Roe v Wade is about PRIVACY!

[spinner981]

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.

What the law currently says about when personhood begins is irrelevant to a discussion about when the law should say personhood begins.

Also, it sounds like your simply determining this definition of independence arbitrarily. Surely an infant cannot be independent, and requires another person to take care of them. But you want to carve that definition down until it can fit a fetus but not a born child. Sounds like you are just molding the words to fit your opinion without explaining why 'independence' is necessary to be considered a 'person' to begin with.

[A dot Ham]

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 - - -



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.

Ah so a thread that only women can, or are supposed to respond to. Also against forum rules. Its only a matter of time before the mods get to this one. Enjoy your timeout its definitely deserved.

[spinner981]

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.

So the things you are saying only apply to the scenario that you are suggesting? Why bother wording your sentences with such broad brush strokes, like nowhere in the law is anyone forced to labor for another human being, if you are just going to berate me because you are only talking about an extremely specific scenario and nothing else in the law is relevant for comparison?

[Total Crica]

Ah so a thread that only women can, or are supposed to respond to

No, anyone can answer the question.

- - - Updated - - -

/facepalm

You're such a child it's unreal.

Are you going to explain why or just state things you believe to be true with no explanation?

- - - Updated - - -

So the things you are saying only apply to the scenario that you are suggesting? Why bother wording your sentences with such broad brush strokes, like nowhere in the law is anyone forced to labor for another human being, if you are just going to berate me because you are only talking about an extremely specific scenario and nothing else in the law is relevant for comparison?

It's what we were talking about at that point, nothing more. Of course it relates to what the scenario is now, but we already know what the scenario is now.

- - - Updated - - -

explaining why 'independence' is necessary to be considered a 'person'

A child isn't independent, it's simply no longer dependent on a woman's uterus.

[Total Crica]

I already did you are just too dense for the information to pass from your eyes to your brain.

Then you don't possess the ability to effectively communicate your thoughts to me and have given up? Ok, then, have a nice day now.

[spinner981]

A child isn't independent, it's simply no longer dependent on a woman's uterus.

That's an awfully specific prerequisite to being considered a living person; "Being dependent of a woman's uterus". It is almost as if that prerequisite only exists to push a pro-choice argument.

Then you don't possess the ability to effectively communicate your thoughts to me have given up? Ok, then, have a nice day now.

Are you suggesting that any child incapable of communicating must want to die?

[Total Crica]

Nobody has that ability, which is why this thread is already 8 god damn pages long and filled with you just spouting the same shit over and over.

I already countered all your points. You have yet to counter mine. You simply try to claim I can't understand without any proof of this claim.

- - - Updated - - -

That's an awfully specific prerequisite to being considered a living person

It doesn't matter if it's a person or not, as I said.

Person's don't have the right to other person's free labor by default, a contract for labor is required to obtain another persons labor.

[spinner981]

It doesn't matter if it's a person or not, as I said. Person's don't have the right to other person's free labor by default.

And as has already been said, that is incorrect. Child support.

[Total Crica]

And as has already been said, that is incorrect. Child support.

Child support is a contract parents freely enter into with the state when a woman freely chooses to labor until the successful development of a child.

- - - Updated - - -

forcing free "labor" against someones will is done all the time

No, it isn't. And you have yet to give any examples of what you mistakenly think as slavery happening right now in the US.

[Total Crica]

the premise that forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy under threat of prosecution is actually "slavery"

Yes, it would be.

Until a woman freely enters into a labor contract with the state, any forced labor by the state via threat of punishment for not laboring, is slavery.

- - - Updated - - -

Child support.

Child support is a contract parents freely enter into with the state when a woman freely chooses to labor until the successful development of a child.

[spinner981]

Child support is a contract parents freely enter into with the state when a woman freely chooses to labor until the successful development of a child.

The father is never given the option to sign such a contract though. Unless you want to suggest that he signs it at conception. Do you want to suggest that the father 'signs the contract' at conception? Hmmmm?

[Total Crica]

The father is never given the option to sign such a contract

Yes, he is.

He has the option to decline any contract with a woman by not laboring to impregnate her anytime he wishes.

If he opts to labor to impregnate her, he has entered into a contract with her that allows her to freely decide if that impregnation is worth her continuing to freely labor for until it develops into their child or not.

[Total Crica]

No, it is not.

Yes, it is.

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

"The 1992 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is a binding convention signed by every member nation of the United Nations...Child support in the United States, 45 C.F.R. 302.56 requires each state to establish and publish a Guideline that is presumptively (but rebuttably) correct, and Review the Guideline, at a minimum, every four years."

[spinner981]

Yes, he is.

He has the option to decline any contract with a woman by not laboring to impregnate her anytime he wishes.

If he opts to labor to impregnate her, he has entered into a contract with her that allows her to freely decide if that impregnation is worth her continuing to freely labor for until it develops into their child or not.

Ah, so the contract is just different for men and women because reasons? I see. The father is forced into the contract at conception, but the woman is allowed to cancel the contract any time she wants prior to giving birth.

But wait... why then don't we just say that the mother also signs the contract at conception? According to you we don't say that because that would then force the mother to 'labor for somebody else'. Except that is exactly what we are forcing the father to do since according to you he 'signs the contract' at conception! Being forced to 'labor for somebody else' according to the will of the woman/mother. That isn't fair at all. Why not let the father out of the contract at any time between conception and birth? Wouldn't that be the fair, equal thing to do?

[Total Crica]

the contract is just different for men and women because

Men enter the same contract as women (choose to labor or not), but women must continue to labor alone for 9months if they don't opt to stop laboring.

Technically, a man doesn't have to labor as long to develop their offspring, they get 9months off.

[Deleted]

It's impossible to prevent abortions due to the very nature of abortions - only the pregnant woman herself has to know if an abortion ever happened.

Unless she dies from an abortion, no one has to ever know an abortion happened, and if she does die, the abortion already happened.

Lmao, you're ludicrous.

[Total Crica]

Lmao, you're ludicrous.

Explain how you are able to know another woman is pregnant/has aborted without her telling you or her dying from it?

I am a woman. Have I ever been pregnant or aborted? You don't know because I am still alive and have not told you.

- - - Updated - - -

Why not let the father out of the contract

You mean the individual woman? She can if she wants to before a child is born. But she doesn't have to after he freely enters the contract.

Once a child is born, however, the state holds the contract, not the woman, so both of them will have to ask the state to null the contract.

- - - Updated - - -

he 'signs the contract' at conception!

Nope. They both sign the same contract that allows her to solely decide if his free labor is worth her free labor continuing or not until a child is developed, and if she decides it is, the state will hold the contract for them both if a child is successfully developed by their free labor.

[Mistame]

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.

I was under the impression that we were operating under "person-hood begins at viability outside the womb", which would account for those provisions (which, to my understanding is part of the reason why SCOTUS ruled how they did).

That's an awfully specific prerequisite to being considered a living person; "Being dependent of a woman's uterus". It is almost as if that prerequisite only exists to push a pro-choice argument.

It's really not. Both "person" and "human being" refer to separate individuals. As long as it's attached to and requires the womb to survive, a fetus is neither. Sorry.

[cparle87]

I never said the word dead. Not living =/= dead. Learn some definitions buddy. My keyboard is not dead, but it's also not living. Dead requires that it was alive already. Fetuses are made up of living cells, but they are not a living being. They do not have autonomy, they are not viable. They are a part of the mother up until viability.

That's some Olympic Games-tier mental gymnastics.

[Torgent]

That's some Olympic Games-tier mental gymnastics.

You don't know what that means. Just like you don't know what dead means lol.