• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
psionl0 said:
That's not true. The courts are frequently saying that one person's right is greater than the other person's (in an individual case).
Click to expand...

not talking about A right.
I'm talking about having any rights at all.
We don't adjudicate between the rights of humans vs. animals.

Roe considers not the rights of the unborn, but the interest of the State to see the unborn born.
 
psionl0 said:
I said "individual" not "a human being".

But if you want to argue that a foetus has no individuality until the umbilical cord is cut then go ahead.
Click to expand...

Oh no you don't! I see through your latest feeble attempt to play silly word games. First, you used "individual" as a noun to refer to the mother and fetus. Now you have switched to using it as an adjective to describe rather than call or name. It is obvious what you are trying to do, and that is to draw an equivalence between the mother and the fetus by calling them "individuals".

A fetus is not "an individual" in terms of legality....

https://thelawdictionary.org/individual/

"As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class"

... and therefore, it has no rights!!
 
smartcooky said:
A fetus is not "an individual" in terms of legality....

https://thelawdictionary.org/individual/

"As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class"

... and therefore, it has no rights!!
Click to expand...
Strangely enough, your source did not say that a foetus is not an individual (it didn't discuss foetuses at all). You made that up.

So who is playing silly word games?
 
JoeMorgue said:
*Hammers planks and nails over the rabbit hole*

Before we do that how does any of this mean a woman's body and her right to make decisions about it is less important that a clump of a few dozen cells?
Click to expand...
No but the clump of cells is a useful excuse for the Usual Suspects to attempt to regulate, oppress and belittle women, reducing them to the level of ambulatory incubators.
 
psionl0 said:
Strangely enough, your source did not say that a foetus is not an individual (it didn't discuss foetuses at all)
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't. It doesn't mention the moon, or a pumpkin, of the back end of a bus either. Can you work out why that is?

It is the legal definition of "individual", so it doesn't mention things that do not match the definition, such as the moon, a pumpkin, the back end of a bus... or fetuses.

psionl0 said:
So who is playing silly word games?
Click to expand...

Looks like you are, again!
 
smartcooky said:
Of course it doesn't. It doesn't mention the moon, or a pumpkin, of the back end of a bus either. Can you work out why that is?
Click to expand...
It was discussing natural vs artificial persons. Can you work out why the moon, or a pumpkin, or the back end of a bus would not qualify as either?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
not talking about A right.
I'm talking about having any rights at all.
We don't adjudicate between the rights of humans vs. animals.

Roe considers not the rights of the unborn, but the interest of the State to see the unborn born.
Click to expand...
Assuming that this is correct, the SC is asserting that at some point the "interests" (rights) of the mother exceed those of the state. So, no dichotomy.
 
psionl0 said:
It was discussing natural vs artificial persons.
Click to expand...

Nope, it was not discussing anything. It was defining what an individual is.

A fetus is not mentioned, therefore it is not an individual.

A fetus is not an individual, therefore it has no rights.

These really are Grade school concepts you are struggling to understand.

psionl0 said:
Can you work out why the moon, or a pumpkin, or the back end of a bus would not qualify as either?
Click to expand...

More word games

Your pathetic semantic shtick is just getting more pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
If you must know, I am male. But may I remind you there are many females whom are pro-life and would prefer that a woman give a child up for adoption rather than aborting it.

Maybe you are right because I am a guy that I can't relate. But I can't can't understand why you prefer abortion than having someone else raise the child. At least with adoption, the child is still alive.
Click to expand...
To what extent is it acceptable to force a woman to risk her life carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term? 25% greater risk of death? 50%? 100%? 200%? 400%? 800%?
 
abaddon said:
It is not just Ireland. Exactly how naive are you?
Click to expand...
Stacyhs said:
But he does, I believe. He's obviously very emotional about it. This kind of thing has happened in the US, too. Mothers were told their babies had died at birth or shortly after and then they were sold to adoptive parents.
Click to expand...
The US, UK, Australian, Germany, Canada, Belgium and elsewhere.
 
Stacyhs said:
What part of my post would elicit such a question?



No, you're not. It's obvious what you are doing and have been doing for quite some time. Stop it. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...
He's trolling as usual. Pathetic but utterly typical.
 
Warbler said:
law? That might be true due to roe v wade. But it could be overturned.

nature? that is opinion.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: FFS there is no such thing as a "God given" or "Natural born right". Try dropping someone into the middle of the Atlantic and see how their "right to life" fairs against the forces of nature; exhaustion, dehydration and hypothermia.
 
I've been skimming the thread but thought it would be quicker to just ask:

Is it the case that Texas's new law does not restrict suits against an abortion assister to just one "bounty hunter"? I have the impression that everyone everywhere can sue, so long as they do so in a Texas court.

It struck me that Google has quite a lot of money so all it would need is for someone to use Google Maps to navigate their way to an abortion clinic and a third world nation might boost its economy by organising for each of its citizens to submit a complaint to a Texas court and collect their $10,000 windfall.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom