Is Roe v. Wade at Risk???

So you're actually saying that there is no further physical development for a baby!

Okay, so given your deflection, you obviously do NOT think that it's "just a lump of protoplasm" for the entire pregnancy, and that it evolves to something else at a certain point. That's good!

Do you accept the principle of 'evictionism?'

You quite OBVIOUSLY don't think that it remains a "clump of cells" all the way through pregnancy! You just don't want to say it!

'Potency of being born.' Yeah sorry, that makes ZERO sense!

Someone starving their children so that they can save money, fits EVERY SINGLE definition of 'selfish' that can be found. And yes, it is also irrational and evil.

I am "in favour" of it in the sense that if parents do not want their kids, they can given them to the government. YOU are ALSO in favour of it in this sense!

Your deflection is all in attempt to get out of the truly ridiculous suggestion that you made which is that a ban on elective abortion would be the State imposing parenthood. Again, people can give their kids to the State, which means that parenthood would not be imposed.

What's funny is that you believe that the STATE is responsible for a woman having consensual sex and getting pregnant!

Oh dear, you have TRULY lost the debate! You know EXACTLY what I mean by "natural rights" but you are not able to answer this:

"Do you mean the LEGAL right to live, or the NATURAL right to live?"

 

I don't think that I can make it any easier for you to understand, but I will try. 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?

Given you have cannot understand what I'm asking about the comatose patient, I could ask you the same thing!

No, but that's totally irrelevant. A 5 year old is not 18.

Then a born baby also has no rights, given that they haven't reached their potential in life.

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!

Her body parts have her DNA!

You said that what defines physical individuation is whether or not someone is attached to another human being and living of it like a parasite. Now you seem to be saying that it has a much broader definition than that, but because we are "discussing pregnant women" we should not consider physical individuation in it's broader definition. How convenient!

All in attempt to deflect away from this inconvenient question:

"Are you saying that a comatose patient is physically individuated, even though they are physically attached to the machines?"

Once born, a fetus has fulfilled their potential. Yes or no?

 

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

 

Life as in, no different to a plant?

 

I'm not. If elective abortion was banned, it would have nothing to do with me!

 

I understand that you would have felt pretty much the same way even though you didn't consider it a person.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
WHY?
All Americans in the UNITED States should have the same basic human rights....

I NEVER said abortion was a human right.....here ya go, having to make things up just to flounder around pretending you have an argument...hilarious to watch





and YOUR opinion hasn't changed RvW has it ?

 

Legal abortion has nothing to do with you .....so why are you against it???

 

Here's another post from an Anti-Choicers.....and RvW is at risk ??? No, if that's all they have is pathetic crap like this...

 

Then why did you mention human rights?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
WHY?
All Americans in the UNITED States should have the same basic human rights....
I NEVER said abortion was a human right.....

Uggaduhhhh, I was responding to another poster who thought individual states should determine basic human rights....

Instead of constantly asking inane questions why not just try reading and keeping up?

 

And if I name one will it make any difference to you?

 

Don't be absurd.

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/18

 

What's your point?

 

The final stage of "zefdom" is birth.

It is not quite as an imdefensible and reprehemsible as advocating bans on pre-viability abortion. But, I am not entirely on board with that theory because hu,an beings only grant the faculities and characteristics that grant rights once they are born. The woman's life is thus always to be the standard of value.

No rights until birth.

It makes perfect sense. You are just lost.

How is it not? Do you ever elaborate on any of your "poimts" or do you just fart your one-sentence replies with laughing emojis?

Not to be rude, but you are not being a very good debater.

I agree, they can and should be able to. However, your position implies that they have to -- If abortion is banned, women who do not wsnt to be pregnant have to go tjrough tje inctedibly risky and incredibly stressful process of 9 months pregnancy only to then hand the baby to the State as if they were cattle.

You are basically adbocating population control

No, what is funny is that you seriously and umironically believe that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy and therefore a woman has to carry it to terms. Do you think dental cleanings, fillings and root canals should be banned too? I mean, "you ate the candy, so you consented to tooth ache!"

I don't. Explain it, please.

... Let me guess -- You do not even know what you are talking about yourself, do you?

Roflolmao-emoji. Cute. Are you 14?

 

Here we go...

And that is exactly my poimt! Don't you understand it already?

[QUOTR]Then a born baby also has no rights, given that they haven't reached their potential in life.[/QUOTE]
You are remarkably stupid. Sorry, but... Wow.

Yes, bravo. This is exactly why the anti-abortionist argument of "fEtUs hAs DnA!" is so stupid. Body parts have DNA too, yet they do not have rights. If DNA is where rights come from, your argument is that it is murder to have an organ transplant.

Yes, it is now an actualised newborn and gone are its days as a fetus. It is now a potential toddler, a potential teenager, a potential adult and a potential elderly... Among tons of other things.

Aren't you a Catholic? I really would not expect a Catholic to not get potency/actualisation since Aquinas used it in his "proof of God". Clearly I was wrong.

 

It would develop into a physocarpus, if that's what you mean.

 

You didn't respond to "another poster", you responded to ME! And I didn't say that "individual states should determine basic human rights", I said that they should determine the legality of abortion.

 

It will simply mean that you are not making crap up.

 

Okay, I thought that you were talking about federal legislation to restrict when abortion can be provided.

 

So, I did give you an example. You don't care, of course, and weren't interested in the truth.

 

There is no valid medical reason.

 

Every health authority in the world disagrees with you.

 

Yeah, I saw it after I posted. Post here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-roe-v-wade-at-risk.588151/page-78#post-1072726087

 

DUHHHHH, I was explaining why I wrote what I wrote....confused much ?

That DOES involve basic human rights....GOODGAWD!

Why do you continue to flounder around in this thread when you have no point, no argument worth a lick of spit and NO way to put RvW at risk ?