Texas bans abortion.

[thaiboxerken]

if it only affected her, I would agree, but it also affects the fetus.

The fetus is her, it is part of her, it is an extension of her. It is not an independent being, it is not a person, it has no rights.

 

[Warbler]

All well and good, but what YOU personally do is irrelevant.

Rights only exist as a result of the legal framework that grants them. No legal framework, no rights.

No, as an American, I believe rights come from nature.

There is no legal framework that grants a fetus rights, therefore they have no rights. This is not just an opinion, it is a fact!

agree the laws as they stand now do not give the fetus rights.

The Declaration of Independence is a declaration of war, not a law.

It is a declaration of the ideas of what America is all about. It is a declaration that rights do not come from a king or government, but from nature.

 

[Warbler]

Carrying a pregnancy to term involves significant health risks.

A simple question: to what degree do you consider it acceptable to risk the life of the pregnant woman, over and beyond the normal risks of death?
A 25% increase?
50%?
100%?
200%?
400%?
800%?

I will allow a legit MD Doctor whom is the Pregnant woman's doctor to determine when it is to risky for the baby to be carried to term.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I was talking about situations where the life of the mother was in danger (more in danger than the normal pregnancy).

Some women may choose to proceed in the face of such odds. And many may not. As above it is HER INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. Legislating to remove that choice is what amplifies the danger.

 

[Warbler]

That would be its mother. It would not be where it is but for its mother. It's a highly responsible position. So she gets to make the tough decisions about it, not some lawyer or doctor or politician. And she needs to be supported when she makes those decisions, not condemned.

One person alone, even the mother does not get to decide whether or not the fetus has rights.

 

[Warbler]

No, it's not. People who "die all the time" are given rights as human beings under the law because they were BORN. The unborn do not have rights given by nature or the law. You keep personifying nature. It cannot "give" anything.

Tell that to founding fathers whom wrote that rights come from nature.

 

[Warbler]

At last.

Now take the next logical step. To eliminate the problem of illegal and unsafe abortions... What do you think needs to happen, hmmm?

I don't know. It is a very complicated situation.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, as an American, I believe rights come from nature.

In reality, rights come from society. Your beliefs don't matter.

 

[Warbler]

A . fetus . does . not . have . rights!

in . your . opinion!

 

[Warbler]

So take the rights away from a woman and give it to her doctor?

I would say that a doctor is more qualified to assess how high the risk is to the mother of carrying the baby to term.

 

[Warbler]

But who says a fetus has rights? Why should a fetus have rights?

Who says it doesn't have rights?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I would say that a doctor is more qualified to assess how high the risk is to the mother of carrying the baby to term.

I would say a person (of sound mind) is more qualified to make their own medical decisions than anyone else. A doctor should be there to help them make informed decisions, not make the decisions for them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Who says it doesn't have rights?

Who says it does? By default, it has no rights. Prove that it should have rights. And then, convince society that it should.

 

[smartcooky]

in . your . opinion!

No, not my opinion... fact. This has already been explained you multiple times. Rights can only be granted by laws.

 

[Norman Alexander]

It is a declaration of the ideas of what America is all about. It is a declaration that rights do not come from a king or government, but from nature.

Abortion is natural. Miscarriage is natural. Stillbirth is natural. Abandoning your own offspring to ensure personal survival is natural. Nature is cruel and uncompromising, it is not compassionate, there are no "natural rights". Only humans have lawyers arguing for compassion and rights. These are human constructs, the product of human imaginations, and are not agreed or shared equally by all humans. So any notion that the US Bill of Rights somehow confers natural separate agency on a clump of cells in a woman's body is laughable.

 

[Warbler]

You keep talking about the "rights" of the fetus. It keeps being pointed out to you that, under the law, the fetus has no rights as it is not a person.

and I keep pointing out that I agree that under the law as it now stands, technically fetuses have no rights. But whether or not one has certain rights, is more complicated than whether or not the law recognizes said rights. History is replete with situations where people obviously had rights that governments didn't recognize and violated.

And no one speaks "for the fetus"; anyone who claims to be doing so is speaking for the benefit of their own agenda.

if you say so.

This is based on a religious belief. If the 'Creator' actually endowed us with these then everyone all over the world would be enjoying them and there'd be no reason to then legislate them into law.

Yes, the declaration says "creator", but the word "nature" has be substituted for those that do not believe in God.

Which is exactly what they did in the Bill of Rights. MAN granted them, not some "Creator"

actually the concern that the Bill of Rights would make it look like man, and not nature, granted the rights caused some to be opposed to the bill of rights. It is why they were put in amendments are weren't put in the Constitution when it was originally drafted.

 

[sackett]

If somebody must speak for the fetus, why not the woman carrying it?

 

[Norman Alexander]

One person alone, even the mother does not get to decide whether or not the fetus has rights.

What rubbish. Yes, she does have that choice. She has the SOLE right and responsibility to do so. Nobody else, no laws, no doctor, no god.

 

[Warbler]

So then "being cruel to the woman" becomes superior to the fetus' "right to life"? How is it not cruel to deny a woman an abortion when she does not want to carry and give birth to a child she either then has to raise or give up for adoption?

Do you see how arbitrary you are being?

maybe I am being arbitrary. I don't know. But I believe the fetus has rights and yet I still believe it would be too cruel to force a raped woman to carry the baby to term. Think of me what you will.

 

[Warbler]

You DOUBT you would oppose an abortion?

okay, I should said I would not oppose abortion in those cases.