Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Vastator]

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.

A DNA test will prove otherwise.

 

[Vastator]

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.

No. That's only your incorrect opinion. DNA says otherwise.

 

[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.

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.

Except it's not. No one disputes that a television belongs to a person. If that person decides to take a ball bat to it, there are no laws that allow a stranger to tell a person what they can, and cannot do with it. Conversely, if the person is married, the courts have decided that the wife certainly has joint ownership of the television, and during a divorce, if you smashed it, they will make you give her half of the value of the television.

You do not get to dictate what a person does with their own things if you do not have a dog in that hunt.

 

[martybegan]

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.

until when? Viability?

 

[Czernobog]

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.

No. That's only your incorrect opinion. DNA says otherwise.

DNA has nothing to do with personhood. A cancer cluster is genetically human. I'm pretty sure no one would be ignorant enough to argue that it is a person.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Except it's not. No one disputes that a television belongs to a person. If that person decides to take a ball bat to it, there are no laws that allow a stranger to tell a person what they can, and cannot do with it. Conversely, if the person is married, the courts have decided that the wife certainly has joint ownership of the television, and during a divorce, if you smashed it, they will make you give her half of the value of the television.

You do not get to dictate what a person does with their own things if you do not have a dog in that hunt.

A fetal human being is not a television. That you have to equivocate the two to justify killing something shows something of your morals, or lack thereof.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

until when? Viability?

In my opinion, yeah. Around week 23. When it is independently viable, it is an individual. I would still allow an exception in the case of health of the mother, but that would be about it.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Except it's not. No one disputes that a television belongs to a person. If that person decides to take a ball bat to it, there are no laws that allow a stranger to tell a person what they can, and cannot do with it. Conversely, if the person is married, the courts have decided that the wife certainly has joint ownership of the television, and during a divorce, if you smashed it, they will make you give her half of the value of the television.

You do not get to dictate what a person does with their own things if you do not have a dog in that hunt.

A fetal human being is not a television. That you have to equivocate the two to justify killing something shows something of your morals, or lack thereof.

And that's the point, until it's viable, yeah, it kinda is. It is her fetus, in her body. It belongs to her, just like that television does.

 

[Vastator]

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.

No. That's only your incorrect opinion. DNA says otherwise.

DNA has nothing to do with personhood. A cancer cluster is genetically human. I'm pretty sure no one would be ignorant enough to argue that it is a person.

And when cancer is found it is determined to be an abnormality. A healthy person is not an abnormality. What's more; when cancer is found; doctors remove that part for the purpose preserving the persons life. Your fail train rolls on...

 

[martybegan]

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.

until when? Viability?

In my opinion, yeah. Around week 23. When it is independently viable, it is an individual. I would still allow an exception in the case of health of the mother, but that would be about it.

But how does the fetus then magically become a person?

If one wants to be precise and make sure one doesn't off something viable how close to the line do you get?

 

[Vastator]

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.

Except it's not. No one disputes that a television belongs to a person. If that person decides to take a ball bat to it, there are no laws that allow a stranger to tell a person what they can, and cannot do with it. Conversely, if the person is married, the courts have decided that the wife certainly has joint ownership of the television, and during a divorce, if you smashed it, they will make you give her half of the value of the television.

You do not get to dictate what a person does with their own things if you do not have a dog in that hunt.

A fetal human being is not a television. That you have to equivocate the two to justify killing something shows something of your morals, or lack thereof.

And that's the point, until it's viable, yeah, it kinda is. It is her fetus, in her body. It belongs to her, just like that television does.

Wrong. One person cannot legally own another. There is no provision, or exception made for location.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Except it's not. No one disputes that a television belongs to a person. If that person decides to take a ball bat to it, there are no laws that allow a stranger to tell a person what they can, and cannot do with it. Conversely, if the person is married, the courts have decided that the wife certainly has joint ownership of the television, and during a divorce, if you smashed it, they will make you give her half of the value of the television.

You do not get to dictate what a person does with their own things if you do not have a dog in that hunt.

A fetal human being is not a television. That you have to equivocate the two to justify killing something shows something of your morals, or lack thereof.

And that's the point, until it's viable, yeah, it kinda is. It is her fetus, in her body. It belongs to her, just like that television does.

Not really, because again it's not all her DNA, as it does have the father's DNA as well.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

No. That's only your incorrect opinion. DNA says otherwise.

DNA has nothing to do with personhood. A cancer cluster is genetically human. I'm pretty sure no one would be ignorant enough to argue that it is a person.

And when cancer is found it is determined to be an abnormality. A healthy person is not an abnormality. What's more; when cancer is found; doctors remove that part for the purpose preserving the persons life. Your fail train rolls on...

Nope. You indicated that being genetically human was the only criteria for being a "person". Not my fault you employed faulty logic to maintain your position. But, you're a racist, we expect you to use faulty logic.

 

[Vastator]

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.

No. That's only your incorrect opinion. DNA says otherwise.

DNA has nothing to do with personhood. A cancer cluster is genetically human. I'm pretty sure no one would be ignorant enough to argue that it is a person.

And when cancer is found it is determined to be an abnormality. A healthy person is not an abnormality. What's more; when cancer is found; doctors remove that part for the purpose preserving the persons life. Your fail train rolls on...

Nope. You indicated that being genetically human was the only criteria for being a "person". Not my fault you employed faulty logic to maintain your position. But, you're a racist, we expect you to use faulty logic.

Wrong again. Your faulty comprehension is responsible for your fail. Fail on...

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Except it's not. No one disputes that a television belongs to a person. If that person decides to take a ball bat to it, there are no laws that allow a stranger to tell a person what they can, and cannot do with it. Conversely, if the person is married, the courts have decided that the wife certainly has joint ownership of the television, and during a divorce, if you smashed it, they will make you give her half of the value of the television.

You do not get to dictate what a person does with their own things if you do not have a dog in that hunt.

A fetal human being is not a television. That you have to equivocate the two to justify killing something shows something of your morals, or lack thereof.

And that's the point, until it's viable, yeah, it kinda is. It is her fetus, in her body. It belongs to her, just like that television does.

Wrong. One person cannot legally own another. There is no provision, or exception made for location.

Really?!?! Around on the merry-go-round, again. A fetus is not a person.

 

[Vastator]

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.

Except it's not. No one disputes that a television belongs to a person. If that person decides to take a ball bat to it, there are no laws that allow a stranger to tell a person what they can, and cannot do with it. Conversely, if the person is married, the courts have decided that the wife certainly has joint ownership of the television, and during a divorce, if you smashed it, they will make you give her half of the value of the television.

You do not get to dictate what a person does with their own things if you do not have a dog in that hunt.

A fetal human being is not a television. That you have to equivocate the two to justify killing something shows something of your morals, or lack thereof.

And that's the point, until it's viable, yeah, it kinda is. It is her fetus, in her body. It belongs to her, just like that television does.

Wrong. One person cannot legally own another. There is no provision, or exception made for location.

Really?!?! Around on the merry-go-round, again. A fetus is not a person.

DNA says otherwise.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

No. That's only your incorrect opinion. DNA says otherwise.

DNA has nothing to do with personhood. A cancer cluster is genetically human. I'm pretty sure no one would be ignorant enough to argue that it is a person.

And when cancer is found it is determined to be an abnormality. A healthy person is not an abnormality. What's more; when cancer is found; doctors remove that part for the purpose preserving the persons life. Your fail train rolls on...

Nope. You indicated that being genetically human was the only criteria for being a "person". Not my fault you employed faulty logic to maintain your position. But, you're a racist, we expect you to use faulty logic.

Wrong again. Your faulty comprehension is responsible for your fail. Fail on...

Brilliant comeback, racist. LOL

 

[Czernobog]

Except it's not. No one disputes that a television belongs to a person. If that person decides to take a ball bat to it, there are no laws that allow a stranger to tell a person what they can, and cannot do with it. Conversely, if the person is married, the courts have decided that the wife certainly has joint ownership of the television, and during a divorce, if you smashed it, they will make you give her half of the value of the television.

You do not get to dictate what a person does with their own things if you do not have a dog in that hunt.

A fetal human being is not a television. That you have to equivocate the two to justify killing something shows something of your morals, or lack thereof.

And that's the point, until it's viable, yeah, it kinda is. It is her fetus, in her body. It belongs to her, just like that television does.

Wrong. One person cannot legally own another. There is no provision, or exception made for location.

Really?!?! Around on the merry-go-round, again. A fetus is not a person.

DNA says otherwise.

Cancer.

 

[Vastator]

A fetal human being is not a television. That you have to equivocate the two to justify killing something shows something of your morals, or lack thereof.

And that's the point, until it's viable, yeah, it kinda is. It is her fetus, in her body. It belongs to her, just like that television does.

Wrong. One person cannot legally own another. There is no provision, or exception made for location.

Really?!?! Around on the merry-go-round, again. A fetus is not a person.

DNA says otherwise.

Cancer.

Cancer is a defined treatable malady. Life and pregnancy aren't.

 

[Czernobog]

And that's the point, until it's viable, yeah, it kinda is. It is her fetus, in her body. It belongs to her, just like that television does.

Wrong. One person cannot legally own another. There is no provision, or exception made for location.

Really?!?! Around on the merry-go-round, again. A fetus is not a person.

DNA says otherwise.

Cancer.

Cancer is a defined treatable malady. Life and pregnancy aren't.

Actually, so is pregnancy. That's the point of abortion; it's a treatment for the malady.