@wajoma saidThere was a line and it was both legally tenable and empirically verifiable. If a fetus was not viable outside the womb, it was not an actual human life but only a potential human life, and therefore legally and physically subordinate to the actual life of the mother. If a fetus could survive outside the womb, including in an incubator, then it too was an actual human life, not merely a potential one, and equal to the mother. The recent court decision erased that line.
As far as anyone can ascertain, and we have to guess here because you and kev will do anything to avoid answering a straight question, on one side of the minge it's a parasitical maggot, and on the other side of the minge it's a baby.
I think there's some room for discussion, that the line is a little further back, that you're not even prepared to acknowledge that possibilty confirms your full retard status.
25 Jun 22
@moonbus saidNot everyone agrees on that line, I've been trying to get a definitive answer from suzi, shag and kev for months. They won't go near it, it's like the "What is a woman?" question, they can't bring themselves to answer it, they know the answer but can't say it out loud. So when there is no line we end up with the ridiculous up until birth line which plays right into the hands of the anti-any-abortion mob.
There was a line and it was both legally tenable and empirically verifiable. If a fetus was not viable outside the womb, it was not an actual human life but only a potential human life, and therefore legally and physically subordinate to the actual life of the mother. If a fetus could survive outside the womb, including in an incubator, then it too was an actual human life, not merely a potential one, and equal to the mother. The recent court decision erased that line.
BTW It is my understanding the recent court decision erased that line for the states that choose to go down that road. Happy to be corrected on this.
25 Jun 22
@wajoma saidWhy don’t you define it then?
Not everyone agrees on that line, I've been trying to get a definitive answer from suzi, shag and kev for months.
25 Jun 22
@divegeester saidI don't know, it's something to be determined, I don't believe it's the moment of conception nor is it up until the moments before birth.
Why don’t you define it then?
Suzi, shag and kev refuse to acknowledge it could be anywhere this side of birth. I used to be in that camp, now I see that for what it is; a cop out. At some point a woman must commit to the pregnancy, I don't know where that line is.
25 Jun 22
@wajoma saidIf your this worried about abortion you might as well ban sex before marriage, ban divorce and ban contraception …
I don't know, it's something to be determined, I don't believe it's the moment of conception nor is it up until the moments before birth.
Suzi, shag and kev refuse to acknowledge it could be anywhere this side of birth. I used to be in that camp, now I see that for what it is; a cop out. At some point a woman must commit to the pregnancy, I don't know where that line is.
Oh wait… your still moving aren’t you!!
@wajoma saidNot everyone agreed on the line which Roe vs. Wade established for ideological or religious reasons, but the court is not bound to make ideological much less religious decisions. It is bound to make legal decisions, and, for legal purposes, Roe vs. Wade had the great advantage of being both legally tenable and empirically verifiable.
Not everyone agrees on that line, I've been trying to get a definitive answer from suzi, shag and kev for months. They won't go near it, it's like the "What is a woman?" question, they can't bring themselves to answer it, they know the answer but can't say it out loud. So when there is no line we end up with the ridiculous up until birth line which plays right into the hands ...[text shortened]... ion erased that line for the states that choose to go down that road. Happy to be corrected on this.
Overturning Roe vs. Wade has two great disadvantages: first, it will lead to different laws in different states and no consistency, with the obvious and foreseeable effect of driving people who want abortions into other states to get them. It might even lead to more abortions being performed, if some states decide to allow them after the Roe vs. Wade line.
Second, and potentially devastating for the future of the Supreme Court, it sets the momentous precedent that precedent is meaningless -- it sets the stage for any future Supreme Court to overturn any previous Supreme Court decision arbitrarily. Other court decisions have already held that laws should not be changed arbitrarily; continuity itself is a boon, in law. Overturning Roe vs. Wade was a staggeringly stupid decision which will have consequences far beyond the abortion issue.
@wajoma saidNo. She does not need to commit to the pregnancy.
I don't know, it's something to be determined, I don't believe it's the moment of conception nor is it up until the moments before birth.
Suzi, shag and kev refuse to acknowledge it could be anywhere this side of birth. I used to be in that camp, now I see that for what it is; a cop out. At some point a woman must commit to the pregnancy, I don't know where that line is.
Most women will have by 24 weeks. Because by then the majority will already know what they want.
And for the women that decide at a later stage, it’s generally down to health issues (of either the mother or the foetus). And it is her choice. Her body. Her choice.
25 Jun 22
@divegeester saidGet a clue. It's not an agree/disagree thing.
I’m your “brother” in this thread where you agree with me, but a character-assassinating, RHP-destroying, bullying, troll ashole in any other thread where you disapprove of me!
Interesting.
It's whether your ego can maintain civil discourse without disparaging everyone who has the 'gall' to tell you you're wrong.
Geeeeeez... Just when I thought you might be developing actual human feelings...
25 Jun 22
@shavixmir saidSimple as.
No. She does not need to commit to the pregnancy.
Most women will have by 24 weeks. Because by then the majority will already know what they want.
And for the women that decide at a later stage, it’s generally down to health issues (of either the mother or the foetus). And it is her choice. Her body. Her choice.
But, you know these control-freaks who take Miss Liberty's name in vain...
25 Jun 22
@divegeester saidIf you're going to ban abortion, you cannot ban contraception.
If your this worried about abortion you might as well ban sex before marriage, ban divorce and ban contraception …
Oh wait… your still moving aren’t you!!
You must give women an out somewhere, that is if you don't want a riot on your hands, ending with you either pilloried or hung.
Of course, this is only if you consider women to be autonomous humans, with the same rights as men.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142532
25 Jun 22
@divegeester saidnothing has been banned…quit lying about that
If your this worried about abortion you might as well ban sex before marriage, ban divorce and ban contraception …
Oh wait… your still moving aren’t you!!
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142532
25 Jun 22
@suzianne saidnothing has been banned…quit lying about that.
If you're going to ban abortion, you cannot ban contraception.
You must give women an out somewhere, that is if you don't want a riot on your hands, ending with you either pilloried or hung.
Of course, this is only if you consider women to be autonomous humans, with the same rights as men.