12 year old girl speaks against abortion, and she does it well.

[Tinykong]

i read the link.


Roe v. Wade, did not reject it entirely was my point.
If they had they would have not conditioned the right to abortion on viability.
Abortion is a Right until viability.
So the court did hold that in, some, contexts the foetus right to live does supersede the mothers wishes, or can be made to, some 41 states in the US currently does so, i think..

Clearly you didn't, because the link is the court's opinion, and shows that they explicitly rejected the right to life argument from Texas.

That's why I say your argument is confusing. You're saying "No they didn't" without providing any proof of the claim other than your flawed logic of "well you could abort a viable fetus if they did, so no they didn't."

Let's see some proof.

[Speaknoevil]

Proof is for heretics and blasphemers.

[Deleted]

we'll see how much she is against abortion when she turns 14 and gets pregnant.

[Tinykong]

we'll see how much she is against abortion when she turns 14 and gets pregnant.

Teen Mom 8.

[FlyingWoodchuck]

Statistics Canada points to rising earnings among young men with no university degree in recent years—due to jobs in the booming oil and constructions industries—as one possible reason for the stagnation in the gender income gap.
Young women with no high school diploma earned 67 cents for every dollar earned by young men with the same level of education.

its called comparing apples and oranges.

I'm sorry you are this stupid, I really genuinely am. Are you just acting reflexively at this point to not have to consider that your viewpoint on something might be wrong?

which two principles is most important?
that's a binary choice, invariable one must overrule the other.

edited: You're just trying to be difficult at this point. You don't hate something because you choose something over it.

as i said, a kidney doesn't grow back.

You have a spare. It won't kill you to have it removed. You said you were aware of this, I now assume that is not the case.

The mother consented by having sex, really that consent cant be ignored in comparisons.

You can keep spouting this off like it means anything at all. it can be entirely ignored as it means zip zilch and zero. It means she consented to have sex. She likely understands the risks, that also means she understands the options to deal with those risks, much as the man should likely realize he can't have an abortion as he has no risk of getting pregnant.

Two, You need a second kidney, you can live with one, but loosing one is a clear measure of permanent harm.
A pregnancy is a 9 month, inconvenience not a lifelong disability.

Sorry but you are entirely wrong. There is little risk of any kind of permanent harm (life threatening issues occur about 1 in 3000) but if you can live a full life with one without any major side effects which should fit in nicely with saying life is far more important than bodily rights, unless of course you only apply this value to unborn people for some mystery reason. For people who end up with serious complications, you can of course always force someone else to give you one of theirs. Overall it should be a net gain, isn't that what you value? And what about more obvious things like blood donation, are you for forced blood donation, bone marrow, skin, etc? You kind of skipped over those and went for the only one where there can be a real possible risk rather than addressing the overall point.

For a fun comparison, the death rate in Canada for mothers who are pregnant is a little over 1 in 8000, so its only 2.X times as risky as the totally safe pregnancy. Sounds like you are making excuses now for only applying this to pregnancies and not other aspects of life.

Uhm, did you just make the slipery slope argument?
so if i say that the 50 million aborted foetuses has reduced the value of life and thus making a future genocide more likely, you wont think that's moronic?

I wasn't making an argument, this is another case of you not reading. I am saying (and I think you'll agree... well maybe, i'm not really convinced at all that you're not making shit up about what you believe and don't) that making killing a clean affair only helps to desensitize us to the killing itself. If all we do is put someone behind a wall and press a button and there are no consequences we have to deal with aside from that killing another person gets easy and I think takes away from the value of life.

[Deleted]

Clearly you didn't, because the link is the court's opinion, and shows that they explicitly rejected the right to life argument from Texas.

That's why I say your argument is confusing. You're saying "No they didn't" without providing any proof of the claim other than your flawed logic of "well you could abort a viable fetus if they did, so no they didn't."

Let's see some proof.

yes they did reject texas arguments.
they also put in some restrictions on abortions, that would be viability.
want me to start quoting from there where they talk about viability?
or would it suffice when 41 states has restrictions on abortions, and if abortion is an unconditional right, 41 states have statutes that are unconstitutional yet haven't been struck down?
so i reiterate, abortion is a right, until viability.
that's all i was getting at, that the viable foetus is in some sort of legal limbo, where the court explicitly held it wasn't a person, yet gave the states the right to infringe on what they just had declared a right, abortion.
as for proof:
"Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability."
"The 28-week definition became part of the "trimester framework" marking the point at which the "compelling state interest" (under the doctrine of strict scrutiny) in preserving potential life became possibly controlling, permitting states to freely regulate and even ban abortion after the 28th week."
This one is from planed parenthood v casey, but its illuminating.
"Continuing advancements in medical technology meant that at the time Casey was decided, a fetus might be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks that was more common at the time of Roe. The plurality recognized viability as the point at which the state interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the woman and abortion may be banned entirely "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."
So have i made my case sufficiently?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry you are this stupid, I really genuinely am. Are you just acting reflexively at this point to not have to consider that your viewpoint on something might be wrong?

Person A is employed in capacity A.
He should earn as much as person B employed in capacity A.
His salary doesn't need to have anything to do with person C working in Field C.
If you think that it shouldn't be this way, that a waitress at a cafe should earn as much money as a truckdriver, just because they have the same level of training?
I think all waiters and waitresses should earn as much money, but the guy working in an oilfield, he has no relation to them whatsoever.
and if you disagree, then what's your opinion on the death gap?

edited: You're just trying to be difficult at this point. You don't hate something because you choose something over it.

not saying you hate.

You have a spare. It won't kill you to have it removed. You said you were aware of this, I now assume that is not the case.

its a permanent disability.
a pregnancy is a nine, and in reality less, disability.

You can keep spouting this off like it means anything at all. it can be entirely ignored as it means zip zilch and zero. It means she consented to have sex. She likely understands the risks, that also means she understands the options to deal with those risks, much as the man should likely realize he can't have an abortion as he has no risk of getting pregnant.

A) no the consent bit is fairly important in abortion, is that a good argument against it ?, not really, However, when crafting analogies, its very important part to carry with.

Sorry but you are entirely wrong. There is little risk of any kind of permanent harm (life threatening issues occur about 1 in 3000) but if you can live a full life with one without any major side effects which should fit in nicely with saying life is far more important than bodily rights, unless of course you only apply this value to unborn people for some mystery reason. For people who end up with serious complications, you can of course always force someone else to give you one of theirs. Overall it should be a net gain, isn't that what you value? And what about more obvious things like blood donation, are you for forced blood donation, bone marrow, skin, etc? You kind of skipped over those and went for the only one where there can be a real possible risk rather than addressing the overall point.

the lack of kidney function requires a permanent alteration of life.
There is a distinct difference in killing a person and not helping them.
Also, yes people aught to help those in need.

I am saying that making killing a clean affair only helps to desensitize us to the killing itself. If all we do is put someone behind a wall and press a button and there are no consequences we have to deal with aside from that killing another person gets easy and I think takes away from the value of life.

well i agree the more we can distance ourselves from killing someone the easier it becomes, and desensitizes us for killing more people.
Incidentally i think the same about abortion.

[Kraenen]

Proof is for heretics and blasphemers.

Here's a proof: 1+1 = 2

[FlyingWoodchuck]

Person A is employed in capacity A.
He should earn as much as person B employed in capacity A.
His salary doesn't need to have anything to do with person C working in Field C.
If you think that it shouldn't be this way, that a waitress at a cafe should earn as much money as a truckdriver, just because they have the same level of training?
I think all waiters and waitresses should earn as much money, but the guy working in an oilfield, he has no relation to them whatsoever.
and if you disagree, then what's your opinion on the death gap?

So, your claim then, just to make sure I understand this clearly, is that all the big tough jobs that pay the most in each bracket (I guess there are more of them as an over all % in the lower brackets ) are done almost entirely by men because.. I guess they're tough enough to which is why they make more. Okie dokie.

I'm not going to let this dig any deeper beyond this, if you want to go so insane as to talk about a death gap find some other sucker. You do realize that in order to try and justify a father being able to ditch his kid you're now trying to compare the average ages at which men and women die right and use that to justify it right?

not saying you hate.

I interpreted that as you don't care if there is a person there or not, you think abortion is (should be) legal regardless.
Which means you don't care about personhood.
yes/no?

but if a foetus is a person, and you still approve of abortions then, you invariably ignore that person.

Hate, don't care, ignore, wahtever. You are claiming that I don't care if there is a person or not because of an abortion. You are trying to simplify a complex topic and are trying to make broad assertions based on that foolish simplification.

All the while you are making this claim to value life while arguing that once its born fuck it, its got no right to have at least one caring parent and as secure a financial upbringing as possible, not at the fathers expense anyways. You want the dad to be able to walk out up to x moths afterwards. Mom can't afford the kid? No biggie, just take it away from its one loving parent and shove it in an orphanage or go after all the people who had nothing at all to do with making the child. And you don't see anything wrong with that... screw the kids and society, but keep popping them out, they're on their own as soon as their born, damn little monsters taking all of the poor dads money, the poor dad who didn't consent to being a parent, only to having sex, how could he know there was a risk of this happening, the poor poor poor guy, he's the real victim here! The mom was just trying to steal all his money! We should probably pay for a vacation for him as well, all this stress he's under, especially with his super tough manly job from above which is why he makes 5-35% more on average.

Do you suppose there might be some resident sexism in your overall thought process? Not intentional, but something there sub-consciously? It sure is sounding like it.

its a permanent disability.
a pregnancy is a nine, and in reality less, disability.

... you don't know anything about kidney transplants do you? You're just making shit up now.

the lack of kidney function requires a permanent alteration of life.

No it doesn't. You have no idea what you are talking about and are full of shit.

There is a distinct difference in killing a person and not helping them.

There is no difference is your highest value is life. I could also point out that there is a distinct difference in killing a person and not allowing them to use you as a host. Dead is dead, if life is so valuable that the mother should not be allowed an abortion then how can you justify a statement like that (aside from not actually answering to it)?

Also, yes people aught to help those in need.

Will you answer the question in such a way that I do not have to make assumptions. YES or NO or some middle ground. Not "it would be nice if people wanted to". Is it unclear as to what I am asking? I'll say it again:

Do You Value Bodily Rights Over The Right To Life Or Is It Just In The Case Of Abortions?

If I were to make an assumption from your unclear answers I would guess that it is only in cases of pregnancy and where you caused the harm (unclear as to how far, for example if you damage someone's heart and they're going to die without a transplant do you have to give up yours). However, this would mean you're a hypocrite, so I'd rather hear your explanation, which, I suspect I never will.

[Tinykong]

yes they did reject texas arguments.
they also put in some restrictions on abortions, that would be viability.
want me to start quoting from there where they talk about viability?
or would it suffice when 41 states has restrictions on abortions, and if abortion is an unconditional right, 41 states have statutes that are unconstitutional yet haven't been struck down?
so i reiterate, abortion is a right, until viability.
that's all i was getting at, that the viable foetus is in some sort of legal limbo, where the court explicitly held it wasn't a person, yet gave the states the right to infringe on what they just had declared a right, abortion.
as for proof:
"Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability."
"The 28-week definition became part of the "trimester framework" marking the point at which the "compelling state interest" (under the doctrine of strict scrutiny) in preserving potential life became possibly controlling, permitting states to freely regulate and even ban abortion after the 28th week."
This one is from planed parenthood v casey, but its illuminating.
"Continuing advancements in medical technology meant that at the time Casey was decided, a fetus might be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks that was more common at the time of Roe. The plurality recognized viability as the point at which the state interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the woman and abortion may be banned entirely "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."
So have i made my case sufficiently?

No, you haven't. Let's see a citation for these quoted statements from Roe v. Wade, and something that disproves my statement that they explicitly rejected Texas' right to life argument.

[Espe]

If you think all the mother amounts to is a series of life support machines to keep other things alive then yes, this makes perfect and totally reasonable sense. If, however, you think the mother might amount to something more, say, maybe the importance of a house cat, then we might get into some tricky areas where we might start to consider her role, but fortunately for the "pro-life" (anti-choice) side, those of us who might have this really crazy idea that she might actually get a say over her own body keep getting in the way. I do apologize for making what should be an amazingly simple analogy that clearly is a perfect match of reality so confusing

LOL

Good luck trying to get through to conservatives. They pine for the good old days when "the gays" didn't exist, women were property and minorities were slaves.

Look how they used this poor uneducated girl for their agenda.

[Randec]

..those of us who might have this really crazy idea that she might actually get a say over her own body keep getting in the way. I do apologize for making what should be an amazingly simple analogy that clearly is a perfect match of reality so confusing

Every woman should have a say over her own body. They should exercise that say over their own body and not conceive a baby. If abortion is available to you, then multiple methods of birth control are also available to you. However, once creation of another human life occurs as a consequence of a woman's free say over her own body, that other person's body should be taken into consideration.

[Espe]

Every woman should have a say over her own body. They should exercise that say over their own body and not conceive a baby. If abortion is available to you, then multiple methods of birth control are also available to you. However, once creation of another human life occurs as a consequence of a woman's free say over her own body, that other person's body should be taken into consideration.

That's right women, once that egg is fertilized you are just a piece of property, to be done with as men dictate.

Stay classy, conservatives

[Randec]

That's right women, once that egg is fertilized you are just a piece of property, to be done with as men dictate.

Stay classy, conservatives

I suppose not allowing a woman to destroy a human life in order to avoid her responsibilities is what passes for a conservative viewpoint. Much more reasonable than asking her to prevent the creation of that life through more affordable, safer, and more morally responsible birth control measures.

[FlyingWoodchuck]

LOL

Good luck trying to get through to conservatives. They pine for the good old days when "the gays" didn't exist, women were property and minorities were slaves.

Look how they used this poor uneducated girl for their agenda.

See what youv'e done?

Every woman should have a say over her own body. They should exercise that say over their own body and not conceive a bay. If abortion is available to you, then multiple methods of birth control are also available to you. However, once creation of another human life occurs as a consequence of a woman's free say over her own body, that other person's body should be taken into consideration.

Absolutely it should be taken into serious consideration by the mother, and she should realize the consequences of having an abortion and then do what is right for her.

- - - Updated - - -

I suppose not allowing a woman to destroy a human life in order to avoid her responsibilities is what passes for a conservative viewpoint. Much more reasonable than asking her to prevent the creation of that life through more affordable, safer, and more morally responsible birth control measures.

Yeah I'm not too keen on people using those kinds of labels at all. This is a specific issue with all kinds of viewpoints, trying to paint someone into a stereotype just means you're not trying to have a conversation about it. I agree it is idea for the pregnancy to be avoid if unwanted where possible, but stuff happens.

[Espe]

I suppose not allowing a woman to destroy a human life in order to avoid her responsibilities is what passes for a conservative viewpoint. Much more reasonable than asking her to prevent the creation of that life through more affordable, safer, and more morally responsible birth control measures.

Collection of cells = human life.
Women = property.

Conservative "logic"

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah I'm not too keen on people using those kinds of labels at all.

If the shoe fits....

[Randec]

Collection of cells = human life.
Women = property.

Conservative "logic"

You do enjoy that emoticon, don't you?

How is a fetus not human life?

How does asking a person to be responsible with the creation of human life and to not destroy it needlessly make that person into property?

[Espe]

You do enjoy that emoticon, don't you?

How is a fetus not human life?

How can you compare the existence of a loose collection of cells to that of a fully grown, aware human woman?

As for the emoticon, it is perfect - conservative "logic" always deserves an eye-roll.

[Wells]

You do enjoy that emoticon, don't you?

How is a fetus not human life?

"Is Human life" has never been the basis for when it is acceptable to destroy human life or not. We kill prisoners, we let vegetative patients go, we get in wars. You have to come up with someone better than "it has human DNA".

[Espe]

"Is Human life" has never been the basis for when it is acceptable to destroy human life or not. We kill prisoners, we let vegetative patients go, we get in wars. You have to come up with someone better than "it has human DNA".

We share nearly 99% of the same DNA as chimps, I guess that is why I always see conservatives arguing for women to have less rights than animals.

Stay classy, conservatives

[Randec]

How can you compare the existence of a loose collection of cells to that of a fully grown, aware human woman?

Yeah, you're right. Only fully grown humans who aren't made up of cells should have a right to live.

As for the emoticon, it is perfect - conservative "logic" always deserves an eye-roll.

And you always oblige.

"Is Human life" has never been the basis for when it is acceptable to destroy human life or not. We kill prisoners, we let vegetative patients go, we get in wars. You have to come up with someone better than "it has human DNA".

The loss of human life as a consequence of a situation has always been an appropriate cause for the exercise of responsibility.