Texas bans abortion.

[JoeMorgue]

What is not is when that clump of cells becomes a human being. The answer is is sometime between conception and birth anyone who says anything more precise than that is full of ****. If the questions is, should I risk killing a person, a lot of people are fairly cautious about when they think that might be.

Go ahead and make fun of folks who have set that arbitrary choice somewhere other than where you do.

You are right about one thing, civil discourse is not the same thing as making it easier for the other side to be wrong.

I'm not making the arbitrary choice, I'm letting the mother do it, so you're argument fails.

That's the difference.

 

[ahhell]

They were great quotes but did not support his claim which he does not seem to understand since he repeats the same mistake. They are only evidence of Jefferson's view on the origin of rights, not that the opposition from some FF's to including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution was due to fear that people would see them coming from government rather than a Creator/Nature.

Maybe so, he was still correct, the debate about the Bill of Rights at the time was the Federalist saying it wasn't necessary and would imply that other rights were not protect while the anti-federalists thought they were necessary because the lack of them would imply that we didn't have them.

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/bill-of-rights
https://blog.acton.org/archives/994...5kf__R3CC34g15gNr7EOAc6G6KxEI-axoCkIMQAvD_BwE

1. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, George Mason of Virginia said that he “wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights,” because it would “give great quiet” to the people. A motion was made that a committee be established to prepare a Bill of Rights, but the delegates, voting as states, defeated it 10-0. The reason? It was deemed to be unnecessary. (Some were also skeptical about what James Madison called “parchment barriers” against “overbearing majorities.”)

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1184/federalists

Almost anything you can find on the debate over the bill of rights say the same thing.

 

[ahhell]

I'm not making the arbitrary choice, I'm letting the mother do it, so you're argument fails.

That's the difference.

Your arbitrary choice is birth then? Is there no limit you would accept?

I will no declare myself the winner.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Your arbitrary choice is birth then? Is there no limit you would accept?

*Rolls Sure* Sure you can hunt 2 year olds for sport.

Can we keep like one toe in actual reality for once? Would be a nice change of pace around here.

Abortions later in the pregnancy are incredibly rare and usually have special circumstances. The woman who just wakes up and decides at 39 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds to have an abortion just for the ***** and giggles of it is such a rare occurrence I'm not going to factor it in to my worldview.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

*Rolls Sure* Sure you can hunt 2 years for sport.

Can we keep like one toe in actual reality for once? Would be a nice change of pace around here.

Abortions later in the pregnancy are incredibly rare and usually have special circumstances. The woman who just up and deciding at 39 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds to have an abortion just for the ***** and giggles of it is such a rare occurrence I'm not going to factor it in to my worldview.

You wait for the baby to crown and check to see what color their eyes are before deciding if you want to continue the birth or abort.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I tried to post this yesterday, but God forbade it. I'll try again:

If someone must speak for the fetus, let it be the woman carrying it. She's surely the person most closely concerned.

Sure, but only if she agrees with an unrelated group of men who want her to take responsibility for her lifestyle and be punished for allowing a man to have sex with her, which she later regrets.

If she disagrees with these men then her rights cease to matter.

Unless she was not a consenting adult participant in the sex, but instead was raped, then her rights do matter, even if she disagrees with the men.

Oh, and the men don’t care about all fertilized eggs, only the ones in women who choose to have sex and then later regret it. If the fertilized eggs are on ice they can be tossed since they aren’t associated with sexual regret.

One silver lining is that we see signs of men starting to understand the concept of consent.

 

[Stacyhs]

You should go back in time and advocate for George III. Again you are going against what America stands for. America stands for the idea that rights come from nature or a creator, not from a King or man or government.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Then why did our FF's...who were neither the Creator, or "Nature"... feel the need to write these "rights" down in a legal document called the Constitution upon which our GOVERNMENT IS FOUNDED?

Are you now going to tell us that America stands for "All men are created equal" when our FF did not mean that at all? " All men" were white men and most assuredly not Black men or women of any color whatsoever.

You are clearly the one in that debate that needs to do some research.

Granted, already addressed but the debate over the bill of rights was basically, include it just to be sure vs don't include it because doing so would imply that those rights were granted by the government. Thus:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It was not about "because doing so would imply that those rights were granted by the government" and not a Creator/Nature which was Warbler's claim and which I was addressing.

AS for me being the one who needs to do research:

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.

I'm sorry, but your speaking out of ignorance. That was not a concern of those who opposed the Bill of Right. I suggest you do some research. The opposition to a Bill of Rights was because they feared any rights specifically not enumerated would, by default, NOT be rights. Therefore, Madison included that Rights were not restricted only to those in the B of R in the 9th Amendment .

To support that statement:

Antifederalists argued that in a state of nature people were entirely free. In society some rights were yielded for the common good. But, there were some rights so fundamental that to give them up would be contrary to the common good. These rights, which should always be retained by the people, needed to be explicitly stated in a bill of rights that would clearly define the limits of government. A bill of rights would serve as a fire bell for the people, enabling them to immediately know when their rights were threatened.

Federalists rejected the proposition that a bill of rights was needed. They made a clear distinction between the state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. Using the language of social compact, Federalists asserted that when the people formed their state constitutions, they delegated to the state all rights and powers which were not explicitly reserved to the people. The state governments had broad authority to regulate even personal and private matters. But in the U.S. Constitution, the people or the states retained all rights and powers that were not positively granted to the federal government. In short, everything not given was reserved. The U.S. government only had strictly delegated powers, limited to the general interests of the nation. Consequently, a bill of rights was not necessary and was perhaps a dangerous proposition. It was unnecessary because the new federal government could in no way endanger the freedoms of the press or religion since it was not granted any authority to regulate either. It was dangerous because any listing of rights could potentially be interpreted as exhaustive. Rights omitted could be considered as not retained. Finally, Federalists believed that bills of rights in history had been nothing more than paper protections, useless when they were most needed. In times of crisis they had been and would continue to be overridden. The people’s rights are best secured not by bills of rights, but by auxiliary precautions: the division and separation of powers, bicameralism, and a representative form of government in which officeholders were responsible to the people, derive their power from the people, and would themselves suffer from the loss of basic rights.

https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/bill-of-rights/

One of the biggest flaws in the Roe V Wade decision. No right needs to be implied by the constitution, they exist unless stated otherwise.

That had nothing to do with the R v W decision as fetuses were not, and are not, given 'rights', stated or otherwise, as a "person" .

Some of the FF did mean all men some understood that and didn't no what to do about it and some were quite afraid of what they meant.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[smartcooky]

I’m an atheist who feels that ALL Gods are imaginary. And that the bible is full of many of the horrible things you’ve outlined.

But sarcastic, mocking and condescending posts like yours above are of no help whatever in trying to have an intelligent conversation or debate. You may think you’re being clever, but it just comes across as disrespectful and mean.

Oh, I don't know. Fundies get what they deserve... mockery, and the more the better!

 

[Warbler]

Okay, I am going to respond to few things in here, but not every single thing. There so many whom have responded to my posts and what I have said that it would take all day, like it did yesterday. Also, I need to think about some of the things some have said.

 

[Stacyhs]

>snip<
The anti abortion crowd includes those that are opposed to on account of religion, it also includes those that see a fetus as a human being and not just a parasite. There's no point in debating the first group.
?snip<

Literally NOBODY is saying that a fetus is "JUST a parasite". Please don't continue with that misrepresentation of what has been said.

 

[Warbler]

The FFs believed that these rights belonged to ALL people and not just the noble classes. They believed that these rights were given us by God and not just derived from kings. Whether you believe in God or not, you can be grateful for the FFs' beliefs.

I agree 100%.

Curiously enough, the first 3 words of the constitution are "We the people" indicating that all powers, rights and responsibilities are derived from the people and not from kings or gods.

I think they are referring to where government is getting its power. I think the founders believed government gets its power "from the consent of the governed", hence "We The People".

 

[Warp12]

Literally NOBODY is saying that a fetus is "JUST a parasite". Please don't continue with that misrepresentation of what has been said.

Or put another way, whether a woman has the right to expel an unwanted, partially formed parasite from her uterus.

That's not emotionalizing anything. Those are facts. A <24 week gestation fetus is only partially formed, feeds off the host, and it cannot live outside the host body. That's a parasite.

You were saying?

 

[JoeMorgue]

You were saying?

I'm sure there's a Sesame Street episode that teaches the word "Just" you can go watch.

The "gotcha" attempts are getting sadder and sadder.

 

[abaddon]

This post is worthy of mockery. All Christians are worthy of mockery because these christians are frauds, all muslims are terrorists because some muslims are terrorists. I can dismiss all progressives because this progressive is just a nut picker.

Well they are. Unless you think believing in magic sky fairies that created a mud man and a rib woman in order to create humans is somehow intelligent. Exactly what sort of risible nonsense is that?

If you want to persuade people, there is no point at which mockery is justified.

They are not open to persuasion. Why bother? Just point and laugh. I mean if somebody thinks 8 people made a boat, put 2-7 of every animal aboard and promptly screwed each other for hundreds of years, where does "reason" even enter the frame?

If you want to build bonds with your side, mockery is always justified. I am generally depressed these days on account of most everyone having given up on persuasion. That doesn't bode well for democracy.

The religious have no interest in hearing any of that. Theists have no interest in democracy. They already believe a celestial dictator runs everything. God said it, I believe it and stop there. No interest in demonstrating that there is a god, nor what he may or may not have said, nor explaining why it is they believe such rot.

We are all supposed to take it on faith. Reason is expelled, and should not be encouraged in any way, shape or form. After all, what has so-called "reason" ever done for us?

No it is superstitious crud from front to back and deserves NO respect of any sort.

Disagree? Fine. Demonstrate that your god or any god exists. Any god out of the countless thousands of claimed gods. Any one at all. You cannot and you will not

 

[JoeMorgue]

"I oppose abortion because I think God puts a magical soul in the widdle babies."
"There's no evidence your God exists."
"Oh well... now you're being mean."

Again people really want their bad arguments to be on topic, but pointing out that their arguments are bad to be off topic.

That's not how reality works.

 

[Stacyhs]

If you are curios, I think abortion should be legal in the first trimester.
Legal but with some limits in the Second.
Illegal with some exceptions in the third. That basically doesn't matter because there are very few late term abortions and mostly they happen for the reasons I would except.

I think doctors and care providers should be allowed to decide if they offer abortions or not. If a Catholic Hospital wants to offer OB/Gyn services they shouldn't be forced to offer abortions or even be made to refer women to facilities that do.

I agree with all of this.

I think Roe V Wade was terrible for the US, it basically created the culture war. Without it, we would probably have arrived at a consensus on abortion and we could vote for a president on things other than the SCOTUS.

I completely disagree with this. R v W did not create a culture war; it just brought it to a head faster. That was already developing and would have even without R v W because the pro-choice movement would still have continued and grown and the anti-choice proponents would still have fought it just as vigorously as they do now. To think the anti-choice would have been any more amenable to legalizing abortion at any time since then is not based on any evidence that I can see.

One more thing, if you think that abortion should be illegal in the first trimester or just as legal in the third as the first, you are an extremist. That's find, just know that you are. The one side is extreme and the other isn't because... is just nonsense. There are extremists on both sides of this debate.

Agreed. The only difference is that, in reality, third trimester abortions are extremely rare and almost always done for medical reasons.

 

[Warbler]

You keep saying someone "must speak for the fetus" with the assumption that "the fetus" has something to say and, if it does, that this "someone" somehow knows what "the fetus" wants. You make it a sentient being from some arbitrary time plucked out of the air.

What I should have said is that someone should speak for its rights.

You are right we have no way of knowing what a fetus would want, so we have to assume it would prefer to live, just if a patient were to come into a hospital unconscious, the doctors assume the would prefer to receive life saving medical care. They err on the side of life.

It is true I don not know when the fetus becomes sentient, but I do think that that some point before birth it becomes something of worth, something that has rights that are separate from the mother and certainly something that is more than just a "clump of cells".

 

[JoeMorgue]

I completely disagree with this. R v W did not create a culture war; it just brought it to a head faster.

I notice most cultures wars start when one side gets sick of having another side control them.

 

[abaddon]

I agree 100%.



I think they are referring to where government is getting its power. I think the founders believed government gets its power "from the consent of the governed", hence "We The People".

Why should the other 95% of the world care? Sure, the shenanigans of the theocracy states of america provides mild amusement, but it remains entertainment at the antics of a third world country. At this point you are like Mugabe in Zimbabwe. A joke country.

This is quite shameful. America was once a shining banner of hope and glory. Now it is one of those countries that your own president referred to as "********" countries. The idiotic president that you elected.

You may try to sit on your hands and claim that you did not vote for the dump, but where were you when your seat of government was assaulted? At the dump's request.

Nowhere. That's where.

Ineffectually praying to jebus perhaps. Who promptly did nothing.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This is quite shameful. America was once a shining banner of hope and glory. Now it is one of those countries that your own president referred to as "********" countries. The idiotic president that you elected.

Was it? Think that really depends on who you ask.