

Roe is terrible case law.

Well...you are entitled to that opinion. I also think it is bad case law, but I suspect for a different reason than you. I think the attorneys argued the wrong issue. It shouldn't have been about the right of privacy; it should have been a question of ownership. It is her fetus, inside of her body. That should have been the issue argued. In doing so we would have laid to rest, once and for all, the question of "fetal personhood", and the issue would have been dead by now.

 

[martybegan]

As a citizen in the United States I have a dog in every hunt. Just because I am not a firefighter doesn't mean I can't say firefighters should fight fires.

The fallacy of "it doesn't impact you" would mean that women shouldn't have a vote on going to war because they can't get drafted. Silly when you look at it that way.

No it's not. Apples and oranges. Whether we go to war or not does affect women, whether they can be drafted, or not. They are mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, girlfriends. so, while they may not, personally, be forced to fight, the decision to go to war absolutely affects them, personally.

How does Jaunita in Boise having an abortion affect you personally? It doesn't. So, by what authority do you think you should be allowed to dictate what she can, and cannot do with her fetus in her body?

How does me having a AR-15 affect Juanita in Boise personally?

And its not my authority, its the constitution's authority, and since the Constitution is silent when it comes to Abortion, it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

Well...it did until the Supreme Court weighed in. They get to do that, and decided the rights of an actual person outweigh the wellbeing of a mere fetus.

They got it wrong. The SC has been overstepping its bounds for decades.

Roe is terrible case law.

Well...you are entitled to that opinion. I also think it is bad case law, but I suspect for a different reason than you. I think the attorneys argued the wrong issue. It shouldn't have been about the right of privacy; it should have been a question of ownership. It is her fetus, inside of her body. That should have been the issue argued. In doing so we would have laid to rest, once and for all, the question of "fetal personhood", and the issue would have been dead by now.

Actually it's only 1/2 hers if you go by DNA.

 

[Vastator]

No it's not. Apples and oranges. Whether we go to war or not does affect women, whether they can be drafted, or not. They are mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, girlfriends. so, while they may not, personally, be forced to fight, the decision to go to war absolutely affects them, personally.

How does Jaunita in Boise having an abortion affect you personally? It doesn't. So, by what authority do you think you should be allowed to dictate what she can, and cannot do with her fetus in her body?

How does me having a AR-15 affect Juanita in Boise personally?

And its not my authority, its the constitution's authority, and since the Constitution is silent when it comes to Abortion, it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

Well...it did until the Supreme Court weighed in. They get to do that, and decided the rights of an actual person outweigh the wellbeing of a mere fetus.

They got it wrong. The SC has been overstepping its bounds for decades.

Roe is terrible case law.

Well...you are entitled to that opinion. I also think it is bad case law, but I suspect for a different reason than you. I think the attorneys argued the wrong issue. It shouldn't have been about the right of privacy; it should have been a question of ownership. It is her fetus, inside of her body. That should have been the issue argued. In doing so we would have laid to rest, once and for all, the question of "fetal personhood", and the issue would have been dead by now.

Actually it's only 1/2 hers if you go by DNA.

No person can own another, regardless of DNA. Not even identical twins...

 

[koshergrl]

And that stupid rhetorical in the OP is bouncing around on fb. It is a little example of all that's wrong with the left. They are baby killers who lack basic reasoning ability. Whether or not it makes sense to save the screaming child rather than the manufactured embryos has nothing to do with whether or not ELECTIVE abortion is moral. There's nothing elective about a fire, and pro-life people have always maintained and still do that medically necessary abortion is exempt from moral judgement. Likewise, if you have to choose between two lives in a fire and you choose the one that is most likely to survive, the one that has more time and energy vested in life, who already has a family...there is absolutely nothing morally amiss about that.

There's no dilemma and the only thing the scenario proves (once again) is that baby killers have no ability to intelligently ponder the greater questions of life.

 

[Czernobog]

No it's not. Apples and oranges. Whether we go to war or not does affect women, whether they can be drafted, or not. They are mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, girlfriends. so, while they may not, personally, be forced to fight, the decision to go to war absolutely affects them, personally.

How does Jaunita in Boise having an abortion affect you personally? It doesn't. So, by what authority do you think you should be allowed to dictate what she can, and cannot do with her fetus in her body?

How does me having a AR-15 affect Juanita in Boise personally?

And its not my authority, its the constitution's authority, and since the Constitution is silent when it comes to Abortion, it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

Well...it did until the Supreme Court weighed in. They get to do that, and decided the rights of an actual person outweigh the wellbeing of a mere fetus.

They got it wrong. The SC has been overstepping its bounds for decades.

Roe is terrible case law.

Well...you are entitled to that opinion. I also think it is bad case law, but I suspect for a different reason than you. I think the attorneys argued the wrong issue. It shouldn't have been about the right of privacy; it should have been a question of ownership. It is her fetus, inside of her body. That should have been the issue argued. In doing so we would have laid to rest, once and for all, the question of "fetal personhood", and the issue would have been dead by now.

Actually it's only 1/2 hers if you go by DNA.

Well...that's true, but that's an entirely different issue. Then you get into the father's rights vs the mother's, but that still puts the decision in the hands of the people actually involved in the consequences, not total strangers, by force of law.

 

[koshergrl]

How does me having a AR-15 affect Juanita in Boise personally?

And its not my authority, its the constitution's authority, and since the Constitution is silent when it comes to Abortion, it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

Well...it did until the Supreme Court weighed in. They get to do that, and decided the rights of an actual person outweigh the wellbeing of a mere fetus.

They got it wrong. The SC has been overstepping its bounds for decades.

Roe is terrible case law.

Well...you are entitled to that opinion. I also think it is bad case law, but I suspect for a different reason than you. I think the attorneys argued the wrong issue. It shouldn't have been about the right of privacy; it should have been a question of ownership. It is her fetus, inside of her body. That should have been the issue argued. In doing so we would have laid to rest, once and for all, the question of "fetal personhood", and the issue would have been dead by now.

Actually it's only 1/2 hers if you go by DNA.

No person can own another, regardless of DNA. Not even identical twins...

Precisely. Which is why a woman can't *own* her unborn child, and therefore has no *right* to kill it. Even if her body is currently protecting and nurturing it as biology dictates.

 

[martybegan]

How does me having a AR-15 affect Juanita in Boise personally?

And its not my authority, its the constitution's authority, and since the Constitution is silent when it comes to Abortion, it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

Well...it did until the Supreme Court weighed in. They get to do that, and decided the rights of an actual person outweigh the wellbeing of a mere fetus.

They got it wrong. The SC has been overstepping its bounds for decades.

Roe is terrible case law.

Well...you are entitled to that opinion. I also think it is bad case law, but I suspect for a different reason than you. I think the attorneys argued the wrong issue. It shouldn't have been about the right of privacy; it should have been a question of ownership. It is her fetus, inside of her body. That should have been the issue argued. In doing so we would have laid to rest, once and for all, the question of "fetal personhood", and the issue would have been dead by now.

Actually it's only 1/2 hers if you go by DNA.

No person can own another, regardless of DNA. Not even identical twins...

They will counter with the "its not a person" concept.

 

[Czernobog]

How does me having a AR-15 affect Juanita in Boise personally?

And its not my authority, its the constitution's authority, and since the Constitution is silent when it comes to Abortion, it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

Well...it did until the Supreme Court weighed in. They get to do that, and decided the rights of an actual person outweigh the wellbeing of a mere fetus.

They got it wrong. The SC has been overstepping its bounds for decades.

Roe is terrible case law.

Well...you are entitled to that opinion. I also think it is bad case law, but I suspect for a different reason than you. I think the attorneys argued the wrong issue. It shouldn't have been about the right of privacy; it should have been a question of ownership. It is her fetus, inside of her body. That should have been the issue argued. In doing so we would have laid to rest, once and for all, the question of "fetal personhood", and the issue would have been dead by now.

Actually it's only 1/2 hers if you go by DNA.

No person can own another, regardless of DNA. Not even identical twins...

In addition to being a racist, you are apparently incapable of reading comprehension. The point was, that if they had argued the case properly, there would no longer be any question that a fetus is. Not. A. Person.

 

[Czernobog]

Well...it did until the Supreme Court weighed in. They get to do that, and decided the rights of an actual person outweigh the wellbeing of a mere fetus.

They got it wrong. The SC has been overstepping its bounds for decades.

Roe is terrible case law.

Well...you are entitled to that opinion. I also think it is bad case law, but I suspect for a different reason than you. I think the attorneys argued the wrong issue. It shouldn't have been about the right of privacy; it should have been a question of ownership. It is her fetus, inside of her body. That should have been the issue argued. In doing so we would have laid to rest, once and for all, the question of "fetal personhood", and the issue would have been dead by now.

Actually it's only 1/2 hers if you go by DNA.

No person can own another, regardless of DNA. Not even identical twins...

They will counter with the "its not a person" concept.

That kinda was the point of my pointing out that they argued the case wrong.

 

[martybegan]

How does me having a AR-15 affect Juanita in Boise personally?

And its not my authority, its the constitution's authority, and since the Constitution is silent when it comes to Abortion, it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

Well...it did until the Supreme Court weighed in. They get to do that, and decided the rights of an actual person outweigh the wellbeing of a mere fetus.

They got it wrong. The SC has been overstepping its bounds for decades.

Roe is terrible case law.

Well...you are entitled to that opinion. I also think it is bad case law, but I suspect for a different reason than you. I think the attorneys argued the wrong issue. It shouldn't have been about the right of privacy; it should have been a question of ownership. It is her fetus, inside of her body. That should have been the issue argued. In doing so we would have laid to rest, once and for all, the question of "fetal personhood", and the issue would have been dead by now.

Actually it's only 1/2 hers if you go by DNA.

Well...that's true, but that's an entirely different issue. Then you get into the father's rights vs the mother's, but that still puts the decision in the hands of the people actually involved in the consequences, not total strangers, by force of law.

it's all the same issue, you have to look at all factors, or it would be like looking at an airplane and only concentrating on the engines.