The Political View of Abortion

[NYcarbineer]

LOL! How funny.

You come with two absurd assertions ("if it hasn't been made illegal, then it must be legal" and "the law doesn't make things legal"). I respond countering that and you turn around and further disprove your own original assertions.

If, as you assert, something is legal before it's made illegal (and vice versa), then gay marriage-- much the same way you claim with abortion-- must have been legal since the founding of this nation, because there were no laws against it until twenty or so years ago. But, funny thing here. You reject your own argument when it's applied to a position you happen to agree with. I'd say I'm shocked, but I'm not. Liberals have a penchant for trying to change the rules of the proverbial game midway through once they find it doesn't suit them.

But here... I'll make it easy on you. Do you agree that something is illegal before it's legal or legal before it's illegal? It doesn't really matter which way you answer, simply because either way you're going to contradict your own argument placed forth.

Edit: By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why, if laws don't make things legal, why the hell liberals are busy trying to pass laws legalizing gay marriage?

If abortion wasn't legal in the 18th century, why were states passing laws to make it illegal in the 19th?

I'd like to answer your question with a question. If gay marriage wasn't legal in the U.S. at some point, then why have some states banned it? Indeed, the first ban on gay marriage preceded any state legalizing it. Obviously, that must mean gay marriage was legal I'm the U.S. prior, right?

1. Early term abortions in the colonies in the 18th century were legal. Since you apparently don't know what the word 'legal' means, it means there weren't laws making them illegal.

2. By definition, if something is legal, it can't also be illegal, in the same place and time.

3. Same sex marriage is illegal wherever the marriage laws do not recognize same sex marriage as legal marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lol.

Yeah...a baby violates a woman's right of privacy.

Newsflash...YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN SECRETLY MURDER PEOPLE.

Neither an embryo nor fetus is the source of the privacy rights violation, the state violates the right to privacy by attempting to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.

The right to privacy places a limit on government authority and safeguards individual liberty.

Here in the U.S., a state has never dictated whether a woman may or may not have a child. This isn't China. How are you going to argue something you don't seem to understand?

Your post has nothing to do with his post.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

IOW you have no evidence of laws making early term abortion illegal throughout the colonies in the 18th century, and yet you claim it was illegal.

Why would I need to? You're trying to shift the burden of proof (unsurprisingly). You claimed abortion was legal in the 18th century and, thus far, you've utterly failed at substantiating your claim, aside from assuming that something must be legal if it's not illegal. That ain't gonna work.

Name anything that is illegal that was not made illegal by law.

Name anything that has not been made illegal by law that is illegal anyway.

Why would I do that? I'm not sure what you're reading, but it sure as hell isn't my posts. What I've said, and what you seemingly fail to grasp, is that just because something hasn't been deemed "illegal" doesn't mean it's "legal". One would think you would understand this point by me pointing out that gay marriage is illegal in Florida as of a few years ago but was never legal before then.

And don't say 'gay marriage'. Gay marriage was made illegal whenever and wherever marriage laws were passed, giving some forms of marriage legal recognition under the law, but excluding same sex marriages.

Wrong. The first gay marriage ban was passed in 1973, nearly 30 years before any state legalized SSM. Given the fact that you don't know the history of abortion laws in the U.S., it's unsurprising you wouldn't know the history of SSM laws in the U.S., either.

1. Early term abortions in the colonies in the 18th century were legal. Since you apparently don't know what the word 'legal' means, it means there weren't laws making them illegal.

So when was gay marriage legal in Florida? This really isn't all that hard. If, as you assert, something is legal unless it's made illegal, then gay marriage in Florida must have been legal prior to 2008, when it was made illegal. Right?

2. By definition, if something is legal, it can't also be illegal, in the same place and time.

That's nice to know. Now what does that have to do with anything?

3. Same sex marriage is illegal wherever the marriage laws do not recognize same sex marriage as legal marriage.

You're backtracking. According to your logic, unless the law says gay marriage is illegal, then it must be legal. Are you saying that's wrong?

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Neither an embryo nor fetus is the source of the privacy rights violation, the state violates the right to privacy by attempting to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.

The right to privacy places a limit on government authority and safeguards individual liberty.

Here in the U.S., a state has never dictated whether a woman may or may not have a child. This isn't China. How are you going to argue something you don't seem to understand?

Your post has nothing to do with his post.

lrn2read

Bolded just because.

 

[koshergrl]

Refusing to allow a woman to kill her baby is not a violation of her person.

PREGNANCY isn't a violation of one's person, any more than the digestive process is a *violation*. It's a biological function that can potentially occur after one is impregnated.

Pregnancy is most definitely a violation of one's person. You are hosting a parasite which changes your physiology, causing nausea, swelling, and in the end, a lot of pain. Nothing violated my person more than my pregnancies. The whole process is so awful and gross, that if you didn't get a baby at the end of it, no woman would ever go through it.

All of the physical changes are beyond your control. Pregnancy is bad enough when you WANT to be pregnant. I can't imagine how horrible it would be if having a child was compromising your existing family, and your live children were suffering because you couldn't work.

One is typically impregnanted via consensual sex.

So if she wants to be spared the "violation" of pregnancy, then she probably shouldn't choose to engage in the act that results in pregnancy.

Once you CHOOSE to engage in sex, then the results can no longer be called a "violation". It's the chance you took.

I always find it amazing that anti-abortion people talk about living babies as "consequences" of sex. Not as human beings, not a children, but "consequences".

When you go skiing, you might get injured if you fall. If you do break a leg, you get it set and put a cast on it until it heals. You don't say "You knew the risk when you chose to go skiing. If you didn't want to limp and use a cane for the rest of your life, you should have abstained".

I know you're going to say "But setting a broken leg isn't murdering a child", well neither is having an abortion, and no matter how many times you say it won't make it so.

You are wrong.

Babies are not parasites. That is scientifically incorrect.

We refer to children as the consequence of sex because that is where your choice to stop the process ends. If you choose to take the chance, you have already made your choice. You can't un-make it, because to un-make it, another person must be killed. And your right to privacy, your right to choice, your right to your own body stop abruptly when in order for you to maintain your *rights* another person must die. Sorry, that's not a right.

Pregnancy is an inexorable, natural function. If you are so terrified of pregnancy that you think you would rather die than suffer through it, then you probably should opt for a life of celibacy; because short of surgical sterilization, there is no way to guarantee that a sexually active woman will not get pregnant...except to just abstain from sex. That's the choice we have.

 

[koshergrl]

If abortion wasn't legal in the 18th century, why were states passing laws to make it illegal in the 19th?

I'd like to answer your question with a question. If gay marriage wasn't legal in the U.S. at some point, then why have some states banned it? Indeed, the first ban on gay marriage preceded any state legalizing it. Obviously, that must mean gay marriage was legal I'm the U.S. prior, right?

1. Early term abortions in the colonies in the 18th century were legal. Since you apparently don't know what the word 'legal' means, it means there weren't laws making them illegal.

2. By definition, if something is legal, it can't also be illegal, in the same place and time.

3. Same sex marriage is illegal wherever the marriage laws do not recognize same sex marriage as legal marriage.

What ridiculous claptrap.

Somewhere, attorneys and judges are reading your garbage and laughing their asses off.

 

[Chris]

According to Gallup polls last summer, 80% of the country thought abortion should be legal in all (26%) or certain circumstances (51%) or had no opinion (3%).
Only 20% agreed that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
Also, 98.5% of all abortions are before 24 weeks, which is the medically accepted minimal time of viability.
And the vast majority of those are before 12 weeks, when the fetus is about the size of a raspberry.
God, or nature, is the most prolific abortionist. 30-50% of all pregnancies are naturally terminated before the 12th week.

 

[Chris]

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. The Republicans want the government to force these women to bring their pregnancy to term. Unwanted children are much more likely to be abused.

Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

And don't tell me an embryo is a human being. If it was, the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, child abuse has increased since the advent of legalized abortion..which was supposed to all but eliminate child abuse, neglect, poverty, crime, and teen pregnancy.

How's that working out for your folks? All those things been eradicated? No? Getting worse?

Shocker.

 

[koshergrl]

According to Gallup polls last summer, 80% of the country thought abortion should be legal in all (26%) or certain circumstances (51%) or had no opinion (3%).
Only 20% agreed that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
Also, 98.5% of all abortions are before 24 weeks, which is the medically accepted minimal time of viability.
And the vast majority of those are before 12 weeks, when the fetus is about the size of a raspberry.
God, or nature, is the most prolific abortionist. 30-50% of all pregnancies are naturally terminated before the 12th week.

20 percent is a pretty good chunk.

The rest of your rambling tripe is just that..unsourced, dishonest garbage spewed by Planned Parenthood and her minions..including the CDC.

 

[Agit8r]

IOW you have no evidence of laws making early term abortion illegal throughout the colonies in the 18th century, and yet you claim it was illegal.

Why would I need to? You're trying to shift the burden of proof (unsurprisingly). You claimed abortion was legal in the 18th century and, thus far, you've utterly failed at substantiating your claim, aside from assuming that something must be legal if it's not illegal. That ain't gonna work.

Name anything that is illegal that was not made illegal by law.

Name anything that has not been made illegal by law that is illegal anyway.

Why would I do that? I'm not sure what you're reading, but it sure as hell isn't my posts. What I've said, and what you seemingly fail to grasp, is that just because something hasn't been deemed "illegal" doesn't mean it's "legal". One would think you would understand this point by me pointing out that gay marriage is illegal in Florida as of a few years ago but was never legal before then.



Wrong. The first gay marriage ban was passed in 1973, nearly 30 years before any state legalized SSM. Given the fact that you don't know the history of abortion laws in the U.S., it's unsurprising you wouldn't know the history of SSM laws in the U.S., either.



So when was gay marriage legal in Florida? This really isn't all that hard. If, as you assert, something is legal unless it's made illegal, then gay marriage in Florida must have been legal prior to 2008, when it was made illegal. Right?

2. By definition, if something is legal, it can't also be illegal, in the same place and time.

That's nice to know. Now what does that have to do with anything?

3. Same sex marriage is illegal wherever the marriage laws do not recognize same sex marriage as legal marriage.

You're backtracking. According to your logic, unless the law says gay marriage is illegal, then it must be legal. Are you saying that's wrong?

Civil marriage is about legal recognition. The political issue of gay marriage is only about civil recognition. On the other hand early-term abortion is not about a specific legal recognition. The present attempts at banning them is based on people wanting to endow legal recognition that has never existed--not even when abortions were banned under the auspices of "state interest" (as before Roe v. Wade)

 

[Agit8r]

Actually, child abuse has increased since the advent of legalized abortion

You mean reported child abuse?

 

[JustSomeGuy]

And don't tell me an embryo is a human being. If it was, the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

Children don't have the right to own a gun. Therefore, children aren't human beings.

Guess I learned something new today.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh are you going to pretend we have more child abuse now because people are so much more aware of it?

Really.

So cut to the chase and check incidence of child murder. Which has also increased.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

IOW you have no evidence of laws making early term abortion illegal throughout the colonies in the 18th century, and yet you claim it was illegal.

Why would I need to? You're trying to shift the burden of proof (unsurprisingly). You claimed abortion was legal in the 18th century and, thus far, you've utterly failed at substantiating your claim, aside from assuming that something must be legal if it's not illegal. That ain't gonna work.



Why would I do that? I'm not sure what you're reading, but it sure as hell isn't my posts. What I've said, and what you seemingly fail to grasp, is that just because something hasn't been deemed "illegal" doesn't mean it's "legal". One would think you would understand this point by me pointing out that gay marriage is illegal in Florida as of a few years ago but was never legal before then.



Wrong. The first gay marriage ban was passed in 1973, nearly 30 years before any state legalized SSM. Given the fact that you don't know the history of abortion laws in the U.S., it's unsurprising you wouldn't know the history of SSM laws in the U.S., either.



So when was gay marriage legal in Florida? This really isn't all that hard. If, as you assert, something is legal unless it's made illegal, then gay marriage in Florida must have been legal prior to 2008, when it was made illegal. Right?



That's nice to know. Now what does that have to do with anything?

3. Same sex marriage is illegal wherever the marriage laws do not recognize same sex marriage as legal marriage.

You're backtracking. According to your logic, unless the law says gay marriage is illegal, then it must be legal. Are you saying that's wrong?

Civil marriage is about legal recognition. The political issue of gay marriage is only about civil recognition. On the other early-term abortion is not about a specific legal recognition. The present attempts at banning them is based on people wanting to endow legal recognition that has never existed--not even when abortions were banned under the auspices of "state interest" (as before Roe v. Wade)

Wait. You mean that legal recognition for gay marriage existed in the past? When?

(You can't have it both ways. Legal recognition for something not recognized in the past is legal recognition for something not recognized in the past. Don't tell me gay marriage isn't about legal recognition. A simple five minute internet search will put that assertion to rest. If it weren't, then no one would argue about civil unions not garnering the same benefits and privileges as marriage.)

 

[Agit8r]

Why would I need to? You're trying to shift the burden of proof (unsurprisingly). You claimed abortion was legal in the 18th century and, thus far, you've utterly failed at substantiating your claim, aside from assuming that something must be legal if it's not illegal. That ain't gonna work.



Why would I do that? I'm not sure what you're reading, but it sure as hell isn't my posts. What I've said, and what you seemingly fail to grasp, is that just because something hasn't been deemed "illegal" doesn't mean it's "legal". One would think you would understand this point by me pointing out that gay marriage is illegal in Florida as of a few years ago but was never legal before then.



Wrong. The first gay marriage ban was passed in 1973, nearly 30 years before any state legalized SSM. Given the fact that you don't know the history of abortion laws in the U.S., it's unsurprising you wouldn't know the history of SSM laws in the U.S., either.



So when was gay marriage legal in Florida? This really isn't all that hard. If, as you assert, something is legal unless it's made illegal, then gay marriage in Florida must have been legal prior to 2008, when it was made illegal. Right?



That's nice to know. Now what does that have to do with anything?



You're backtracking. According to your logic, unless the law says gay marriage is illegal, then it must be legal. Are you saying that's wrong?

Civil marriage is about legal recognition. The political issue of gay marriage is only about civil recognition. On the other early-term abortion is not about a specific legal recognition. The present attempts at banning them is based on people wanting to endow legal recognition that has never existed--not even when abortions were banned under the auspices of "state interest" (as before Roe v. Wade)

Wait. You mean that legal recognition for gay marriage existed in the past? When?

(You can't have it both ways. Legal recognition for something not recognized in the past is legal recognition for something not recognized in the past. Don't tell me gay marriage isn't about legal recognition. A simple five minute internet search will put that assertion to rest. If it weren't, then no one would argue about civil unions not garnering the same benefits and privileges as marriage.)

It's very hard dumbing this stuff down sufficiently for y'all. The political issue of gay marriage is only about civil gay marriages. It is a matter of legal recognition only. Nobody is stopping them from having a non-legally-binding ceremony. Clear now?

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Civil marriage is about legal recognition. The political issue of gay marriage is only about civil recognition. On the other early-term abortion is not about a specific legal recognition. The present attempts at banning them is based on people wanting to endow legal recognition that has never existed--not even when abortions were banned under the auspices of "state interest" (as before Roe v. Wade)

Wait. You mean that legal recognition for gay marriage existed in the past? When?

(You can't have it both ways. Legal recognition for something not recognized in the past is legal recognition for something not recognized in the past. Don't tell me gay marriage isn't about legal recognition. A simple five minute internet search will put that assertion to rest. If it weren't, then no one would argue about civil unions not garnering the same benefits and privileges as marriage.)

It's very hard dumbing this stuff down sufficiently for y'all. The political issue of gay marriage is only about civil gay marriages. It is a matter of legal recognition only. Nobody is stopping them from having a non-legally-binding ceremony. Clear now?

Do you not remember what you typed out? Here are the two most pertinent sentences.

"The political issue of gay marriage is only about civil gay marriages."
"Civil marriage is about legal recognition."

And somehow you took issue when I said gay marriage was about legal recognition (which it is). Amazing, really.

 

[Agit8r]

Wait. You mean that legal recognition for gay marriage existed in the past? When?

(You can't have it both ways. Legal recognition for something not recognized in the past is legal recognition for something not recognized in the past. Don't tell me gay marriage isn't about legal recognition. A simple five minute internet search will put that assertion to rest. If it weren't, then no one would argue about civil unions not garnering the same benefits and privileges as marriage.)

It's very hard dumbing this stuff down sufficiently for y'all. The political issue of gay marriage is only about civil gay marriages. It is a matter of legal recognition only. Nobody is stopping them from having a non-legally-binding ceremony. Clear now?

Do you not remember what you typed out? Here are the two most pertinent sentences.

"The political issue of gay marriage is only about civil gay marriages."
"Civil marriage is about legal recognition."

And somehow you took issue when I said gay marriage was about legal recognition (which it is). Amazing, really.

Civil recognition of marriage and legal recognition of marriage is the SAME FUCKING THING. Civilization is about written laws. And civil means under a state of government. Why does the right have SUCH a problem understanding words?

Civilization - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Civil - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[JustSomeGuy]

First and foremost, civilization is not about written laws. Civilizations have existed prior to the advent of written laws, and some continue to exist absent written laws. But moving on.

I know what both words mean. You were the one who tried to argue that there's a difference between banning something on the basis that there was never "legal recognition in the past", to which I responded. Liberals love to argue that there's no precedent for granting the unborn equal status under the law because they never had it prior (which, itself, is incorrect), but they'll turn around and reject that same argument when applied to gay marriage. Ergo my comment of "you can't have it both ways". But it's nice to know you couldn't understand.

That's all off-topic though. Just thought I'd instill a little wisdom.

 

[Agit8r]

First and foremost, civilization is not about written laws. Civilizations have existed prior to the advent of written laws, and some continue to exist absent written laws. But moving on.

I know what both words mean. You were the one who tried to argue that there's a difference between banning something on the basis that there was never "legal recognition in the past", to which I responded. Liberals love to argue that there's no precedent for granting the unborn equal status under the law because they never had it prior (which, itself, is incorrect), but they'll turn around and reject that same argument when applied to gay marriage. Ergo my comment of "you can't have it both ways". But it's nice to know you couldn't understand.

That's all off-topic though. Just thought I'd instill a little wisdom.

You are missing the point that we are talking about two entirely different scenarios. The civil(government) recognition of marriage is a matter exclusively of legal recognition. On the other hand, early-term abortion, until the latter 19th century (when states began to argue that it was in the state's interest to regulate medical abortion) was merely a matter of biology.

It is true that in both instances one side of the argument want to endow a recognition that did not exist before, but this idea that either side "can't have it both ways" is idiotic. Of course either side could conceivably have it both ways, because the two matters are so far from being related in any substantive way