How to overturn Roe v. Wade

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 280
#31
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Irrelevant. Anything or anyone using her body for any purpose are subject to her sovereignty. 
Sovereignty is a separate argument from the unborn’s body and ending its life which is currently being discussed so if anything is irrelevant it’s the sovereignty variable your now trying to factor into the equation.

Are you disagreeing with my characterization of the Hyde amendment? If so, be explicit. Your link appears to substantiate my description.
No I’m not I stand corrected but that doesn’t negate the fact that it isn’t a privacy matter in the cases where the exceptions are involved.

Rights aren't something that can be taken away like privileges. Rights are irrevocable (unalienable) - see Declaration of Independence.
Well in that case countries where abortion is illegal rights aren’t being violated?

#32
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
Unfortunetly he does it when they can feel the most pain.
The gift of life makes it all worth it (in cases where people live a long full life).

#33
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
Irrelevant. Anything or anyone using her body for any purpose are subject to her sovereignty. 
Sovereignty is a separate argument from the unborn’s body and ending its life which is currently being discussed so if anything is irrelevant it’s the sovereignty variable your now trying to factor into the equation.
No, bodily sovereignty is extremely relevant. If you park your car on my property, your property rights for your car do not outweigh my property rights of the land you've parked on - I have the ultimate authority. It is the same with bodily autonomy.

Rights aren't something that can be taken away like privileges. Rights are irrevocable (unalienable) - see Declaration of Independence.
Well in that case countries where abortion is illegal rights aren’t being violated?
Roe v Wade is exclusive to America, and that is the context of this thread. 
#34
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
If no one is actually right.

And no one is actually wrong.

Then it doesn't matter.

Because there is a continuous stalemate.
#35
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
If you park your car on my property, your property rights for your car do not outweigh my property rights of the land you've parked on - I have the ultimate authority. 
Except the context of this discussion is the body of the unborn and ending its life, cars and land are irrelevant in this sense and have nothing to do with that.

Rights aren't something that can be taken away like privileges.
No one said anything about taking legal rights away, legal rights (among many other things in life) have conditions and includes but aren’t limited to being absolute, for example we have freedom of speech in certain aspects of America yet that freedom comes with exceptions as well like we can’t scream FIRE! in a public crowded setting if there isn’t one and not reasonably expect for there to be no repercussions for doing so. I can even use your example against you when you said

EXCEPT for cases of rape, incest, or when someone's life is in danger.

#36
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
But before you can say that no one is actually right or wrong it’s required that you actually know what both those two terms mean.

#37
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
No.

Because right and wrong are always assumptions, based upon variable criteria.

So consequently, what one person assumes to be right or wrong, may not concur with another persons assumptions based upon differing criteria.

Like you and I for example.

And given that there is no known universal constant, then we can never be right or wrong within that context.


So we might decide on collective social agreements regarding right and wrong, but even these vary considerably.....The abortion issue for example.

But even so, in the absence of a known greater authority, no one is actually right or actually wrong....."Actually" being the key defining word in this statement.
#38
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
And given that there is no known universal constant, then we can never be right or wrong within that context.
So if one were to kill you and your entire family then they wouldn’t be wrong for doing so?
#39
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
If you park your car on my property, your property rights for your car do not outweigh my property rights of the land you've parked on - I have the ultimate authority. 
Except the context of this discussion is the body of the unborn and ending its life, cars and land are irrelevant in this sense and have nothing to do with that.

Do you think I'm talking about something other than pregnancy? The analogy is relevant although I am willing to except it is imperfect for comparison to pregnancy.

The point is each and every one of us has property rights to our bodies. That means we get to decide who interacts with our body and how. Under no circumstances can someone else's bodily autonomy overule our own within our own body.

Rights aren't something that can be taken away like privileges.
No one said anything about taking legal rights away,
You're being dishonest. You were arguing  if taxpayer dollars were involved there is no right to privacy. Thats not just a limitation, thats forfeiture. When questioned, you agreed rights can be invalidated:

Secondly, taxpayer dollars ďo not invalidate rights. Listen to what you're saying, bud.
They do if the right being discussed is privacy because paying taxes isn’t a private matter it’s a public one
==========================================

I can even use your example against you when you said

EXCEPT for cases of rape, incest, or when someone's life is in danger.
More dishonesty. In context, it is clear I was talking about the Hyde Amendment:

The Hyde amendment prevents the use of taxpayer funds on abortion EXCEPT for cases of rape, incest, or when someone's life is in danger.
Listen, I have no problem accepting rights are necessarily limited. However, I don't see how the 'limitation' you're implying (forced birth) can be anything except a revocation of rights.

#40
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Under no circumstances can someone else's bodily autonomy overule our own within our own body.
But it should if taking that someone else’s bodily autonomy is equivalent to killing them.

Thats not just a limitation, thats forfeiture.
Not in situations where taxpayer dollars aren’t involved.

More dishonesty. In context, it is clear I was talking about the Hyde Amendment:
And so am I the exceptions of the Hyde amendment are also the exceptions to the privacy argument.

#41
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
Under no circumstances can someone else's bodily autonomy overule our own within our own body.
But it should if taking that someone else’s bodily autonomy is equivalent to killing them.

By that justification, self defense in which someone dies is wrong. It seems you're not considering the broader implications of your position. 

More dishonesty. In context, it is clear I was talking about the Hyde Amendment:
And so am I the exceptions of the Hyde amendment are also the exceptions to the privacy argument.

That's your assumption - which I don't agree with. Just because I described the exceptions allowed for by the Hyde amendment doesn't mean I think those are exceptions to a right to privacy.

Your view is a nonsequitor as far as I am concerned. I mean, if someone received a government grant for, say, tuition, does that mean they forfeit their right to privacy? No, of course not.
#42
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
1. Within a specific social system, this would be deemed to be wrong.

But this is not the point that I am making.


2. Within the same specific system, early term abortion is currently deemed to be right.


In the absence of a greater authority, it is impossible to know if either of these two collective decisions is actually right or wrong.


Within the context of the same system..... 1. might appear to contradict 2. and vice versa......But this is just reflective of the wider human tendency to be morally selective.



#43
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
By that justification, self defense in which someone dies is wrong. It seems you're not considering the broader implications of your position. 
Again just like legal rights (among many other things in life) have conditions so does killing and should be dealt with accordingly not just painted with a broad brush, so what’s the difference between the former and the latter? Well one includes an innocent unborn human child and the other includes a guilty assailant. I know I didn’t mention the term innocent in my previous argument but that’s because I thought the implication was obvious, apparently not.

Your view is a nonsequitor as far as I am concerned. I mean, if someone received a government grant for, say, tuition, does that mean they forfeit their right to privacy? No, of course not.
If anything’s a non sequitur it’s your use of analogies (which BTW you should just quit while your ahead because they’re never on target) how do you think these college students qualify for these government grants? Through certain information being made PUBLIC and there’s little to no privacy as far as payment is concerned because they’re not the ones paying for all of it. That’s like saying your parents should have no say in your education and in the same breath saying they should pay for it that’s hypocrisy at its finest, can’t have it both ways, you either want your parents PUBLIC financial assistance or you don’t plain and simple.

Side note whether you like it or not the government does have a say in what business are allowed and what aren’t for example I can’t just start my own drug dealing business without reasonably expecting there not to be any consequences for doing so if caught. So if the government wants to shut down every abortion clinic that’s their prerogative and legal right period.
#44
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
But this is not the point that I am making.
Neither am I, I asked YOU a specific question, I said nothing about social systems.

#45
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
By that justification, self defense in which someone dies is wrong. It seems you're not considering the broader implications of your position. 
Again just like legal rights (among many other things in life) have conditions so does killing and should be dealt with accordingly not just painted with a broad brush, so what’s the difference between the former and the latter? Well one includes an innocent unborn human child and the other includes a guilty assailant. I know I didn’t mention the term innocent in my previous argument but that’s because I thought the implication was obvious, apparently not.

You're assuming self defense never involves 2 innocent people. You are also assuming your own conclusion when you attempt to place the unborn in a category of their own. At best, the unborn is a person just like every born individual - and being a person doesn't give someone the right to use the body of another without consent. You're trying to give the unborn special rights.

how do you think these college students qualify for these government grants? Through certain information being made PUBLIC and there’s little to no privacy as far as payment is concerned because they’re not the ones paying for all of it.
That's not an accurate description of the process. Information isn't 'made public' because applicants submit info. ...and even if it were, they would have chosen to do so rather than being forced as you are suggesting. 

Side note whether you like it or not the government does have a say in what business are allowed and what aren’t for example I can’t just start my own drug dealing business without reasonably expecting there not to be any consequences for doing so if caught. So if the government wants to shut down every abortion clinic that’s their prerogative and legal right period.
Drug dealing isn't a right. Abortion is. No legitimate comparison can be made between the two.
#46
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
You're assuming self defense never involves 2 innocent people.
That’s because it doesn’t.

You are also assuming your own conclusion when you attempt to place the unborn in a category of their own.
What category is that?

and being a person doesn't give someone the right to use the body of another without consent.
This is circular logic and has been already addressed.

You're trying to give the unborn special rights.
No, just the right to life that you and I already have, you’re just trying to give the unborn no rights at all.

Information isn't 'made public' because applicants submit info
The common denominator is still the same and that’s publicity.

Drug dealing isn't a right. Abortion is. No legitimate comparison can be made between the two.
It’s more fitting then any of the comparisons you’ve made so far and neither one of those scenarios are rights, there’s nothing right about killing an innocent child it’s wrong period.
#47
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Tarik
There’s nothing right about killing an innocent child period.
God doesn't think so.
So a guy named Eliseus was traveling to Bethel when a bunch of kids popped up and made fun of him for being bald. That had to suck, and you can't blame Eliseus for being pissed and cursing them to God. But God had Eliseus' back, by which I mean he sent two bears to maul 42 of these kids to death. For making fun of a bald dude. I have to think Eliseus was looking for something along the lines of a spanking, or maybe the poetic justice of having the kids go bald, but nope, God went straight for the bear murder. But on the plus side, that pile of 40+ children's corpses never made fun of anybody again. (4 Kings 2:23-24)
#48
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
You're assuming self defense never involves 2 innocent people.
That’s because it doesn’t.
In your world, perhaps, but in the real world people can feel their life is in danger when it is not.

You are also assuming your own conclusion when you attempt to place the unborn in a category of their own.
What category is that?
A category where other people's rights are merely suggestions.

and being a person doesn't give someone the right to use the body of another without consent.
This is circular logic and has been already addressed.
Where is the circularity? Rights are shields, not clubs, my man. Bodily autonomy is a right, meaning I alone control my body and no one (not even if they are *in* my body) gets to say otherwise. 

Drug dealing isn't a right. Abortion is. No legitimate comparison can be made between the two.
It’s more fitting then any of the comparisons you’ve made so far and neither one of those scenarios are rights, there’s nothing right about killing an innocent child it’s wrong period.
Abortion is a Constitutional right. The point stands.
#49
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@FLRW
There’s nothing right about killing an innocent child period.
God doesn't think so.

Agreed. Besides that, killing the innocent is literally what Christianity is built on...Jesus Christ.


#50
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
Why are you quoting The Bible?
#51
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Tarik

Because God is not on Facebook.
#52
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
In your world, perhaps, but in the real world people can feel their life is in danger when it is not.
Not meaning not in danger, not in danger meaning not self defense period.

A category where other people's rights are merely suggestions.
No I’m not, the only right that’s relevant here is the right to life.

Where is the circularity?
When you began with an argument I already addressed and ended with that same argument.

Abortion is a Constitutional right. The point stands.
No one’s disputing that however what it should be is something different.
#53
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
Why are you mentioning Facebook?
#54
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Tarik

Why isn't God on Facebook?  Why do we have to read something written thousands of years ago?
#55
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
Again don’t know why your asking me about Facebook and I never said that you had to read anything.
#56
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
So Tarik.

What do you know, that no one else is able to know?


#57
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Why are you asking me that? It seems the recurring theme is always the same with me and you, you’re either going to engage or your not the choice is yours.
#58
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Nope Tarik

You make  remarks and ask questions, obviously relative to your own agenda.

An agenda that you seemingly avoid disclosing.


You should know by now that I base my ideas solely upon internal data management and the variability thereof.

So, I'm simply asking...What is the basis of your understanding of right and wrong?


#59
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
You make  remarks and ask questions, obviously relative to your own agenda.
So do you but you’ve yet to answer mine.

An agenda that you seemingly avoid disclosing.
But you just said my agenda was obvious 🤔.

You should know by now that I base my ideas solely upon internal data management and the variability thereof.
All I know is your unwillingness to answer my question but that’s fine we’ve spoken at length on this very thing through PM’s and forums like this that you also haven’t answered so it still baffles me why you responded to me in this forum when I never sent for you in the first place.
#60
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Your "obvious" agenda currently...Is not letting on.

You questioned my knowledge of right and wrong.

And I responded.


So what is your knowledge of right and wrong?


When I never sent for you.
I am not your servant.....I read threads and comment accordingly....I do not require approval.