That is just plain stupid. It does not. Nobody has. No, very ignorant. THERE ARE NO BABIES aborted. Iti s a ****ing fetus.
What TF do you mean by "natural"?? Murder is illegal because if it wasn't it would cause chaos in society...NOT because we have a right to life. If everyone has the right to life why are there wars?
chris155au, What TF do you mean by "natural"?? Murder is illegal because if it wasn't it would cause chaos in society...NOT because we have a right to life. If everyone has the right to life why are there wars?
Natural right, or it can be called an inalienable right. They are rights which humans are naturally born with and which no government can morally take away. They are rights which pre-exist government, which are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Do you see yourself as having any rights which the government cannot take away from you? No government document backs this up. Whereas the Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." And it's your assumption that murder being illegal is the only thing that stops people from murdering. If murder was legal, I would murder nobody. I assume that you wouldn't either. Because we're good, moral people. Depends which wars. Not every country cares about human life.
How telling that you haven't even ATTEMPTED to explain HOW it is stupid! Maybe you can try doing so in your next reply, but I won't hold my breath! Okay. Define "baby."
What gives the members of society the right to safety? Well, if abortion was banned, I suppose that you could say that she is being forced by NATURE to remain pregnant. If a woman has a way of independently stopping her pregnancy, she should be able to do so. But she does not have the right to someone's labor to do her dirty work for her. Because it was part of my argument, but nowhere did I talk about someone providing "free abortion" which is how you somehow interpreted what I was saying. Maybe you could have read properly what I said. These "morons" -- whoever they are -- are to blame for a woman getting pregnant?
You can call it anything you want, it does not exist. Nobody is born with anything. Tell that to soldiers, to people who dies as collateral damage, who die due to lack of medical care. Do they NOT have the right to life? No right pre-exists government, as it is government that safeguards right, if it does, and it only does so to the rights that are defined by the social contract that established that government. Without laws we are worse than animals. Whoever hold the power makes the laws. In our nation, we the people hold the power, so we make our laws, including our supreme law, the Constitution, that guarantees our rights and it does not include a right to life. Yes. Governments all over the world take people's rights away. Where people hold the power not so much. And it is not law. Why do you think that those self evident truths did not apply to everyone? Well it certainly isn't your imagined right to life. And that has nothing to do with rights. You mean we never went to war? How about drone strikes? How about the people of Dresden or Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
Who said that such a right exists? If it did, the children in the Uvalde school did not have it? No, by the people who banned it. Again with the same stupid reasoning. Nobody is forcing anyone to perform abortions. The how else is the woman getting the abortion?
But they do and have ... Yup, governments do and have taken away rights....the Anti-Choicers want to take away the right to bodily autonomy with the governments help. I NEVER said that...that is just another of your many "misinterpretations" to suit your "argument. Here's a shocker for ya...YOU are NOT everyone. YOU are NOT the world. What TF does that have to do with anyting? DUH, ALL wars KILL people and ALLL countries have had wars.
I think she's referring to Anti-Choicers when she posts " morons who can not stay the **** out of other people's lives."" Seems apt.
Correct. This means that they are not independently getting surgery. They are not in control. I don't see abortion as any different to surgery in terms of 'bodily autonomy.' I don't. What makes you think that I do? I agree. I just don't see what it has to do with abortion. A newborn baby can bite on his mother's breasts during breastfeeding, but this does not give the mother the right to kill her baby. BREASTfeeding? Or is it CHESTfeeding? Well I guess you could say that nature is forcing women to gestate if abortion was banned, but it certainly would not be the government, as the government did not get the woman pregnant. If you want to talk about people forcing women to gestate, I guess the dark, evil plot of the Handmaid's Tale is a pretty good description: "These women, called Handmaids, are assigned to the homes of the ruling elite, where they must submit to ritualized rape (referred to as "the ceremony") by their male masters ("Commanders") in the presence of their wives, to be impregnated and bear children for them." The Handmaid's Tale (TV series) - Wikipedia But outside of this type of evil thing happening in the real world, this notion of 'forcing a woman to gestate' is just total nonsense. You actually have an interesting position on this, and it's one which differs from most on your side, who definitely DO talk about it in terms of a 'RIGHT to abortion.' There is no formalised definition for 'bodily autonomy.' That would be the pro-life community. Yes, that is what I said and you somehow, inexplicably interpreted that as me saying that we should "live by the 'rule' that people have to obey nature." Crazy interpretation. Anyway, you obviously believe that gestation is a natural consequence of getting pregnant, you just believe that the natural process should be able to be prevented by the human intervention of an abortion being performed. If women have a way to independently prevent this natural consequence, then they should have that freedom. And there we have it! STILL no definition/understanding of "baby!" Maybe the next reply? Again, I won't hold my breath! You continue to pretend that I am asking you for this because I do not know what a baby is! All you are doing is deflecting!
If that's the case, then it means that he was saying that anti-choicers are to blame for a woman getting pregnant. By the way, you said "SHE", but @gamma875 is not a SHE.
So where does the right to bodily autonomy come from then? No government document backs this up. Whereas the Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Yes, but if a power poses a threat to your people, how is going to war a violation of the right to life?
Why should safety be given to the members of society? No, they did not get the woman pregnant. Maybe you don't believe in personal responsibility, but the woman is responsible for getting pregnant unless she was raped. Therefore, if elective abortion was banned, she is responsible for that unwanted pregnancy continuing. She STARTED this process in the first place. Therefore it's HER responsibility. It's THAT simple! By the way, a pro-choice person could easily hold this 'personal responsibility' position, while at the same time arguing that abortion should be granted to fix her mistake. I did not say anything about forcing anyone to perform abortions. She does not have the right to someone's labor to do her dirty work for her, even if that person is willing to perform it! An action doesn't need to be FORCED in order for it to be illegal! Robbery is illegal whether or not someone does it willingly, or because they are compelled. Are you asking if elective abortion was banned, how is the woman getting an abortion within the health system? She isn't.
I believe they do. I disagree. Do people not have value? Soldiers who voluntarily joined? What does this have to do with government? I do think that the health system in the US is at odds with the right to life. We in Australia have universal healthcare. So what is the "social contract" in your country? Does the Constitution guarantee rights, or give them? What, as in rights that the government gave the people in the first place? If the government gave the rights, why can't they take them away? I did not say that it was law. Wrong. I was speaking personally. And I would not murder because I believe that my fellow man has the right to life, at least by default. But I believe that certain criminals have lost the right to life and can therefore be executed by the State. We went to war, but why shouldn't we have gone to war if we were faced with a foreign threat?
So it can function. Nobody said they did. Who the **** are to determine what is personal responsibility for anyone but yourself? It is not ****ing dirty work, it is a medical procedure and there are plenty of people willing to do the work.
Yea, people believe all kinds of stupid crap. It does not make reality. That is just plain stupid. Do soldiers renounce their "right to life" ? Is it not inalienable? Who orders war? It is at odds with humanity. It is a good thing. The Constitution. BY recognizing them it protects them. The people by adopting the Constitution agreed / determined what the right are. If it is not law it can not be enforced. Or are afraid that that someone will avenge that killing. How do you lose a right that is inherent as you said? So the civilians in those places had no right to life?
You and I have differing views on what 'reality' is. No, soldiers do not renounce their right to life. But the fact that we have soldiers, is not in conflict with the idea of the 'right to life.' It seems that you were trying your best to argue that it is in conflict. WHAT rights are the Constitution "recognizing?" I don't believe that a right being inherent, means that it cannot be taken away. Unfortunately, war has innocent casualties.
Well, what if only certain murder was legal? If the law permitted parents to kill their own children, society would still be able to function perfectly fine. But obviously you believe that it would be wrong for parents to kill their kids. WTF? If someone commits murder, and goes to prison, are they not responsible for their situation? Perhaps you can explain where elective abortion fits in the below definition of medical procedure: Medical procedure - Wikipedia "A medical procedure is a course of action intended to achieve a result in the delivery of healthcare. A medical procedure with the intention of determining, measuring, or diagnosing a patient condition or parameter is also called a medical test. Other common kinds of procedures are therapeutic (i.e., intended to treat, cure, or restore function or structure), such as surgical and physical rehabilitation procedures. "An activity directed at or performed on an individual with the object of improving health, treating disease or injury, or making a diagnosis."[1] - International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology "The act or conduct of diagnosis, treatment, or operation."[2] - Stedman's Medical Dictionary by Thomas Lathrop Stedman "A series of steps by which a desired result is accomplished."[3] - Dorland's Medical Dictionary by William Alexander Newman Dorland "The sequence of steps to be followed in establishing some course of action."[4] - Mosby's Medical, Nursing, & Allied Health Dictionary It's irrelevant that there are plenty of people willing to do the work. It does not change the fact that she does not have the right to someone's labor to end her unwanted pregnancy which is her fault. And again, getting an abortion is NOT an act of exercising bodily autonomy.
Reality does not depend on views. It just is. Yet they are sent to dies or kill. Yea, keep telling yourself that while denying reality. Of course it is in conflict. The ones we as a society decide when we adopt the constitution. So who decides when and why it can be taken away? So much for the rights of those people.
WTF? If someone commits murder, and goes to prison, are they not responsible for their situation? Perhaps you can explain where elective abortion fits in the below definition of medical procedure: Medical procedure - Wikipedia "A medical procedure is a course of action intended to achieve a result in the delivery of healthcare. A medical procedure with the intention of determining, measuring, or diagnosing a patient condition or parameter is also called a medical test. Other common kinds of procedures are therapeutic (i.e., intended to treat, cure, or restore function or structure), such as surgical and physical rehabilitation procedures. "An activity directed at or performed on an individual with the object of improving health, treating disease or injury, or making a diagnosis."[1] - International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology "The act or conduct of diagnosis, treatment, or operation."[2] - Stedman's Medical Dictionary by Thomas Lathrop Stedman "A series of steps by which a desired result is accomplished."[3] - Dorland's Medical Dictionary by William Alexander Newman Dorland "The sequence of steps to be followed in establishing some course of action."[4] - Mosby's Medical, Nursing, & Allied Health Dictionary It's irrelevant that there are plenty of people willing to do the work. It does not change the fact that she does not have the right to someone's labor to end her unwanted pregnancy which is her fault. And again, getting an abortion is NOT an act of exercising bodily autonomy.
