Roe v Wade is about PRIVACY!

[Total Crica]

Who is it that decides who is a person?

Why would being a person or not have anything to do with abortion?

Persons don't have the right to continue to be gestated by a woman's uterus without the woman's consent.

[Machismo]

So is privacy > Life ?? Is killing a baby "none of your god damn business"?? Privacy is probably the WORST argument to make regarding this issue. There are other arguments to make like the mother not wanting to do go through child birth and the risks of it and the damage to her body or something. But privacy is pretty low on totem pole.

It's not a baby, it's a fetus. I should note, those examples you mention as a justification all center around personal privacy.

- - - Updated - - -

Who is it that decides who is a person? If somebody tells me they are not in fact a person, but instead an two-spirit Owlkin, does that mean I can kill the one making that statement and avoid being guilty of having killed a person? I am going to guess that you will argue that an individual cannot assert their own personhood, or for that matter renounce their own personhood. This leaves you with a problem: it ends up being society that dictates personhood. This opens the door to the potential for terrible abuses, in which entire groups could be de-personed.

The safest guideline would be to have the broadest possible definition of personhood, which by definition would include unborn humans.

You should also consider the fact that Roe v Wade is effectively the Supreme Court writing its own amendment to the constitution.

Actually, Roe v. Wade was merely guaranteeing existing constitutional rights, and saying that abortion falls under that umbrella.

[A dot Ham]

Right back at you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

"Biologically, a child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty."

Like I said it's pretty clear you're not interested in a discussion. A person who has the wherewithal to attempt a conversation based on a courts ruling should also know that same ruling held that a woman's choice is not absolute which has allowed the majority of States to create provisions that prohibit abortion when the life of the fetus is viable. Being "born" at that point is irrelevant. The opposition to this topic will ALWAYS try to convince the courts that life begins SOONER until abortion itself isn't an option. If people like Mike Pence have their way... that baby will be born whether or not it kills the mother. If you truly value your freedom to choose, or a woman's freedom to choose, you'll stop playing stupid ass word games.

[Total Crica]

a person would have the right not to be murdered

Ok and? Persons still don't have the right to continue to be gestated by a woman's uterus without her consent and can therefore be removed from a woman's uterus at anytime she wants them removed from her uterus.

[Machismo]

Yes, they do. You can't kill a person unless they are threatening your life, and a normal pregnancy isn't life threatening.

Then the solution seems simple, have abortions all be nothing more than the premature inducing of labor. It protects the right to life of the fetus, as well as the right to privacy for the woman.

[Total Crica]

you're not interested in a discussion.

Why would I be? I am a woman with the right to privacy in this matter and don't have to discuss it with anyone at all.

If I choose to, it will be simply to correct any wrong ideas you may have about my right.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, they do.

Nope. Not one person has the right to anyone's forced free labor, including the forced free labor of a woman's uterus' continued gestation of them.

[Total Crica]

I'm telling you what the reality of the law would be.

Not under the current constitution of the US, it wouldn't be. Slavery is quite illegal. And another Civil War can be had to ensure it remain illegal, if needed.

[Total Crica]

I don't think the fetus has a right to life, but if you claim a fetus is a person they legally do no matter what.

A person only has a right to life if their own bodies have the ability to live.

A non-viable fetus's body doesn't have the ability to live once a woman's body stops gestating it.

[Total Crica]

A person has a right to live even if their bodies don't have the ability to continue to live

No, they don't. Persons don't have the right to other persons free labor for any reason.

Not one person can be forced by law to freely labor for another person, ever, under the current constitution of the US.

[spinner981]

How is it any of your business what healthcare people choose for their own bodies?

If you think healthcare that people choose for themselves shouldn't be a private choice, why are you not sharing your healthcare choices with everyone right now for them to decide you can choose or not?

Because it isn't just your body.

[Machismo]

I don't think the fetus has a right to life, but if you claim a fetus is a person they legally do no matter what.

- - - Updated - - -



Again, this hyperbolic nonsense doesn't work anywhere outside of an online forum. If you brought this argument before a justice they would think you were insane, and the situation is hypothetical anyways, because a fetus is not a person.

This would allow both sides to get what they want. The woman still has the right to privacy, and can get the abortion, and the fetus still has it's right to life.

[josykay]

Because it isn't just your body.

Your body, and some lump of cells, that isn't capable of living independetly. But I guess, lump of cells > women, right?

[Total Crica]

They actually can if they are a parent to a child

Persons freely choose to labor for birthing a child or not, and once they freely choose this, they've entered into a contract with the state to continue to labor for the child as long as they are able.

Persons can not be forced by the state to enter into any contract to freely labor for other persons nor be forced by the state to freely labor for any person they did not freely choose to enter into a contract to labor for.

You really need to study US constitution laws. You seriously don't even know your own rights. (if you live in the US)

[Halicia]

The simplest argument here is that there is no legal "Right to Privacy" anywhere in the constitution.

[spinner981]

Your body, and some lump of cells, that isn't capable of living independetly. But I guess, lump of cells > women, right?

All humans are lumps of cells FYI, and no human is capable of living independently. We all require nourishment, much of which we do not ourselves earn, such as breathable oxygen. Furthermore, a born child is also incapable of living independently, and will die without aid from others in 100% of all circumstances, and is also just 'some lump of cells'. So according to your reasoning then born children should also be able to be 'aborted', or abandoned by their parents for only the reason of wanting to escape responsibility, right?

[Total Crica]

you said the fetus is a person

No, I didn't. I said even if they were, persons don't have the right to the free labor of other persons by default.

A woman doesn't enter into a contract with the state to freely labor for a person until the state would be able to freely labor for that person in her stead, which is after a person is viable without her free labor. Until such time, her pregnancy is hers to decide if she continues to freely labor for or not.

[A dot Ham]

Why would I be? I am a woman with the right to privacy in this matter and don't have to discuss it with anyone at all.

If I choose to, it will be simply to correct any wrong ideas you may have about my right.

Like I've been saying you aren't here to discuss. You're here to troll and to flame.

This is a "discussion forum" if you want your own personal soap box, go start a fucking blog.

So essentially you came here for this:

[spinner981]

No, I didn't. I said even if they were, persons don't have the right to the free labor of other persons by default.

Yes they do. If you birth a child you are obligated to take care of it. If the mother has the child, then even if the father left he must still work and pay for child care, or else he faces legal consequences.

[josykay]

All humans are lumps of cells FYI, and no human is capable of living independently. We all require nourishment, much of which we do not ourselves earn, such as breathable oxygen. Furthermore, a born child is also incapable of living independently, and will die without aid from others in 100% of all circumstances, and is also just 'some lump of cells'. So according to your reasoning then born children should also be able to be 'aborted', or abandoned by their parents for only the reason of wanting to escape responsibility, right?

A fetus becomes by definition a person at the beginning of labor, before that, it is not a legal person.
Secondly, yeah people need nourishment, but a fetus is not capable of surviving without the connection to the mother, therefore it is not an independent lifeform.

[Total Crica]

Like I've been saying you aren't here to discuss. You're here to troll and to flame.

This is a "discussion forum" if you want your own personal soap box, go start a fucking blog.

So essentially you came here for this:

No, I came here to ask why all women don't simply state their right to privacy and end the trolling happening to them.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes they do. If you birth a child you are obligated to take care of it. If the mother has the child, then even if the father left he must still work and pay for child care, or else he faces legal consequences.

We were discussing a scenario in which fetuses being labeled persons doesn't change the status quo of the US constitution, not what you just posted.

- - - Updated - - -

They would though... Why do you think Republicans want to grant them personhood so badly?

I just explained why they wouldn't.