Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind. 2018...

[ATOMonkey]

If you are a fan of any kind of personal freedom, you don't want to advocate this position. This is not a road you want to go down.

Ummmm.... I don't have the right to sex unless I can get a willing partner, at which time it is no longer a right, as it's an agreement between two people.

I don't need anyone else to be able to bear arms, or speak my mind, or worship my God, etc.

 

[indiucky]

Sarah, respectfully what dogs do you have in the fight of "reproductive rights" and or "LGBTQ issues"?

Reproductive rights or the right to kill unborn humans is a mans best friend. Baseball, 1st base, 2nd base, 3rd base, Home Run is the goal of every male from adolescence to the grave. That sounds misogynistic, I know, that is why marriage is so important. I have been married for 35 years and have 5 children.

The play My Fair Lady has a song With a little bit of luck. In the song the men sing "With a little bit of luck you can have it all and not get caught. Once upon we had shotgun wedding. My dad taught my sisters about birth control. You take an aspirin and hold it between your knees. It is said that the only way my one sister ever got married was that she wouldn't "put out" until she had a ring on her finger. She has been married to a really good man for over 50 years.

So it is not the women who benefit from murdering babies it is the men who can continue to sow their wild oats with impunity.

If you are LGBTQ then abortion should not apply. If your concern for LGBTQ is simply altruistic, then it goes back to feelings. The biggest issue today since they can get a marriage license is pronouns, so do you feel that people should be compelled to use made up gender pronouns and accept more than two sexes. The little kid in Kindergarten Cop said it best. The problem is that the LGBTQ rights activists have made kindergarten into indoctrination centers.

[video=youtube;PdpAop7gp0w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdpAop7gp0w[/video]

Seven...Old....White...Dudes.....

Decided Roe V Wade.....

 

[EMDX6043]

" Finally, I think the government should not be involved in these decisions whatsoever. "

Does the funding of certain organizations constitute involvement?

 

[CampingJosh]

Ummmm.... I don't have the right to sex unless I can get a willing partner, at which time it is no longer a right, as it's an agreement between two people.

I don't need anyone else to be able to bear arms, or speak my mind, or worship my God, etc.

That has nothing to do with legislation.

 

[HoughMade]

The pro-abortion position isn't that killing babies is OK; it's that a fetus isn't a person. Nobody is denying that a fetus is alive. Nobody is denying that a fetus has distinct DNA from the woman. They are just saying that a fetus isn't a person and so doesn't deserve the rights of a person...

A great many people who are pro-abortion believe this, certainly. However, I want to be accurate. This was not the basis for Roe v. Wade. That case never decided the personhood of the fetus.. The decision was based upon the idea that regardless of the personhood of the fetus, the woman has a right to ends its life in the first trimester, a limited right to end its life in the second trimester, and may not have the right to end it al all in the third trimester. It was rather arbitrary in this regard, but what defined "person" in regard to the pre-born was not decided.

 

[SarahG]

Does the funding of certain organizations constitute involvement?

Yes. Ideally there would be no government funding involved (that goes for a lot of things).

 

[ATOMonkey]

That has nothing to do with legislation.

It doesn't have anything to do with the price of beans in China either.

I don't understand what is going on here.

The previous post said, "sex is not a right, it's a privilege"

You said, "If you love personal freedom be carefuel" - I assumed you disagreed that sex isn't a right.

 

[Hohn]

You're denying some basic reality here, and in doing so you're attacking a straw man. Of course, the abortion "debate" is really all about straw men on both sides, so nothing here is surprising.

The pro-abortion position isn't that killing babies is OK; it's that a fetus isn't a person. Nobody is denying that a fetus is alive. Nobody is denying that a fetus has distinct DNA from the woman. They are just saying that a fetus isn't a person and so doesn't deserve the rights of a person.

(Note that I never said that this is my position; I only said that the above argument attacks a straw man.)



If you are a fan of any kind of personal freedom, you don't want to advocate this position. This is not a road you want to go down.

Yeah, the whole "it's not a person" thing is rather absurd, but it's the only position they have left. It really is the final admission of how weak their position is. It CAN'T be a person, because then it would be murder and all that.

Yet, if it's not a person, what is it? Is it a dog? A cat? Every living thing produces only after its own kind. So when a person reproduces, of course it's a person.

But because we don't want to accept the unassailable logic, the legal fiction of non-personhood must be contrived.

In other words, abortion advocate want to pretend that their thinking is: "it's not a person, so abortion must be legal" when their ACTUAL thinking is "abortion must be legal, so it CAN'T be a person."

Instead, it's some striking human-like non-person that could be come a person someday and by golly will actually do that in its natural course, but for now it's some clump of tissue with separate DNA that I'm not sure how to describe.


So-- who's got the straw man now?

Oh, and on rights vs privileges, I was speaking ethically, not legally. I'll go down whatever road I dang well please, thank you very much.

 

[HoughMade]

Well all the law of Constitution ever deals with is government action in relation to a claimed right, so....

 

[ATOMonkey]

A great many people who are pro-abortion believe this, certainly. However, I want to be accurate. This was not the basis for Roe v. Wade. That case never decided the personhood of the fetus.. The decision was based upon the idea that regardless of the personhood of the fetus, the woman has a right to ends its life in the first trimester, a limited right to end its life in the second trimester, and may not have the right to end it al all in the third trimester. It was rather arbitrary in this regard, but what defined "person" in regard to the pre-born was not decided.

While true, they did debate quite a bit about when a fetus transitioned from "cells" to a baby, often citing historical text.

I thought the basis for Roe V. Wade was that Texas did not have the authority to regulate abortion. The whole "when does a baby become a person" was part of setting precedence for Federal abortion regulation.

I've been wrong before...

 

[EMDX6043]

Yeah, the whole "it's not a person" thing is rather absurd, but it's the only position they have left. It really is the final admission of how weak their position is. It CAN'T be a person, because then it would be murder and all that.

Yet, if it's not a person, what is it? Is it a dog? A cat? Every living thing produces only after its own kind. So when a person reproduces, of course it's a person.

But because we don't want to accept the unassailable logic, the legal fiction of non-personhood must be contrived.

In other words, abortion advocate want to pretend that their thinking is: "it's not a person, so abortion must be legal" when their ACTUAL thinking is "abortion must be legal, so it CAN'T be a person."

Instead, it's some striking human-like non-person that could be come a person someday and by golly will actually do that in its natural course, but for now it's some clump of tissue with separate DNA that I'm not sure how to describe.


So-- who's got the straw man now?

Oh, and on rights vs privileges, I was speaking ethically, not legally. I'll go down whatever road I dang well please, thank you very much.

My question: If it's not a person, is pregnancy no longer 9 months? When does it officially become a "person"?

And the whole "viability" thing...does that mean someone in a coma isn't "viable", or on a pacemaker, on life support after a car accident, or elderly, or sleeping? I think Ben Shapiro made a more eloquent statement along these lines.

 

[indiucky]

 

[CampingJosh]

A great many people who are pro-abortion believe this, certainly. However, I want to be accurate. This was not the basis for Roe v. Wade. That case never decided the personhood of the fetus.. The decision was based upon the idea that regardless of the personhood of the fetus, the woman has a right to ends its life in the first trimester, a limited right to end its life in the second trimester, and may not have the right to end it al all in the third trimester. It was rather arbitrary in this regard, but what defined "person" in regard to the pre-born was not decided.

I wouldn't call Roe part of the pro-abortion position. It certainly made legislative efforts to ban abortion null, but I don' think you could read the decision and say that it supports the idea that there should be more abortions.

I think it's helpful to separate "pro-choice" from "pro-abortion" in a way that isn't typically done, at least for discussion purposes. After all, the way the discussion is typically done is the two sides talking past each other with no one convinced of anything, so perhaps we should try something different.

It doesn't have anything to do with the price of beans in China either.

I don't understand what is going on here.

The previous post said, "sex is not a right, it's a privilege"

You said, "If you love personal freedom be carefuel" - I assumed you disagreed that sex isn't a right.

The choice to have sexual relations should, I think, fall pretty easily under the umbrella of freedom of association. That's not a right that we would like to have declared instead to be a privilege.

Yeah, the whole "it's not a person" thing is rather absurd, but it's the only position they have left. It really is the final admission of how weak their position is. It CAN'T be a person, because then it would be murder and all that.

Yet, if it's not a person, what is it? Is it a dog? A cat? Every living thing produces only after its own kind. So when a person reproduces, of course it's a person.

But because we don't want to accept the unassailable logic, the legal fiction of non-personhood must be contrived.

In other words, abortion advocate want to pretend that their thinking is: "it's not a person, so abortion must be legal" when their ACTUAL thinking is "abortion must be legal, so it CAN'T be a person."

Instead, it's some striking human-like non-person that could be come a person someday and by golly will actually do that in its natural course, but for now it's some clump of tissue with separate DNA that I'm not sure how to describe.

Do you believe it should be illegal for any human ever to be taken off of a life support machine, as doing such would be murder?

 

[Thor]

Joe D's 'but' moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=36&v=XMDmcCOHa8Y

 

[Leadeye]

When you get old this is one of those problems that solve themselves.

 

[PaulF]

Yeah, the whole "it's not a person" thing is rather absurd, but it's the only position they have left. It really is the final admission of how weak their position is. It CAN'T be a person, because then it would be murder and all that.

Yet, if it's not a person, what is it? Is it a dog? A cat? Every living thing produces only after its own kind. So when a person reproduces, of course it's a person.

But because we don't want to accept the unassailable logic, the legal fiction of non-personhood must be contrived.

In other words, abortion advocate want to pretend that their thinking is: "it's not a person, so abortion must be legal" when their ACTUAL thinking is "abortion must be legal, so it CAN'T be a person."

Instead, it's some striking human-like non-person that could be come a person someday and by golly will actually do that in its natural course, but for now it's some clump of tissue with separate DNA that I'm not sure how to describe.


So-- who's got the straw man now?

Oh, and on rights vs privileges, I was speaking ethically, not legally. I'll go down whatever road I dang well please, thank you very much.

Personhood is a straw man argument, so is the argument they “it’s all they have left”.

Pregnancy is dangerous, life altering, sometimes deadly. No other person has the right to force another person to hurt themselves...that takes consent. I have to be informed and willing to participate, and I can remove my consent.

If a women does not consent to carrying an unborn child, what right does anyone else have to subvert her decisions?

 

[HoughMade]

Personhood is a straw man argument, so is the argument they “it’s all they have left”.

Pregnancy is dangerous, life altering, sometimes deadly. No other person has the right to force another person to hurt themselves...that takes consent. I have to be informed and willing to participate, and I can remove my consent.

If a women does not consent to carrying an unborn child, what right does anyone else have to belay her decisions?

Another position is that no one has the right to kill another person. So there we are.

If there are people who think that the abortion debate is all about control, I urge them to look past their own biases and see that it, largely, is not.

We have been asked to look past our own biases and see that the pro-choice people are not evil and wanting to kill babies. I get that. I believe that.

However, we will always have a fundamental disagreement about whether the baby has a right to not be killed and whether anything can override that.

 

[Breynolds38]

If a women does not consent to carrying an unborn child, what right does anyone else have to belay her decisions?

Apparently belief in Jesus, lawyer-speak, and the deeply felt desire to force other people to live their lives the way you think they should. I'm struggling to find much else.

 

[PaulF]

Another position is that no one has the right to kill another person. So there we are.

If there are people who think that the abortion debate is all about control, I urge them to look past their own biases and see that it, largely, is not.

We have been asked to look past our own biases and see that the pro-choice people are not evil and wanting to kill babies. I get that. I believe that.

However, we will always have a fundamental disagreement about whether the baby has a right to not be killed and whether anything can override that.

Is that a widely-held view, that no homocide is ever justified? I don’t know anyone (personally) who advances that view. We have armed police, a standing army, and the death penalty...it seems our society is really pretty comfortable with homocide more broadly.

I think I’m in agreement with most of you post, though...there is likely to be disagreement forever over whether abortion is justifiable at all, and if so...when.

 

[Breynolds38]

Another position is that no one has the right to kill another person. So there we are.

If there are people who think that the abortion debate is all about control, I urge them to look past their own biases and see that it, largely, is not.

We have been asked to look past our own biases and see that the pro-choice people are not evil and wanting to kill babies. I get that. I believe that.

However, we will always have a fundamental disagreement about whether the baby has a right to not be killed and whether anything can override that.

Tell me your opinions on jacking off, or women having periods. Can we really, in good conscience, allow all of this sperm and all of these unfertilized eggs to be wasted? To die such pointless deaths? Think of all the people that have been lost throughout time due to such carelessness. There ought to be a law.

Edit:

My point is you can go on an on all you want about differing opinions, but as soon as someone puts pen to paper, drafts a law, and passes it restricting the rights of another human being, you're not just hemming and hawing anymore, are you? You're actively oppressing another human being. The idea that you can do so while publicly stating "let's just agree to disagree" is absurd, at best. There is nothing noble about hurting other people so you can feel good about yourself.