Ohio passes Issue 1 ballot measure enshrining abortion protections

My post wouldn't make your English sloppy, your use of 'always' when you didn't mean 'always' IS sloppy.

Either that and you meant it and you are an anarchist.

No, your lack of a sense of humor is the problem.

I should think 'are you an anarchist' would have been amusing, since I've ragged on your sloppy use of English in the past.

Or maybe I'm confusing you with someone else. You do have company when it comes to sloppy articulation, on this forum.

But, from now on, any attempt at being amusing will come with a telegram warning you in advance. I wouldn't want you to experience another conniption.

 

What act does the baby in the womb have to engage in to be innocent instead of guilty and of what? As far as I know I am innocent of robbery until I rob someone, we start out innocent. We know the baby in the womb is innocent of any egregious act that would warrant the taking of it's life so what guilt are you assigning to it to justify the mother being able to kill it because she doesn't want it to continue it's life?

 

Because arms = guns and the ammunition

arms
/ärmz/
noun

1. 1.
   weapons and ammunition; armaments.

I don't find where liberty = this baseless "body autonomy" the pro-abortion side has made up.

 

What do you think happens in an abortion, the baby is allowed to continue it's life and be born..............

Try again and stop the dodging.

What does it say about a country that the most important issue seems to be mothers being able to kill their unborn babies simply because they do not want them to live?

 

It's her choice to kill her unborn baby and as I have repeatedly shown the vast majority for purely discretionary reasons not rape, not the life of the mother, not the child is suffer health wise.

We as a civil society have always had a voice in the taking of innocent human life which is embodied and guarantied under our founding documents as a country.

 

No I don't note that fallacious statement. Limiting abortion to the "heartbeat" is a strategy to reduce abortions, requiring more than the mother simply does not want it to live is a strategy to reduce abortion. And I believe LARC is mostly paid for. Why is it you on the left demand government pay for EVERYTHING whatever happened to personal responsibilty. Hey I have a right to a gun when is government going to give me the money to buy one else I don't have that right?

 

And they aren't here debating it your are I am am addressing your statements and YOUR POSITION that the law should be based on the moment of viability why the dodging now?

Try again

Hardly it is YOUR measure as to this CRITICAL moment in life which you say is the line in the sand as to when the mother can kill her unborn baby at her whim, simply because she does not want it to continue living. Don't you think we should know EXACTLY when that moment occurs. It is that self evident truth that we are CREATED with the right to our life and you are claiming some future arbitrary date beyond your creation that someone else has the unabridged right to kill you.

You are claiming this moment of viability yet you cannot point to the science to define when that is so upon what are you basing it? Don't you think it should be a very measurable and observable physiological change?

 

Aside from the fact the definition doesn't contain the word gun,
Go ahead and quote for the class the definition of liberty, and how body autonomy is different.
Body autonomy is the right for a person to govern what happens to their body without external influence or coercion.

Ill wait.

 

So how do you know they were being dishonest and you can't say because they said one thing before and did something else after hearing a case.

 

Dude, I’ve never said that is my position. Never.

You just made up some position you think I must hold and ascribed it to me.

So go and argue with yourself. Or do anything else with yourself. Whatever pleases you. I won’t judge.

But don’t make up stuff about me.

 

It’s not a baby and it’s not entitled to a “choice”…

 

Then please explain why that, after some 233 years of this nation being formally in existence, abortion has never been classified as murder.

Until that day comes, your point is emotion, not fact.

Well, try and dodge this:

What it does say is that you are not a fan of history.

 

I can say it, and I can say that is an easy one.

During the Senate hearings they (including Alito) declared their respect for stare decisis, and it wasn't a general principle response, it was in response to a question about abortion, giving us the distinct impression the wouldn't shoot down Roe. But, when the first opportunity arose, they did.

 

Hardly worth becoming unfriendly over.

 

So the impression you got was their fault because you assumed?

I think the question is stupid to ask will you not overrule a court decision well they don't know because I haven't heard the arguments. If they go into it like in your arguments don't matter then they're not fit for the job.

You weren't misled you just didn't understand. That's not their dish on a distinct that's your incompetence.

 

Not until I get an answer to....What do you think happens in an abortion, the baby is allowed to continue it's life and be born..............

My position is based on the scientific facts and our historical documents which you dodge and ignore.

What does it say that is you beat attempt at some rebuttal.

 

You had me fooled.

 

Dude you jumped into it counter to me and I asked can you define when that occurs. Can you? It it can't be do you agree it cannot hold up as a legal standard

 

My thoughts have no bearing on rulings or legislation. Ask 233 years of courts and legislatures who did not rule it as murder.

I'm sorry, but the issue is 'personhood' not biology. That philosophical determination can only be determined by legislative and/or judicial decree. both of which have not ruled or legislated that a termination of a fetus is murder, and by that fact, cannot be a 'baby'.

Science's domain is limited to biology.

What does it say about your ignorance of the relevant issue, stated above?

 

I said in my first post it isn’t black and white. You are framing a question in such a way that it is impossible to give an answer. But you are the only one using that test.

 

I don't know. It's a fetus living on the woman.
There's no innocence or guilt involved. Your the one bring up innocence.

 

But you don't get to dictate a woman's right. Nor does society.

 

So you now claim a gun is not a weapon.
Cite the part of the Constitution that says you have 100% body autonomy and how that trumps the self evident right to your life. Then explain why prostitution is illegal in most places as is ingesting certain substances.

 

Innocent until you do something purposely harm someone.

 

Nope didnt claim that, just that your definition doesn't contain the word gun. Arms translates to gun, just as liberty is body autonomy.