Is Roe v. Wade at Risk???

I was. They're trying to deny abortion to poor women.

 

The States can cover it.

 

I don't think you appreciate how poor people get healthcare in the U.S.

 

For what? Abortion?

 

And STILL not capable of a response to these inconvenient questions! How telling!

 

So you're actually saying that there IS further physical development for a baby, so therefore they have not reached their potential! The fact that final stage of "zefdom" is birth, is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!

You should be TOTALLY OPPOSED to evictionism given that it argues that life begins at conception!

Alright, that's your position, but you quite OBVIOUSLY don't think that it remains a "clump of cells"/"lump of protoplasm" all the way through pregnancy! You just don't want to say it!

I'm sure that nobody before you has ever come up with "potency of being born!"

No, the woman has the CHOICE to NOT then hand the baby to the State as if they were cattle. There's ALWAYS a choice, and in that sense I am VEHEMENTLY 'pro-choice.' So what are the choices in your scenario other than handing the kid over to the State? Well, women can do the right, moral thing and keep the kid. They also have the choice to do the WRONG, IMMORAL thing and seek for an illegal abortion in their state, or a legal or illegal abortion in another state or country.

By NOT killing the unborn? Abortion does NOT claim hundreds of millions of lives every year around the world?
I'm pretty sure that abortion has more to do with population control than banning elective abortion! Perhaps you can explain.

She consented to an act which very often RESULTS in pregnancy. She took the risk!

Does eating the candy not RISK to tooth ache? IF dental cleanings, fillings and root canals were banned, and someone ate the candy and got a tooth ache, who is responsible?

Stop playing games. I said:

You replied:

So why did you reply "yes" if you don't know what I'm talking about? Answer = you're playing games.

 

Nope, if this is the Anti-Choicers voice RvW wiil never be at risk...

 

Why the HELL would I be the Supreme Court's voice?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Nope, if this is the Anti-Choicers voice RvW wiil never be at risk...

Thank you for making my point.....don't you wish YOU had a point?

 

Thankfully, MUCH superior minds than ME will be working in it!

 

Gee, ya think !!!

Will they invent some new reason for destroying women's rights? They haven't so far

 

Duuuh. This is the reason why children do not have all the rights adults have. Again, potentials do not have rights.

It is actually COMPLETELY RELEVANT since ZEFs are what we are discus
sing.

I am.

No rights until birth.

I have no idea why you are laughing at a fully valid concept.

So either they carry an unwantef pregnancy to term or they carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

What makes the previous moral and the latter immoral?

yet another cringeworthy plead to emotion.

Free people freely choosing abortion is not population control. Population control is whena the State controls people's breeding process. But, a Conservative being for big government and mucro-planning is hardly shocking.

Which means she has to carry to terms? Dafffffuuuu....

The people banning it.

 

So now you're saying that a born baby is NOT a "potential?" Or they ARE a potential but not to the same extent of
adults who have more rights? Does being a "potential" mean that someone has reached their potential?

At no point have we specifically limited our discussion to ZEF's. We're really talking about personhood.

Well, you said that you're "not entirely on board with that theory." That doesn't sound to me like you're totally opposed!

I'm glad that you acknowledge that you were generalising about the unborn being a "clump of cells"/"lump of protoplasm!"

You said that if elective abortion was banned, it would mean that the government is imposing PARENTHOOD. You did NOT say that it would mean that the government is imposing carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Now, true, someone who carries an unwanted pregnancy to term WOULD become a parent, but I assumed that by parentHOOD you were referring to actively being a parent and taking care of the kid, which of course is NOT imposed given that they have the option of handing the kid over to the state. Personally, I wouldn't consider someone to be a parent if they hand their kid over to the state. I think that they relinquish that title once they do so, and are now merely the biological mother/father.

Well, I think that elective abortion is immoral.

It seems that you don't know the meaning of population control. "Population control is the practice of artificially maintaining the size of any population." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_control

For conservatives, thinking that the government should ban elective abortion is no more being "for big government" than thinking that the government should ban the killing of BORN people. Conservatives are NOT anti-government lunatics. We want to wield power in the RIGHT way, but that doesn't go to the extend of, for example, forcing businesses to give their services to people they don't want to give their services to.

Perhaps you can explain what ways you think that conservatives are in favour of 'big government', other than their ideas on abortion.

No, she doesn't have to. She also has the choice to seek for an illegal abortion in her state, or a legal or illegal abortion in another state or country.

So the person who ate the candy and got the tooth ache had no control over their situation? It's clear that you just don't believe in personal responsibility.

Do you know what 'natural rights' are?

 

Rights? If Roe v Wade is overturned, there will be no legal right to abortion.

 

Is it the federal government?

 

I thought that you were talking about federal legislation to restrict at which point in the term abortion can be provided.

 

YOU'RE the one who is confused. You said that you were "responding to another poster."

Either you think that abortion is a human right, or you don't.

 

Every health authority in the world disagrees with you.

 

What would?

 

Oh DEAR! How telling that you skipped this:

"You believe that it should be legal to intervene in the natural process and kill a fetus. You also believe that it should NOT be legal to intervene in the natural process and kill a comatose patient by shooting them. Why is one legal but not the other?"

You made the point that her body parts are "distinguishable" in the same way that a fetus in her is distinguishable. Do you stand by that? If so, then you need to think about what the difference is between her body parts and the fetus. Here is a hint: it has to do with DNA.

So a fetus is NOT a potential toddler, a potential teenager, a potential adult and a potential elderly? Surely you can't be serious!

No I am not a Catholic. So you disagree with Aquinas, right?

Then why did you say that you "DOUBT a ZEF has any form of consciousness at all?" Aren't you CONVINCED that a ZEF has no form of consciousness at all? You don't seem so certain. How telling!

 

Government regulation of a private hospital cannot be equated to government regulation of a bakery.

 

So do you believe that they become a physically individuated and actualised human being the very instant they exit the birth canal?

 

You don't support abortion as practiced in this country?

 

"As practiced" as in?

 

Medicaid. Free clinics. Emergency at a private hospital. Lots of ways, or not al all.