Roe v Wade is about PRIVACY!

[Total Crica]

I suggest you go educate yourself on how procreation works

Right back at you. Go educate yourself on how legal abortion in the USA works. It ends a non-viable pregnancy that has not developed the ability to live seperate from the mother.

Not one female human anywhere in the entire universe exists soley for your personal desire for them to ensure all non-viable pregnancies develop the ability to live seperate from them.

If you want that reality to happen, figure out a way to do it yourself. Female humans are not your personal gestation machines. Create your own gestation machines or deal with the fact that female humans have to want to gestate their non-viable pregnancies in order for them to continue to gestate their non-viable pregnancies.

[Orbitus]

I kinda replied out of the blue and then after that I went back and actually read what this thread was about.

Somehow I thought it was about the logic and natural aspect of life creation and birth but this whole thing is instead about arbitrary legal terms invented by people and then I see you calling men liars rapists and murderer.
So since you're not thinking correctly, because yes, there is a correct way to think and it's not yours, factually, not my opinion, I suggest you go educate yourself on how procreation works, where life begins and why it's technically still murder before the family-friendly term "viable".

Tota absolutely destroyed you. This isn't about legal terms, this is about science. A fetus CANNOT survive if it isn't viable. Viability means the lungs are formed, the heart is formed, everything that a normal human being is formed. Which the EARLIEST that happens is around 22 or so weeks. Which most of the abortions happen long before that. The only reason that an abortion happens after 20+ weeks, is either the health of the mother, the fetus has some sort of terminal illness or both.

And it isn't murder. When you stated that, you lost what little credibility and argument you had.

[Swalload]

Right back at you. Go educate yourself on how legal abortion in the USA works. It ends a non-viable pregnancy that has not developed the ability to live seperate from the mother.

Not one female human anywhere in the entire universe exists soley for your personal desire for them to ensure all non-viable pregnancies develop the ability to live seperate from them.

If you want that reality to happen, figure out a way to do it yourself. Female humans are not your personal gestation machines. Create your own gestation machines or deal with the fact that female humans have to want to gestate their non-viable pregnancies in order for them to continue to gestate their non-viable pregnancies.

Oh when the fetus is sure to die? Sorry english is not my main language, I thought you were talking about the "it's not really human yet" time at the beginning of pregnancy which does not really exist but was invented to excuse abortion.

But yeah, if the pregnancy itself is not even viable because of medical reason and the mother is at risk or the chances of the fetus coming to term are so low that it's stupid to keep going then yeah sure, abortion is a sound option.

Big misunderstanding there, sorry.
But you can kinda chill on the hyper feminist speech, borderline anti-men speech, that last paragraph is a bit over the top lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Tota absolutely destroyed you. This isn't about legal terms, this is about science. A fetus CANNOT survive if it isn't viable. Viability means the lungs are formed, the heart is formed, everything that a normal human being is formed. Which the EARLIEST that happens is around 22 or so weeks. Which most of the abortions happen long before that. The only reason that an abortion happens after 20+ weeks, is either the health of the mother, the fetus has some sort of terminal illness or both.

And it isn't murder. When you stated that, you lost what little credibility and argument you had.

Including you in that reply for notification pop I guess.

[Elegiac]

Oh when the fetus is sure to die? Sorry english is not my main language, I thought you were talking about the "it's not really human yet" time at the beginning of pregnancy which does not really exist but was invented to excuse abortion.

Even if it were invented, the right to life is not absolute especially in contrast to bodily autonomy. So...TS.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

why it's technically still murder before the family-friendly term "viable".

Actually, if you want to go by "technically", it's not murder

murder is defined as: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Abortion is not unlawful (at least not here)...therefore abortion is not murder.

The most you can possibly say is that abortion is homicide: the killing of one human being by another.

[Swalload]

Actually, if you want to go by "technically", it's not murder

murder is defined as: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Abortion is not unlawful (at least not here)...therefore abortion is not murder.

The most you can possibly say is that abortion is homicide: the killing of one human being by another.

hom·i·cide
ˈhäməˌsīd/Valider
nounNORTH AMERICAN
the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.
"he was charged with homicide"
synonyms: murder, killing, slaughter, butchery, massacre; More
the police department that deals with murders.
noun: Homicide
"a detective from Homicide"
dated
a murderer.

That being said, that post you replied to was a misunderstanding which I somewhat tried to clear out in the following post.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

That being said, that post you replied to was a misunderstanding which I somewhat tried to clear out in the following post.

https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/f...homicide-2977/

The terms murder and homicide are frequently interchanged; however, there is a difference between the two. Homicide is the killing of one person by another. Murder is a form of criminal homicide, where the perpetrator intended to kill the other person, sometimes with premeditation (a plan to kill). Manslaughter is another type of criminal homicide.

[Frogguh]

Anyone who denies that a "non-viable fetus" is not a separate human is, at best, completely clueless. Best-case scenario rarely applies.

Science easily proves that, regardless of the stage of life, the zygote/embryo/fetus is not akin to a woman's tooth or liver or middle toe. It is a separate entity, provable by a simple DNA test. Provable by a miniscule amount of thinking, really, but science seals the deal.

The discussion on whether a fetus is a separate human is and has been settled for a very long time, as any thinking person knows. It is now up to the pro-abortion crowd to explain when a human life has worth. If "err on the side of life" is not the standard, then what is, and why?

[Nasuuna]

This is why I don't get involved in this debate usually

Its murder of a baby vs enslavement of a woman.

Whats worse lol.

[Elegiac]

The discussion on whether a fetus is a separate human is and has been settled for a very long time, as any thinking person knows. It is now up to the pro-abortion crowd to explain when a human life has worth. If "err on the side of life" is not the standard, then what is, and why?

Bodily autonomy has clear value over the right to life in our society; hence why killing in self-defense is ethically and legally permissible. I'd also point out that it conforms to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number; it is in society's best interests to permit at-will abortion simply because there is not a less harmful alternative given our current technology.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The discussion on whether a fetus is a separate human is and has been settled for a very long time, as any thinking person knows. It is now up to the pro-abortion crowd to explain when a human life has worth. If "err on the side of life" is not the standard, then what is, and why?

Actually, the pro-choice crowd doesn't have to explain anything anymore. Abortion is legal.

Fantastic thing though! Abortions are not mandatory!

[Pipboi]

If a fetus is intellectually inferior to a Lobster, which we boil alive, then I have a very difficult time viewing it as human, and I find it impossible to argue that it should have rights period, let alone rights that would outweigh the will of the mother.

[Total Crica]

Anyone who denies that a "non-viable fetus" is not a separate human is, at best, completely clueless.

A non-viable fetus can not live seperate from the mother, it is therefore not seperate from the mother until it develops viability.

- - - Updated - - -

It is now up to the pro-abortion crowd to explain when a human life has worth.

We already have, which is why abortion is legal in the USA before viability.

Before a pregnancy develops viability, only the mother can decide if it has value because she is the only one that can help it develop viability.

Once a pregnancy has developed viability, anyone who values it can help it live seperate from the mother.

[Tiwack]

This is why I don't get involved in this debate usually

Its murder of a baby vs enslavement of a woman.

Whats worse lol.

Women can have multiple babies down the line so if one is unwanted or killing her during a pregnancy you help the woman while the kid in the oven is secondary to her life and wellbeing. Reproduction don't have to be two sides of the same coin but you can make it out like that if you want in an attempt to simplify out of the thousands different scenarios.

[Nasuuna]

Women can have multiple babies down the line so if one is unwanted or killing her during a pregnancy you help the woman while the kid in the oven is secondary to her life and wellbeing. Reproduction don't have to be two sides of the same coin but you can make it out like that if you want in an attempt to simplify out of the thousands different scenarios.

Tell the media that. I'm well aware there are different circumstances which is why, to quote Dave Rubin "Begrudgingly pro choice".

I don't like it but its not my place.

The debate is always framed as slavery vs murder though.

[Mistame]

Stop bringing back month-old threads.

[Spectral]

Why are women not simply saying "I reserve my right to privacy" as an answer to all these nutters asking them questions about their private healthcare?

Wouldn't that shut them down quicker then "It's my right to abort!"?

Roe v Wade

"The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."

It's actually pretty funny to look at the actual text of the 14th Amendment and try to figure out how one would divine a "right to privacy" that protects abortion:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

One could scarcely come up with a better example of how the term "great legal mind" basically refers to the ability to make up bizarre host hoc justifications for whatever outcome a justice would like.

[Total Crica]

It's actually pretty funny to look at the actual text of the 14th Amendment and try to figure out how one would divine a "right to privacy" that protects abortion:

One could scarcely come up with a better example of how the term "great legal mind" basically refers to the ability to make up bizarre host hoc justifications for whatever outcome a justice would like.

Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut


- - - Updated - - -

Tell the media that. I'm well aware there are different circumstances which is why, to quote Dave Rubin "Begrudgingly pro choice".

I don't like it but its not my place.

The debate is always framed as slavery vs murder though.

Any man that doesn't want a woman to have the ability to abort can simply not give her his sperm.

Any woman that doesn't want to abort doesn't have to. (although it could endanger her life in some cases if she remains pregnant, ectopic pregnancies happen 1 in 50, and are fatal 100% of the time if not aborted, for example)

Abortion is a woman's personal reproduction health choice, not a national one, especially in a nation that refuses to offer national healthcare coverage to ensure all it's citizens remain healthy.

[Spectral]

Although the Bill of Rights[I] does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Right, like I said - it's pretty funny how legal scholars manage to read whatever they want to believe into text that just doesn't really say that.

[Total Crica]

Right, like I said - it's pretty funny how legal scholars manage to read whatever they want to believe into text that just doesn't really say that.

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

Procedural due process requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. When the government seeks to deprive a person of one of those interests, procedural due process minimally requires for the government to afford the person notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision made by a neutral decisionmaker.

Roe v Wade was that due process, and the decision that came from that due process was that women have a right to privacy before their pregnancies are viable because the state's interest only extends to pregnancies they have the ability to protect, viable ones. The state doesn't have the ability to protect non-viable pregnancies.