Total posts: 3,383
I can't think of any logical counter argument to what he has said, but I'd like to see someone try.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
there is no constitutional right to fly that I know of, also there is a presumption on innocence until proven guilty. if you believe someone is dangerous enough to take away their rights how about we just lock people up because they might be dangerous or might commit a crime? doesn't that sound like a good plan?
Created:
-->
@DarthVader1
Women can steal a man's sperm and force him to pay for the baby afterwards
hahaha the can be forced to pay child support for a child that isn't even theirs!!
for example there is a case, maybe more than one which the woman gives birth to twins, one white one black (yes it is possible just really rare) the husband had to support both even though one of them was obviously not his, paternity test proved it, not like it was needed but....
This is just a glimpse into our legal system.
Created:
-->
@FaustianJustice
then why hasn't it and why doesn't it? I believe that is all Roe v Wade did was reaffirm and spell out the protection of privacy etc https://www.thoughtco.com/roe-v-wade-overview-3528244
there is no law that I can think of that would prevent a state to regulate healthcare services via regulations, licences and privileges to prevent doctors from preforming or limiting them.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
They have conceded the fact that the fetus/baby is not part of the body and a separate thing. This is proven by the use of such terms as parasite coupled with the arguments about her bodily resources being used etc. So it comes back to, at what point is it unnecessary to kill the baby when it can be removed alive? Then there's the pain, heart beat, brain waves ...... It will be interesting to see how it goes.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Which post did I say "women have no bodily autonomy"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes we do, but when it's pointed out several times and the person continues that really is the only thing that can be deduced It's not the first time he lies about what I say, there is a history.
I believed you asked him for the definition which he didn't and couldn't do. I suggested he start with the the condition that it must have human DNA. Instead of that he asked me for a definition which he quoted, primate, Homo sepian which he tried to apply to kangaroos. Now mind you I just got back from the e.r. So I'm still a bit loopy lol
Created:
-->
@FaustianJustice
But they wouldn't persue the claim because she doesn't have to speak. If you think about it neither does the doctor. I don't see any way to prosecute. However restricting the doctor via license seems very plausible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
He doesn't understand what the term Homo sapiens means or refers to even though he quoted exactly what I wrote. He's just not very bright.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
How am I doing that? Do you think I'm a lawmaker? I only invade a woman's body with consent
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Was it the Homo sapiens that tripped you up genius? Maybe you haven't covered that in school yet, which then I would owe you an apology otherwise what I said is all correct. Saying that you aren't very bright isn't an insult it's an observation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
what he believed is in conflict with the difference between rights and privileges, I give no credence to his opinions. the link shows a pretty good distinction, which is what I said previously.
rights can't be taken away, though you can forfeit them by your actions, like committing a crime, privileges on the other hand, what is give/granted can also be taken away. I just can't see how anyone could argue otherwise.
so regardless of which side you are on, the Doctor has NO right to perform an abortion. In fact he has NO right to practice medicine. He gets the PRIVILEGE to do so via his state granted licence which can be taken away.
so let's boil this down IF there is a right to an abortion, then that only extents to one's self, or self abortion. If you attempt or succeed in hurting yourself the government will intervene, there are laws against self harm.
Abortion could be considered as self harm. Does she have the right to self harm, maybe, maybe not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Created:
here's what a wrote in post #162 hold my hand and I'll walk you down the path ok? good boy
the right to privacy and 5th amendment, she doesn't have to tell or admit anything.
let me know if any of those words gives you trouble, they aren't big or complicated but you seem to have some kind of difficulty or disability.
I'm not the first or only person who has provided this information, why you seem to be the only one who doesn't understand it boggles the mind.
You can look up HIPAA on your own, don't be scared.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Kangaroos are marsupials.
Primates include monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas and the like. No. Primates are placental mammals, and marsupials are a separate group of mammals.
you just aren't very bright are you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Says the person who doesn't even know something doesn't have value until something values it. The government values the constitution therefore it is protected and enforced. You can't even understand a simply concept yet I am supposed to make a thread about it for you to have a take like the one you gave.
lol backtracking again I see, never said the government doesn't enforce the rights set forth by the constitution and bill of rights, there you go lying again in an attempt to deflect from being wrong. you are pathetic
ok kid here ya go, happy now?
a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
you are ignorant about the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights, but feel free to start a topic about it because you are wrong for a variety of historical, legal and factual reasons.
you pick a definition, it's your thread.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
What right do you have to know that a woan is pregnant?
omg are you seriously that dense? Is that even possible that anyone could be? is that a serious quest or are you some kind of pathetic troll?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
How could you be aware the right to privacy of the fetus if you haven't already abused the rights of the woman.
How can you type with your head so far up your own ass?
Right to privacy for the woman, that's what he and I were talking about, plain as day. Your comprehension is horrible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Rights are given and enforced by the government and you haven't explained how I am wrong.
"The Constitution's first three words—We the People—affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens."
The Constitution and Bill of Rights is a recognition of inalienable rights, they are not given/granted by government, if they were they wouldn't be rights they would be privileges.
So there you go I've explained how you are wrong, easy enough.
What makes a human?
Created:
-->
@FaustianJustice
except for the right to privacy and 5th amendment, she doesn't have to tell or admit anything. I'm not sure if doctor/patient relationship is similar to that of client/attorney but regardless the rights mentioned still stand as does HIPAA privacy.
2 have ever been prosecuted, ever?
as far as a body being commandeered unless a woman can grow 2 more arms, legs and in some cases a penis, I would say that body is a separate entity. Yes rights can be trumped by other's rights in some situations, I've already posted about that. My right to defend my life can trump your right to life in certain circumstances. Happens all the time, nothing new.
There is no right to an abortion I don't believe Roe v Wade has ever been interpreted that way.
if you attempt or do hurt yourself the state steps in then, you can't sell one of your kidneys, you can't have something removed so you could be considered "disabled" this bodily autonomy sees to have it's limits, could a conjoined twin have the other killed?
But we both know what the intent of the law is and that it will never stand as it is, if at all. It's fun to discuss though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
One thing I have noted from Omar is a tendency indicative of a conservative approach as it pertains to killing.
I once heard an analogy about this issue, though not a great one there are somethings to take away from it. You are driving down a dark road and see something on the side of the road that may or may not be a person. Imo the natural reaction is to slow down, proceed with extra caution......because it might be a life or not, since you aren't sure there seems to be a natural inclination to side with caution.
which then goes to
If something is a gray area, then it must be justified, or we best not do it, which is consistent with his approach towards sentient animals in addition to humans
ever hit an animal with a car? maybe killed it? I have, felt terrible about it too.
this is what separates us from animals, they don't show remorse or compassion when killing, they just kill, not good, not bad it's what they do, most of us are not animals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
what I find interesting and perhaps what should be discussing is the question with no answer, what is a human life, person etc As you said it is subjective and on many levels. Often the question of x when meet with why is easily changed to "because I feel" and if you can do that it's just feelings or some other arbitrary reason.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you believe that "all men are created equal"?
though I couldn't begin to imagine and hope/pray whatever that I never do, parents can make DNR decisions for their children. So it's all good and fine to prevent the miscarriages but I'd want to know why they are miscarrying and whether it makes sense to prevent it or not, which I don't think the study accounted for. The study also is about couples taking a pro active approach before the pregnancy occurs not so much after the pregnancy and once the miscarriage starts.
yes, we are all one sperm and one egg, can't get more equal than that.
Famous quote "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should"
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Civil rights law, Roe v. Wade, anything you disagree with or argue in favor of changing.
not as I currently understand the law insofar as it pertains to individuals. I don't believe that right is extended to the doctors however, but again I won't pretend that I understand it fully since some who are actually in the business have issues with it.
With normal care, we would expect to have a living breathing infant within nine months.
I see what you are saying, but I do not believe there are any laws that require a person to save another, there is no duty in that respect, that I know of.
There was an interesting video I saw long time ago. This doctor was studying why couples who were trying to have a child kept miscarrying. What he found (don't recall the %) was that the couple were genetically similar, like brother and sister. To combat this problem the woman was basically given anti-rejection drugs and with that he had an 80% success rate. LOL what a great idea, prevent genetic incest from aborting.
So again just because they are preventable doesn't mean they should be because they do happen for beneficial reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
I am TheDredPriateRoberts and I approve this message.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't simultaneously attack the law when you don't agree with it and then hide behind it when it suits your mood.
attacking which law? not sure what you are talking about here
We're talking about preventable miscarriages. Did a woman take every precaution to protect the unborn embryo/fetus?
so a miscarriage will mean the fetus/baby whatever will leave the woman's body and die, it's going to die, or is in such a state that it will die, lack quality of life etc, like a person on life support, terminal disease etc DNR applies.
What about accidental miscarriages that result from irresponsible or reckless behavior? How are those materially distinct from manslaughter?
Involuntary manslaughter is the homicide of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories, constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.
Involuntary Manslaughter
maybe, dunno, I can certainly see why you would pose such a question and scenario, well done.
I think it's possible, however the woman doesn't have to admit or confess to it which is basically the ruling of Roe v. Wade
You maybe technically correct, I could see that, in practicability it would be a very rare occurrence indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Rights are given by the government. Why should the government not give rights to the unborn which are the future generation?
they are not given by the government in the U.S. which country are we talking about because that would make a difference.
Some would argue abortion is a good thing because of the disproportionate number of black women who have them. Perhaps being pro-death can be because of racism to some people, racists don't think straight to begin with but I could see them thinking that way.
each human has unique human dna, perhaps start there as a basis for a human life.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) embryo/fetus = child (THEN) Refusing to properly take care of yourself in order to protect your unborn child is child-abuse and if it results in a miscarriage it is murder/manslaughter.
that has been addressed with the links to legal discussions and laws I have already posted.
(IFF) miscarriage is D.N.R. (THEN) abortion is D.N.R.You can't have it both ways.
sigh, what aren't you understanding here? Miscarriages happen for natural causes all the time, it's very common and can have nothing to do with neglect or any human purposeful action, unlike abortions.
to purposefully cause a miscarriage is the same as an abortion, that's what the morning after bill does for instance. Self induced abortion.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If someone poisons or otherwise neglects their child to death (preventable miscarriage), a D.N.R. will not fix the problem.
sure but you didn't qualify it the first time so......
to prevent a miscarriage a woman may have to stay off her feet for months, she may wish not to do that and let nature take it's course, aka DNR
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
These conversations have been largely theoretical
they are and have to be since we are not on the Supreme Court nor are we mind readers and fortune tellers.
An embryo/fetus cannot sign a D.N.R.
you don't know what a D.N.R. is then or how they work, medical power of attorney etc it's all related.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
great point, collecting the money is a whole different ball of wax, imo it doesn't make sense to bog down the already overloaded system. It's near impossible to get real justice in many of these violent cases imo. Personally I'm partial to a more medieval form of justice, I'd let the victim determine the punishment if they wanted for really awful cases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If the accusation is false and brought to court, the "victim" gets the penalty that the "rapist" would have received.
the court system couldn't handle it, look at how things are now.
There's a registry for pedophiles, is there one for rapist? I don't think there is, but perhaps depending on the situation they could be added to a list for a certain period of time?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
cash wards means more false accusations in the hopes of a settlement or big windfall, really bad idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Capital crimes are virtually non existent in China.
I've heard they harvest kidneys etc from prisoners, so killing them off would put a damper on that market.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Snoopy
10 to 99. I believe the law is designed as a statement piece to say "this is a human being". It takes effect in 6 months according to my sources
oh I know this is all about forcing the Supreme Court's hand which is a great idea and I'm fine with that. Also there's the State's rights issue to be considered as well. Was it Missouri or some state declared all federal gun laws void, something to that effect, that also is a good thing imo.
3BU7AL It is believed the same gangs that prompted the family’s move to Austin are the ones responsible for his murder.
you are really off your game, 2 people having consensual sex isn't anything remotely related to someone being in the country illegally or determined by a court to have insufficient reason to stay in the U.S.
How many deportations directly cause a death and how many abortions directly cause a death?
Preventable miscarriage = child abuse and murder/manslaughter.
Preventable miscarriage = D.N.R.
links in #141 btw
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I really wish the retard would stop referring to things Grey Parrot is saying to me.
lol ikr, he sure is "special"
You can drink and do drugs if pregnant as long as you are not using illegal ones. We have all kinds of clients on subutex and suboxone legally who are pregnant and we can't do anything about it.
you are right, but after delivery on the other hand....depends on the state of course.
(2015) Tennessee became the first state to define drug use during pregnancy as a crime. Women whose newborns test positive for narcotic drugs can be charged with assault and punished with up to 15 years in prison.
And I would say law enforcement does get involved when they are court ordered into treatment programs.
although it's from 1992
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So you don't think that the male should be "responsible for their own actions"?
read all my replies, if you want the male to be responsible then he also gets a say on whether to kill it or not, you can't have it both ways.
Deportation can often be a death-penalty.
dude come on, that is so lame, seriously, deportation doesn't have to end in death, abortions do, it's not even a comparison or argument.
punishment imposed on the woman should also be imposed on the man (for their irresponsible behavior).
there isn't any punishment for the woman, except for some extremely old cases (2 or 3) there never has been
(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) miscarriage = manslaughter.
that's just retarded, death of natural causes DOES NOT = manslaughter
would the doctor get prison time or just loose is licence and ability to practice medicine in that state? I'm not sure what the proposed punishment is, I haven't looked into it that deeply.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If a woman is forced to carry a baby daddy should be established through dna and forced to work and pay for the kid. Or do time.
the other perspective is to look at it as not forcing the woman to carry a baby, but to not kill a baby. I mean law enforcement can even get involved if the woman is abusing drugs or alcohol when pregnant. So if there's protection for the baby from those things certainly there must be protection for the baby from willful death right?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@3RU7AL
Mostly because the woman seems to get the lion's share of the blame.
news flash, life isn't fair lol
The purpose of abortion isn't to kill. The purpose is to remove the embryo. Ectogenesis for the win!!
regardless, you know by "deporting" a fetus/baby/human/person it/they will die, TOTALLY different than sending an illegal back home
Polytheist-Witch
Let's see Dr goes to prison. Women go to prison. Baby daddy nothing
the woman doesn't go to prison and see above, life in fact is not fair, that's just how it is. Unless you want to give the baby daddy a say on whether to abort or not then sure he'd be responsible, want to go there?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It takes 2 so no idea why you'd bring up just one sex. The purpose of deportation isn't to kill is it? Siberia isn't near the U. S.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
no but if you invite someone in and they bring someone you didn't anticipate you can't kill them.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
actions have consequences, you don't get claim ignorance and there are prices to pay, ask someone who drinks, drives and kills someone.
both people can use and have access to birth control, sex is not necessary or compulsory, you can just say no, there's alternatives to intercourse that can not lead to pregnancy.
There is no reasonable excuse to shirk your responsibilities of your actions.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
An agreement to engage in intercourse is not an invitation to host an embryo.
you know and accept the risk, so yes it is an agreement, just because you regret your choice doesn't mean you didn't enter into it knowingly and willfully.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
States place limitations on where, when, and who can use deadly force, and the extent of force allowed. As with any self-defense theory, the burden of proof for a Castle Doctrine defense is on the defendant.
The second component is that the victim must be attempting to commit or have committed an unlawful entry into the defendant’s home.
(that could potentially apply to rape, but nothing else)
The third component of the Castle Doctrine is proving that the use of deadly force was reasonable.
(so I guess if a reasonable case can be made that the woman is/was in fear of her life that possibly it could work, however with medicine being what it is I don't see how that could be even possible)
(interesting theory though)
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
So women need to declare their bodies their castle and termination of the pregnancy would fall under Castle Law.
I can see how that could apply if the mother's life was at risk.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Please explain why the right to self defense trumps the rights of your assailant and also why it is (apparently) more important than the right to bodily autonomy.We can then examine the issue further.
self defense does not equal the right to kill, death can be a result from defending one's self, you have the right to protect yourself from harm that is all, the consequences and results from that action is when the law comes into place and determines if you were justified or not.
abortion always ends in death, the debate is what is being killed and if it should be protected or not.
medical abortion because of the mother's physical risk is basically self defense.
you can't use potentially deadly force just because someone shoves you so there are limits to self defense as to the level of force you can use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
one of the very basic elements to have rights is to not be dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
At death, your correct. At death, you own nothing.
actually that's a great argument, you no longer have any rights......interesting.
Created: