Roe v. Wade overturned?

[The_Foxer]

So why is an unfertilized egg not granted full legal rights and status?

Full rights and legal status of what?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Full rights and legal status of what?

Of a person.

Do try to keep up.

 

[The_Foxer]

Of a person.

And how are you defining person?

(LOL - maybe you should think ahead )

 

[Serryah]

I get what you're saying but you're coming at it from the wrong perspective. It has nothing to do with telling someone what to do. The people who believe in denying abortions believe the thing inside the woman is a child.

And because of what those people believe, they're telling a woman they can't get an abortion.

So... it has EVERYTHING to do with people telling others what to do.

IF that is TRUE - then it's got nothing to do with the woman's rights and everything to do with the child's human rights.

If you believe that from the instant sperm meets egg - as some do - that equals person who gets rights.

And we have long established as a socitety that we will step in if a child is having it's rights abused. If the thing ISN'T a child then nobody should care or at least nobody should have a say. But what we're really debating here when we're debating this stuff is 'when does a fetus become a human being with rights attached'.

We're debating when a certain part of the population BELIEVES a fetus becomes a human with rights attached.

And in the end, that still doesn't matter squat if a woman wants an abortion or not.

There is really no such thing as 'woman's reproductive rights'

Annddd.... well I'll just say I'm not surprised you say this.

It also makes any further discussion about this topic with you moot.

any more than there's "Mens colonoscopy rights'. You should have the right to your own body and medical treatments.

Unless you're a woman, according to you.

This is about human rights, specifically of the child, and whether or not they're applicable.

If you think it's a child the moment sperm meets egg, then don't get an abortion.

If a woman does not have that belief, then it's not your right to use that argument as a way to control HER body and medical choices.

But since you don't believe this is anything to do with reproductive or health rights of women - which it is - then, as stated, there's no discussion of the topic with you.

 

[The_Foxer]

And because of what those people believe, they're telling a woman they can't get an abortion.

So... it has EVERYTHING to do with people telling others what to do.

No, because of what people believe they're telling someone not to abuse children. Or kill them. So it has more to do with people telling others to respect other people's rights.

If you believe that from the instant sperm meets egg - as some do - that equals person who gets rights.

Yes. They will have to convince others of that argument and make their case though if it's going to be granted legal weight. Hence the debate.

We're debating when a certain part of the population BELIEVES a fetus becomes a human with rights attached.

No, it is accepted that at some point a fetus becomes a human. What we're debating is when that happens. Everyone agrees that it will sooner or later.

And in the end, that still doesn't matter squat if a woman wants an abortion or not.

It matters whether or not you're committing murder.

Annddd.... well I'll just say I'm not surprised you say this.

Nor should you be. It's logical and well thought out. I'm not entirely surprised you're resistant to these fairly straight forward facts based on 'Muh Feels" rather than reason.

It also makes any further discussion about this topic with you moot.

In other words if someone doesn't agree with you then discussion is 'moot'. Well - i suppose you could choose to live life like that.

Unless you're a woman, according to you.

Ahhh - you've taken to just making shit up rather than make rational statement Well there you go.

If you think it's a child the moment sperm meets egg, then don't get an abortion.

Well it was pretty unlikely that i personally was going to have to worry about that choice And if my female partner gets pregnant then i won't actually get a say legally. But - that's not really the issue we're discussing. What we're talking about is the law, which is based on when a fetus becomes a person.

If a woman does not have that belief, then it's not your right to use that argument as a way to control HER body and medical choices.

It's my right to decide that children shall not be abused. If a woman is beating her child to death, i absolutely have the right to step in. If a father is sexually abusing his baby daughter you bet i'm stepping in. Sorry - but we as individuals and as a society not only have a right but a duty to prevent child abuse or death. The real question is 'is it a child'

But since you don't believe this is anything to do with reproductive or health rights of women - which it is - then, as stated, there's no discussion of the topic with you.

Of course it isn't. Show me in the constitution of the US or the Charter of Canada where 'women's reproductive rights' are noted? For that matter, what would you consider mens' reproductive rights to be? Your position is laughable

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Nope. You misunderstand what rights are.

They are not dependent on what people think.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
--John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Rights are not subject to the democratic process.

A foetus is not a child. Just as a child is not an adult. That's why we use different words for them. This is clear from the fact that foeti have a separate legal status. From the trivial, like the fact that your life is dated from birth, not conception, on every legal document in Canada (or the U.S.), to the fact that you cannot sue your mother for, for example, drinking while she was pregnant with you.

Furthermore, if a foetus is a person, the Thirteenth Amendment forbids "involuntary servitude." The court have stated that this means nobody can be prevented by law from quitting (exceptions for soldiers and such). If a foetus is not a person, it has no status, and it's nobody's business what the woman does. If it is a person, then it cannot, by law, compel the woman to continue to carry it.

​

 

[The_Foxer]

Nope. You misunderstand what rights are.

They are not dependent on what people think.

ROFLMAO - i'm afraid it's not me who misunderstands

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
--John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Utterly irrelevant. This isn't a discussion about what rights are. We all agree that humans have the right not to get murdered. That's not in dispute. This is a discussion about what a human is, and when it starts Sorry but that was an epic fail.

Rights are not subject to the democratic process.

Rights are always subject to a democratic process. That's why the constitution or the charter can be amended. There are rules in place to limit that process to avoid the tyrrany of the majority. But our rights did not spring into existence absent the existance of people.

A foetus is not a child. Just as a child is not an adult. That's why we use different words for them. This is clear from the fact that foeti have a separate legal status.

Hardly. And that's a circular argument. "They're not legally a thing because they're not legally a thing". And many things can be described by more than one term. A person can be male. A person can also be an adult. The fact they're a male does not mean they are not an adult. A thing can be a fetus and still be a human being. I notice your little attempt to substitute 'human' for 'child'. Nice try

From the trivial, like the fact that your life is dated from birth, not conception, on every legal document in Canada (or the U.S.), to the fact that you cannot sue your mother for, for example, drinking while she was pregnant with you.

But you can make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy. Apperently. So no, it's not quite that cut and dry. And you're referring to laws. Laws change. Remember that at one time Negros were also not considered people. Or women for that matter. So the argument doesn't hold up in that regard.

Furthermore, if a foetus is a person, the Thirteenth Amendment forbids "involuntary servitude." The court have stated that this means nobody can be prevented by law from quitting (exceptions for soldiers and such). If a foetus is not a person, it has no status, and it's nobody's business what the woman does. If it is a person, then it cannot, by law, compel the woman to continue to carry it.

The law as you well know compels a parent to provide the 'necessaries of life" for their children. It is without a doubt a criminal act to allow a child to die by neglect or action. So that went out the water pretty quick A parent is always compelled to care for their children for which they are a guardian.

As usual your thoughts are sound and logical but they don't stand up to scrutiny in this case. A fetus can be a human, a mother can and is expected to provide care for her child under the law, and we are not talking about changing rights, the rights are recognized and not in dispute - the applicability of them is. So you'll need another argument than that.

And i notice you were unable to provide an answer to the question how are you defining a person. The reason for that is that is at the heart of this debate entirely, so if you can't say what one is, it's hard for you to claim something isn't.

 

[petros]

It all hinges on Person.

Persona, personality, character traits, thoughs and emotion.

They all exist long before birth.

Competitiveness is character trait. Twins triplets quads etc all compete from the instant they split as do fraternal from day one.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

ROFLMAO - i'm afraid it's not me who misunderstands

Utterly irrelevant. This isn't a discussion about what rights are. We all agree that humans have the right not to get murdered. That's not in dispute. This is a discussion about what a human is, and when it starts Sorry but that was an epic fail.

Rights are always subject to a democratic process. That's why the constitution or the charter can be amended. There are rules in place to limit that process to avoid the tyrrany of the majority. But our rights did not spring into existence absent the existance of people.

Hardly. And that's a circular argument. "They're not legally a thing because they're not legally a thing". And many things can be described by more than one term. A person can be male. A person can also be an adult. The fact they're a male does not mean they are not an adult. A thing can be a fetus and still be a human being. I notice your little attempt to substitute 'human' for 'child'. Nice try


But you can make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy. Apperently. So no, it's not quite that cut and dry. And you're referring to laws. Laws change. Remember that at one time Negros were also not considered people. Or women for that matter. So the argument doesn't hold up in that regard.

The law as you well know compels a parent to provide the 'necessaries of life" for their children. It is without a doubt a criminal act to allow a child to die by neglect or action. So that went out the water pretty quick A parent is always compelled to care for their children for which they are a guardian.

As usual your thoughts are sound and logical but they don't stand up to scrutiny in this case. A fetus can be a human, a mother can and is expected to provide care for her child under the law, and we are not talking about changing rights, the rights are recognized and not in dispute - the applicability of them is. So you'll need another argument than that.

And i notice you were unable to provide an answer to the question how are you defining a person. The reason for that is that is at the heart of this debate entirely, so if you can't say what one is, it's hard for you to claim something isn't.

A person is any entity granted that status by law. In the U.S., it includes corporations, partnerships, associations, and other collective legal fictions.

 

[The_Foxer]

A person is any entity granted that status by law. In the U.S., it includes corporations, partnerships, associations, and other collective legal fictions.

LOL - so women weren't people before the law recognized them? How very sexist of you! So - if the law was changed to say that an egg is a person that would be an accurate thing and you would support that 100 percent as being legitimate?

As we can see the law is mutable and therefore not an accurate measure of whether someone actually is a person or not, it only identifies what current laws apply to whom. And even then it's different - a corporation is a person under the law and yet human rights do not attach to it.

So your definition is not applicable to the discussion. It doesn't define what a person is at all and is very clearly not complete. Unless you think black people were not people before the law changed.

Would you like to try again?

 

[Serryah]

A person is any entity granted that status by law. In the U.S., it includes corporations, partnerships, associations, and other collective legal fictions.

Remember that at one time Negros were also not considered people.

I would point out that his use of the word bolded above would suggest that any logical or intellectual thought he might have is suspect to be rancid as meat on a hot day.

Clearly he loves ignorance.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

LOL - so women weren't people before the law recognized them? How very sexist of you! So - if the law was changed to say that an egg is a person that would be an accurate thing and you would support that 100 percent as being legitimate?

Yep. If a law was properly passed and survived legal challenge, it can make a leg of mutton a person.

By the way, women are not people. The Declaration of Independence states "all Men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . ."

Considering the hysterical insistence by "conservatives" that "men" means biological males, ALL (adult) biological males, and ONLY biological males, clearly women are not created equal and are not endowed with the famous "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." So I guess using them as cum-dumpsters and incubators is consistent with "the history and traditions of our nation." --Scalito

As we can see the law is mutable and therefore not an accurate measure of whether someone actually is a person or not, it only identifies what current laws apply to whom. And even then it's different - a corporation is a person under the law and yet human rights do not attach to it.

The law, for all its flaws, is a 772-year effort by a lot of very smart people (with a handful too dumb to pound sand) to try to figure out what the hell is right and impose it in whateverthehell fashion "fairly" is.

So your definition is not applicable to the discussion. It doesn't define what a person is at all and is very clearly not complete. Unless you think black people were not people before the law changed.

Would you like to try again?

Nope. You bore me. Seen all your tricks before.

Have a real fine day now, hear?

 

[Taxslave2]

A fetus is not a person until it is breathing on its own outside the host body. Due to modern medicine we will now accept assisted breathing, but outside the host body. Until that time, what ever happens to the fetus is solely at the discretion of the host. Until men start having babies, they have no say in the matter. End of discussion.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Remember that at one time Negros were also not considered people.

I would point out that his use of the word bolded above would suggest that any logical or intellectual thought he might have is suspect to be rancid as meat on a hot day.

Clearly he loves ignorance.

He's also a liar. Negroes were considered people. A certain category, slaves, which category was limited to Negroes (but not all Negroes), were considered chattel property.

Poor lad seems to think all Black people in the U.S. were slaves.

 

[The_Foxer]

Remember that at one time Negros were also not considered people.

I would point out that his use of the word bolded above would suggest that any logical or intellectual thought he might have is suspect to be rancid as meat on a hot day.

Clearly he loves ignorance.

That was the word used in the laws in question. As usual, you have no rational thoughts, just attacks. A fine example of left wing thinking today

 

[The_Foxer]

By the way, women are not people. The Declaration of Independence states "all Men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . ."

Wow. So women aren't recognized as people in any of the US laws? I think you'll have a tough time defending that, i'm pretty sure at least SOME women own property somewhere

Considering the hysterical insistence by "conservatives" that "men" means biological males, ALL (adult) biological males, and ONLY biological males, clearly women are not created equal and are not endowed with the famous "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

But you said that it was the LAW and only the LAW that determined who was a person

You must realize how pathetic THAT little side rant was

The law, for all its flaws, is a 772-year effort by a lot of very smart people (with a handful too dumb to pound sand) to try to figure out what the hell is right and impose it in whateverthehell fashion "fairly" is.

So it's not an effort to accurately define things, it's an effort to provide a consistant framework. Well - i appreciate you admitting it's not useful as a definition of anything outside that framework

Nope. You bore me. Seen all your tricks before.

ROFLMAO!!!! Awwww muffin - did you need cookie and a nap?

You realize everytime you talk like that everyone knows you're admitting defeat. Which is no surprise here. But seriously, where's your dignity? You seem to throw a hissy fit every time you can't defend your position.

You might want to consider conceding with a little more dignity in the future but sure, if you want to take your ball and run home instead that's fine.

But it changes nothing. As we've seen this is an issue of human rights and at the core of that is when is someone a human being. And all your attempts to try to change the topic don't change that.

 

[The_Foxer]

A fetus is not a person until it is breathing on its own outside the host body.

Ok - so why? If that's your position you need to make an argument. You can't expect people to just accept that any more than others could expect you to just accept "a fetus is a human from the moment of fertilization! End of story".

You seem to be suggesting that it's the "breathing" part that makes someone a human being with rights attached. So if someone stops breathing they cease to be a human? What is it about breathing that confers humanity on a human?

You'll have to defend that position a little better than that.

 

[The_Foxer]

He's also a liar. Negroes were considered people. A certain category, slaves, which category was limited to Negroes (but not all Negroes), were considered chattel property.

Poor lad seems to think all Black people in the U.S. were slaves.

So a slave was considered to be a person based on your definition?

BTW - your use of the word liar pretty much proves you know you're wrong. You can't discredit the argument so you resort to dishonesty about my intentions. Ahh well, nobody expects better from those who form their opinon on 'muh feels' rather than fact.

Nor did i use the word "all". Are you trying to claim that black people were never slaves? If black people were slaves, then slavery happened to black people. That's not a claim that it happened to ALL black people.

And according to your own definition they were not considered people. They were considered chattel. So... that would kind of make YOU the 'liar' wouldn't it

 

[petros]

A fetus is not a person until it is breathing on its own outside the host body. Due to modern medicine we will now accept assisted breathing, but outside the host body. Until that time, what ever happens to the fetus is solely at the discretion of the host. Until men start having babies, they have no say in the matter. End of discussion.

That's a fail.

 

[petros]

If women aren't persons as he says they don't have a chance on legal abortions.