How many men have no clue

a reply to: TheRedneck
Yup, that confirms it.
Reading Comprehension is tied to the genocide spectrum.

She could have gotten pregnant through consensual sex. It does happen, you know. Kids are curious critters. So that would take the "no consent" out of the question... or would it? A 10-year-old can't give consent. But what if she was 14? 16? Many 16-year-olds have successfully given birth... to a child they have no idea how to raise. So now this high school child has a child and will likely be unable to finish her education. She will be poor for the rest of her life, and so will the child. Neither will have the same freedoms to enjoy their life that we take for granted.

i

Read it again:

You, like many here, are using Faulty Generalizations to try and prove a point.
In the case of the 10 YO girl? The pregnancy, whether by choice or not, would endanger her life and we have already covered that.

ETA:
You are mistaken about my knowledge of the law.
Very much so.

I just understand that human beings exist outside of the USA.
Human Rights transcend our laws and the constitution.
Y'all aren't there yet....
Eventually though, probably way after we are gone, people will look back on abortion like we do on the Holocaust and Slavery.

As I said before, you're a stickler for "law". You see EVERYTHING through the lens of US law.
Somethings, such as basic human rights, transcend law.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Are you dead yet?
No?
Then you are still developing.

a reply to: Quadrivium

What makes a people? Magic?

Being born.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

What makes a people? Magic?

Being born.

And what's the difference 5 minutes before birth?

Dp

a reply to: Quadrivium

First breath, the "cutting of the cord"....

A certificate of live birth. A birthday and an age.

a reply to: Quadrivium

You read the first four sentences and apparently stopped. You are not considering the totality of my position. Yes, it involves law, as well as science and philosophy... precious little that matters does not. i find it astonishing that we have argued together about the scientific aspect and you apparently thought I was making a good argument... but now, when we look at the legal aspect of things, you accuse me of lacking reading comprehension while refusing to even look at the totality of what I said.

Yes, human rights trump US law. I do not disagree with that, but we in the USA do have to live under US law. The abortion issue is a legal one, which is only driven by science and philosophy. If it were not legal, why was Roe v. Wade, a legal decision from the highest court, struck down in a legal decision? Why are the various states scrambling to criminalize or legalize abortion?

Because abortion is a matter of law. Reproduction is a matter of science. There is nothing to argue over about reproduction; those with an elementary education should know how that works. But law is not completely dependent on science, and neither should it be. Science changes with every new discovery; laws are typically difficult to change.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Quadrivium

Then you are still developing.

That is such a BS answer. I'm no where near what I was 10 years ago much less 40 years ago.

I just want you to actually answer my question then we can have a conversation, what you have said so far in 100 lines it just side stepping what the OP is talking about. If you do not want to talk about the OP then move on, I get it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

First breath, the "cutting of the cord"....

A certificate of live birth. A birthday and an age.

So 5 mins before birth the mother says F it , kill the thing, and so instead of delivering the child they stick a rod in its head and suck out the brains then deliver it dead. Is that what you are saying here?

I find both you and Quadrivium equally frustrating even being on the total opposite of the sep4ctrum. I find it crazy I'm arguing with both of you, so maybe you both are just totally F'd in you views.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So 5 mins before birth the mother says F it , kill the thing, and so instead of delivering the child they stick a rod in its head and suck out the brains then deliver it dead. Is that what you are saying here?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that personhood is bestowed on persons born.

Nobody is advocating for on demand abortion on a viable, healthy fetus. Not now, and not before Roe was overturned.

There is a place for late term abortions, when the fetus is diseased, or the mother's health and life are at risk. I'm not here to argue on that front. Although I do think that it's correct to consider the life of the mother over the life of the fetus in those rare cases.

I'm here to argue on behalf of women who seek on demand abortion pre-viability.

You've mentioned the EU, and that some countries only allow on demand abortion up to 12-15 weeks. That would be an acceptable scenario if the USA also had free universal health care and state sponsored abortions, so women wouldn't have to scramble to find a clinic, travel arrangements, childcare, the $$$ for it all, then have a vaginal ultra-sound, see a screen shot of the fetus, listen to a "heart-beat", undergo counseling and waiting period before having the procedure.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

First breath, the "cutting of the cord"....

A certificate of live birth. A birthday and an age.

So you agree.
Other than legalese.
It's the lawful killing of a human beng.

a reply to: TheRedneck
I read your other post in it's entirety.
I disagreed.
We do see many things in like fashion, concerning the law.

The point I am/was making is that human rights transcend the law.
You agree .
Then you add a "but".
My point:
Our laws do not goverern the world.
Our laws are not always just, no Country's are.
They will change; regardless of the difficulty, in time.
As I said, people in the future will look back in horror, as we do now, looking at the many atrocities we "justified".

Our attitudes and the way we think will have to change first.
I, along with many others, are there.
We are just waiting for the rest, on the spectrum of genocide, to catch up.
As Sookie said.
I am stuck on abortion on demand.
It is MURDER in every way, except legally.
It is the premeditated killing of another human being.
One day we will be able to add the "unlawful" to that definition and define it as it should be defined, murder.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

First breath, the "cutting of the cord"....

A certificate of live birth. A birthday and an age.

So 5 mins before birth the mother says F it , kill the thing, and so instead of delivering the child they stick a rod in its head and suck out the brains then deliver it dead. Is that what you are saying here?

I find both you and Quadrivium equally frustrating even being on the total opposite of the sep4ctrum. I find it crazy I'm arguing with both of you, so maybe you both are just totally F'd in you views.

Brother,
You and Sookie both agree on many things.
The only difference between her argument and yours is, for the most part, "when".

When does a human being become a "person".
When does the Person-hood fairy show up to sprinkle the magic person-hood dust on the insignificant, subhuman, human being to grant it Person-hood.....
Same argument from both of you, for the most part.
She says after birth.
You say somewhere during gestation.
I say it is a human being, regardless.



Oh, what questions have you asked, that I missed and what particular part of the Op would you like me to address?

I changed my mind on what abortion is.

Abortion is the LAWFUL, premeditated killing of another human being (now we just need the "un" to make it complete).

Progress.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I find both [Sookiechacha] and Quadrivium equally frustrating even being on the total opposite of the sep4ctrum.

Once the definitions were clarified, it actually seems you and I are closer on this issue than anyone else. I'll admit, that's not what I would have expected earlier on in the thread. I would personally place the time limit much earlier than you, but I would also allow for more exceptions. I think we are after the same thing: to make abortion safe, legal whenever needed, and rare.

I may come across as somewhat anal on the definitions thing, but there's a good reason: I see words twisted into weapons so much on this issue. One poster likes to post "I SUPPORT LIVING CHILDREN" while advocating for abortion on demand... which is an oxymoron. Another is unable (or unwilling) to differentiate between a human being, a person, and a citizen; they pick and choose whichever term is more defensible to their agenda at that time, as though the words were the same. And those are just two examples of how the words can be twisted and connotated on purpose to support an agenda that otherwise would be seen clearly as unworkable.

Agree on the definitions and all that confusion disappears.

I believe this entire argument is a testament to why the government works the way it is supposed to work. In 1973, a single US Supreme Court decision was made that violated two aspects of law: it added a right to the US Constitution by judicial decree without sufficient basis for doing so, and it tried to legislate from the bench. That lasted for almost 50 years, and took on the role of precedent for other decisions. Neither side saw an absolute victory in that original decision, but both sides tried to use it to have additional cases decided in their favor. In the end, pro-a abortionists won out in that battle and abortions became normalized as an alternate method of birth control. Then the US Supreme Court recognized their error and corrected it. Now no one knows how to react and atrocities are committed on both fronts.

Had an Amendment been passed, it could not have been struck down by judicial decision. Had Congress passed a law, it could be stricken down (10th Amendment), but not nearly as easily. But we took the easy way out and tried to circumvent the law instead of use it properly, and this is the result. Maybe someday reason will return to the debate... but I'm not holding out hope that I will live to see that day.

i remember one thread from years ago. The subject was survival in a SHTF situation, where people would be forced to band together for protection in communities just to survive. One member actually demanded that any group she was a part of would have to consider her "reproductive rights," even in a situation where one member of a community could jeopardize the entire community! I said nothing at the time, but my first thought was, "if I am trying to just survive against roving bands of thieves and wildlife threats, and you brought that up, I would kick your butt to the curb before you could finish your complaint." That level of idiocy would kill more people than the roving bands of thieves. That is how far the cognitive dissonance had progressed, and it is even more pronounced today.

Anyway, I digress...

I find myself in the same situation as you... when someone discounts the rights of the unborn, I feel the need to speak for them. When someone ignores the rights of the mothers, I feel the need to speak out for them as well. I also try to consider the rights of the fathers... sometimes I think I am the only one who speaks out for them. I don't have all the answers, but I think I at least know who all the players are.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Nobody is advocating for on demand abortion on a viable, healthy fetus. Not now, and not before Roe was overturned.

Yes, they are, and yes, they have.

And no, I am not going to provide you with links to what should be common knowledge by now. ATS is filled with threads about leaders openly advocating for abortions to be legal and common right up until the head is about to pop out. You, yourself, refuse to acknowledge that what most people call "partial birth abortion" is actually a D&C procedure that is completely legal. Congress did ban the "Partial Birth Abortion," but defined it so narrowly that it had no real effect.

You simply skim over those reports anyway. You always have since I met you. You advocate through your silence.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xtrozero

That is such a BS answer. I'm no where near what I was 10 years ago much less 40 years ago.

Yet, you are still Developing.
The stages of Human Development are known as the Human Life Cycle.
It is not always a positive growth, but you are still progressing, moving forward, along your life cycle.
Therefore, you are still "developing" because your life cycle is still developing.
You will continue to do so until you die and your life cycle is complete.

a reply to: Quadrivium

I am stuck on abortion on demand.
It is MURDER in every way, except legally.
It is the premeditated killing of another human being.

Legally is all that matters when it comes to murder. Murder is a legal term, not a scientific one: the unlawful killing of another human. Once the term "unlawful" comes into play, the definition is legal.

One day we will be able to add the "unlawful" to that definition and define it as it should be defined, murder.

Perhaps. Mankind can do some pretty screwed up things when they set their minds to it.

But I hope, when all the dust is cleared, that someone will be able to bring reason to this subject. Abortion as birth control is wrong. Abortion is not a right in itself, but can be a necessity at times to procure other human rights. Abortion should be safe, legal when needed, but also rare. That is my goal.

There are many instances where that abortion saves a life by taking one just a little before it will die anyway. There are instances where abortion can save a life as well as take one. You are fixated on the on-demand issue, where I agree with you in principle... but a law does not magically apply to only one group. Laws apply to everyone equally, and must be tailored to allow for the outlier cases as well as the common cases.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Quadrivium

You are stretching the definition of "developing." "Developing" implies a positive change, as in a progress toward optimal. When one moves away from optimal, such as in the later stages of life, it is generally referred to as "regressing."

Xtrozero may be "following" his life cycle (as am I) but that does not necessarily mean he is "developing." Trust me, when you get to our stage of life, you won't consider yourself to be "developing" either.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Quadrivium

None of that changes that the doctors you decided to quote are RWNJ and misappropriaters of other people's work.