Trump official Betsy DeVos says being pro-choice is akin to supporting slavery

  
Via:  tessylo  •  2 months ago  •  99 comments

By:   Zoe Tidman The Independent

Trump official Betsy DeVos says being pro-choice is akin to supporting slavery

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Politics

Trump official Betsy DeVos says being pro-choice is akin to supporting slavery


Zoe Tidman


The Independent January 24, 2020, 7:11 AM EST


491eb8bb7d22aba5f39366b9c44265f6

In March, congress passed a school safety bill that allocated $50m a year to local school districts but expressly prohibited the use of the money for firearms: EPA

A top Trump official has compared people who support   abortion   to those who argued in favour of keeping   slavery   in the US, according to local media.

Betsy DeVos , the US education secretary, reportedly told a Christian university that opponents to the anti-abortion and anti-slavery movements both ignored the “moral” side to the debate.

She said   Abraham Lincoln   — the US president who fought to end to slavery — “too contented with the pro-choice arguments of his day”, according to the   Colorado Times Recorder .

“They suggested that a state’s choice to be a slave or to be free had no moral question in it,” she reportedly told Colorado Christian University. “President Lincoln reminded those pro-choicers that is a vast portion of the American people that do not look upon that matter as being this very little thing.

“They look upon it as a vast moral evil.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly pushed to curb abortion rights in the US, ordering tax-payer funded family planning clinics to stop referring women for abortions earlier this week and promoting anti-abortion figures to important roles,   including on the Supreme Court .

Ms DeVos, who is known for her religious conservatism, reportedly told the Christian university: “There are many in the pro-life movement who heroically work to make abortion unconstitutional.

“Tonight, let’s talk about making it unthinkable.”

The education secretary tweeted after the event: “We had a robust discussion about this administration’s commitment to safeguarding the religious liberty and First Amendment rights of all students.”

Ms DeVos has   a history of opposing LGBT+   and abortion rights, and   once told an interviewer   that she wanted to “help advance God’s kingdom” through US schooling.

Mike Pence, the religious US vice-president, has also   defended his administration’s anti-abortion stance   in the past during a speech to a Christian university, saying they stood “without apology for the sanctity of human life”.


Organisers of anti-abortion rally, March for Life, recently announced that   Mr Trump   is set to become the   first ever US president to attend .

Over the past few years, US states have been proposing stricter abortion laws, with Tennessee’s governor announcing this week that   he plans to ban women from aborting foetuses once a heartbeat   can be detected.

Similar legislation has been passed in other states, such as Mississippi and Georgia, only to be   struck down in courts .

However, Americans have been warned that an increasingly conservative Supreme Court could   threaten women’s constitutional right to abortion .

Research has shown   that most US citizens believe abortion should be legal.

Seventy-nine per cent of those polled said that women — along with their doctors — should decide whether they should continue with a pregnancy, rather than politicians.


Article is Locked

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    2 months ago

I look upon you and your kind as a vast moral evil.

Momma should have swallowed.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1    2 months ago

P.S. phony rich bitch, who asked you?

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @1    2 months ago

Any abortion beyond the first trimester is a moral evil

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @1.2    2 months ago

I think republicans/the gop are a moral evil.  Or immoral evil.  Or amoral evil.

Take your pick.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  WallyW @1.2    2 months ago

Not as "evil" as attempts to limit or eliminate women's rights.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.3  gooseisgone  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.2    2 months ago
attempts to limit or eliminate women's rights.

At what point does it go from a right to murder?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.3    2 months ago
'At what point does it go from a right to murder?'

NEVER

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.3    2 months ago

Birth! Although, elective abortions are not allowed after viability is reached.

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump Fan #1
1.3  Donald J. Trump Fan #1  replied to  Tessylo @1    2 months ago

She’s right on in what she said.  Bravo to her for saying it out loud.  👍👏

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Donald J. Trump Fan #1 @1.3    2 months ago

No, she is not.  She's scum.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

The arguments employed by slavery supporters and abortion cheerleaders are essentially the same:

(1) A denial of humanity of the victim.  

(2). The if you don't support it, don't have one canard.  "No one is forced to own a slave."

(3) Hiding behind the law. "The Constitution says it okay". The slaveholders, at least, had the advantage of slavery actually being endorsed by the Constitution. 

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1  lady in black  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    2 months ago

You want women to be slaves to their uterus....got it

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
2.1.1  jungkonservativ111  replied to  lady in black @2.1    2 months ago

Or slaves to their sexual desires hahaha

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.1.1    2 months ago

What a stupid comment.  Par for the course though.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.2    2 months ago

Not to mention mysogynist. 

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
2.1.4  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.3    2 months ago

Come on Gordy. We are both intelligent people. We both know fetuses dont just spontaneously appear in uteruses. Stop making excuses for emtional appeals. Unprotected sex leads to pregnancy. I dont see any reason to treat irresponsibility any differently because its from a woman. Unless you dont think they can handle the consequences of their own actions. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.1.4    2 months ago
We both know fetuses dont just spontaneously appear in uteruses.

True. They start out as a zygote, travel down the fallopian tube and implant themselves into the uterine wall as a blastocyst. Then they develop into an embryo and then a fetus.

Stop making excuses for emtional appeals. 

Speak for yourself.

Unprotected sex leads to pregnancy.

So can protected sex, as birth control is not 100% effective.

I dont see any reason to treat irresponsibility any differently because its from a woman. Unless you dont think they can handle the consequences of their own actions. 

Who are you to say if a woman is being irresponsible or not? I also notice you don't say anything about her partner. How is it any of your business what a woman choses to do. More importantly, who cares? Besides, electing to have an abortion is dealing with or is itself a consequence and taking responsibility.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.6  CB   replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.1.4    2 months ago
I dont see any reason to treat irresponsibility any differently because its from a woman.

You bring up a very important and interesting point. Young girls (at a very early age) and  women are the 'stewards' of the life-giving function in nature. So much so, that each girl/woman is keenly aware of what sperm is. (It would be irresponsible for a female not to be.)  So yes, a girl or woman who does not 'guard well' her womb for an unintended pregnancy has failed her intentions.

Then, the question moves and becomes: Shall a girl or woman who has unintentionally become fertilized and pregnant, left to continue irresponsibly to deliver a life which she is not willing to behold herself to for a lifetime commitment. 

Science says she has a 'window' on opportunity to decide no or yes. The courts label this opportunity: The right to privacy.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
2.1.7  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.5    2 months ago
"Speak for yourself."

I am. I'm not the one pretending I want to end potential life.

"So can protected sex, as birth control is not 100% effective."

It's 99% effective. Which means most abortions are not a result of that. Or incest or rape.

"Who are you to say if a woman is being irresponsible or not? I also notice you don't say anything about her partner. How is it any of your business what a woman choses to do. More importantly, who cares? Besides, electing to have an abortion is dealing with or is itself a consequence and taking responsibility."

It's my business because they want healthcare and welfare to cover up their bad choices. Sorry i'm not a fan of paying for that. As a guy I take measures to ensure I don't have any compilations. I can't speak for what women do.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.1.7    2 months ago
I am. I'm not the one pretending I want to end potential life.

Then don't presume I'm making emotional appeals or excuses thereof.

It's 99% effective. Which means most abortions are not a result of that. Or incest or rape.

Which means women can still become pregnant and want an abortion when birth controls fails.

It's my business because they want healthcare and welfare to cover up their bad choices.

Then you should be all for women having abortions. After all, abortion is far cheaper, easier, and less risky of health complications than pregnancy is. And you wouldn't have to cover welfare costs for unwanted kids for 18 years. Not to mention you don't pay for abortions anyway. Looks like you just defeated your own argument.

Sorry i'm not a fan of paying for that.

See previous statement.

As a guy I take measures to ensure I don't have any compilations.

Good for you.

I can't speak for what women do.

Neither do you have a say for what they can or cannot do.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
2.1.9  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.8    2 months ago
Then don't presume I'm making emotional appeals or excuses thereof

You are because you are pretending a personal decision is in-avoidable. I have been in a committed relationship for 8 years where we had steady sex every week. We never once got pregnant. It is very easy to make sure it doesn't happen. Sorry if you can't figure it out.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.1.9    2 months ago
You are because you are pretending a personal decision is in-avoidable.

I think you meant "unavoidable?" Regardless, a personal decision is just that, personal. And a woman who becomes pregnant has a personal decision to make: continue with the pregnancy or terminate it. But that decision is certainly none of my business and no one else's!

I have been in a committed relationship for 8 years where we had steady sex every week. We never once got pregnant. It is very easy to make sure it doesn't happen. Sorry if you can't figure it out.

Congratulations. Want a medal? But that's your own business. Other peoples business and personal choices is certainly none of your business!

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.11  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.1.9    2 months ago

Too much information there jung.  Don't care about your sex life.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.12  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.1.7    2 months ago

No, it's none of your business whatsoever.

Your money does not pay for birth control or abortion.  

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.13  lib50  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.1.9    2 months ago

Maybe you shoot blanks. 

Why do you seem unable to understand things that don't happen to you?  You may have never been confronted with it, but millions of others have.  You don't have to deal with any consequences from pregnancy and you don't care.  Live your life and beliefs to your hearts content.  And let women do the same without your two cents.  Butt out.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.14  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.10    2 months ago

Maybe he is shooting blanks.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.15  Split Personality  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.1.7    2 months ago
It's my business because they want healthcare and welfare to cover up their bad choices.

So when some man in your family has a heart attack and he's in the ER, would you expect the staff to treat him differently if he is overweight? A smoker?

Sorry i'm not a fan of paying for that.

Get over it, you too are a part of the risk pool.

As a guy I take measures to ensure I don't have any compilations.

Very interesting choice of words.  For a woman, it's a responsibility, for you, it's a "complication".

I can't speak for what women do.

Nor should you, ever.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1.14    2 months ago
Maybe he is shooting blanks.

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
2.2  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    2 months ago

Exactly. The south wanted the CHOICE to own a slave. Most people in the South in fact did not own slaves. But for some reason it seems acceptable to call the south pro-slavery, and not pro-choice. This is why I don't like to concede on abortion not being a pro choice issue. If you can't say that the south was fighting for the choice, than why is it ok to say that women are fighting for the choice? If the South was fighting for slavery, women are fighting for abortions. Most logical people would understand that but liberals are emotional in nature and have a hard time applying the same logic to different issues. These progressives think they can have their cake and eat it too. People just have to start speaking out against it and stop letting them make it normal verbiage.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.2    2 months ago

You have a problem with women having the legal right to abortion, pro-choice?  Tough shit.  

 
 
 
JBB
2.2.2  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.1    2 months ago

Worse is the fact that making abortions illegal does not reduce the incidence of terminations. In patriarchal mostly Catholic countries like Mexico and Czechoslovakia where birth control is hard to get and terminations are mostly illegal the real abortion rate is about twice that of the US. This also illustrates that demand for termination services is mostly driven by women having more children than they can care for.

 
 
 
lib50
2.2.3  lib50  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.2    2 months ago

Abortion and slavery have NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    2 months ago

Let's see, the unborn are not yet individuals anyway and have no legally established or defined rights, nor is there any way to give the unborn rights without taking away the rights of the woman in question. And the Constitution does affirm abortion to be a right and choice for women. So saying or even implying that supporting abortion is akin to supporting slavery is disingenuous at best.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3    2 months ago
the unborn are not yet individuals anyway

How do you prove a claim like that?

What do you mean by "individual" and why does that matter? What's the standard for determining when an individual exists? I'm pretty sure there is more than one standard for a thing like that. 

and have no legally established or defined rights

That's a legal choice we have made; and the fact that certain rights do not currently exist is a weak argument for saying they shouldn't exist. If that were valid, we'd still have slavery, women couldn't vote, and it would be illegal to be gay.

nor is there any way to give the unborn rights without taking away the rights of the woman in question

Many rights are a balancing act between one right - or set of rights - and another. Gay wedding cakes, for example. That's hasn't stopped us from making strong moves to protect certain rights.

And the Constitution does affirm abortion to be a right and choice for women.

The Constitution doesn't specifically say anything about abortion. The Supreme Court says it's a liberty and privacy issue. Liberty, of course, is explicitly protected in the 5th and 14th Amendment (which the Court cited). Privacy is not explicitly in the Constitution, but the Court found it was implied in multiple explicit constitutional rights. Perhaps recognizing that the privacy right is a little thin, the modern Court relies more on the liberty aspect.

So saying or even implying that supporting abortion is akin to supporting slavery is disingenuous at best.

She didn't really say that. She was comparing types of argument over two different issues. Moral and legal arguments are made over many issues. 

Even so, the Constitution - before being amended - did approve of slavery and we all still managed to come to the realization that that was wrong. We might ultimately reach the same conclusion about abortion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.2  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.1    2 months ago
How do you prove a claim like that?

Scientifically and legally.

What do you mean by "individual" and why does that matter?

Being distinctly separate.

What's the standard for determining when an individual exists? I'm pretty sure there is more than one standard for a thing like that. 

Feel free to elaborate.

That's a legal choice we have made; and the fact that certain rights do not currently exist is a weak argument for saying they shouldn't exist.

The unborn cannot be granted rights without eliminating or restricting the rights of the woman. 

If that were valid, we'd still have slavery, women couldn't vote, and it would be illegal to be gay.

And if the unborn had rights and/or abortion was illegal, then women would be slaves to the fetus.

Many rights are a balancing act between one right - or set of rights - and another. Gay wedding cakes, for example. That's hasn't stopped us from making strong moves to protect certain rights.

What's a "gay wedding cake?" How does it differ from regular or "straight" wedding cakes? Is there such a thing as a trans wedding cake? Or do you not see how silly your analogy is?

The Constitution doesn't specifically say anything about abortion. The Supreme Court says it's a liberty and privacy issue. 

SCOTUS rulings are as good good as Constitutional law and just as binding. The Constitution doesn't need to explicitly state something for it to be legally understood and valid. That's why the SCOTUS reviews and rules on such matters.

Privacy is not explicitly in the Constitution, but the Court found it was implied in multiple explicit constitutional rights. 

Which is as good as saying privacy is in the Constitution. 

She didn't really say that.

A poor choice of words on her part then.

She was comparing types of argument over two different issues. Moral and legal arguments are made over many issues

Slaves didn't have rights. Fortunately, slaver was outlawed. Eliminating abortion rights does just that, remove established rights from the individual. If we use Sec. DeVos' line of reasoning, then eliminating abortion rights brings women 1 step closer to slavery. But morality is subjective and should never be legislated.

Even so, the Constitution - before being amended - did approve of slavery and we all still managed to come to the realization that that was wrong.

Even the Founding Fathers didn't want slavery. But they couldn't outright ban it via the Constitution without risking the Constitution not being ratified by some states. 

We might ultimately reach the same conclusion about abortion.

That's a matter of opinion. But the SCOTUS has addressed the abortion issue many times over the decades and has only affirmed abortion as a woman's right (within defined limits). States that have attemptd to restrict or eliminate abortion have been countered by higher courts every time. Outlawing abortion might require a Constitutional Amendment. But I doubt such an amendment would pass ratification by the majority of the states, especially since the majority of people support abortion rights.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.3  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.2    2 months ago
Scientifically and legally.

OK, since it's your claim, go ahead.

Being distinctly separate.

This chain of words in not responsive to the question. I asked you "What do you mean by "individual" and why does that matter?" You used individual as a noun. I am asking you to define what an individual is in context and why it matters that the unborn is not an individual. Also, please define when they become an individual.

Feel free to elaborate.

See above.

The unborn cannot be granted rights without eliminating or restricting the rights of the woman.

Yes, you said that and I acknowledge it. You haven't explained why that means we should preserve the status quo.

And if the unborn had rights and/or abortion was illegal, then women would be slaves to the fetus.

That's not really what a slave is, but as I said, I acknowledge that a woman gives up liberty to the growing life inside of her. Should she not? We normally expect women who want to give birth to take good care of that life both before and after it is born. Does that makes mothers slaves, too?

What's a "gay wedding cake?" How does it differ from regular or "straight" wedding cakes? Is there such a thing as a trans wedding cake?

What a profoundly stupid and dishonest comment. Do not pretend you are unaware of the controversy surrounding cakes made for gay weddings.

SCOTUS rulings are as good good as Constitutional law and just as binding.

They aren't "just as good" as Constitutional law. They are Constitutional law. However, they are not the Constitution. It is inaccurate to say that the Constitution affirms abortion. The word abortion does not appear in that document. Do you have a problem with me pointing this out?

A poor choice of words on her part then.

It's a poor choice of words on her part because someone else chose to assign a different meaning to them?

But morality is subjective and should never be legislated.

By that logic, we should repeal the 13th Amendment and allow slavery.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.4  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.3    2 months ago
OK, since it's your claim, go ahead.

Legally, the law does not recognize the unborn as individuals nor grants them rights, especially over that of the woman in question. Scientifically, an embryo/fetus is not yet a born and separate individual. Only in the gestational process of becoming one.

This chain of words in not responsive to the question. I asked you "What do you mean by "individual" and why does that matter?" You used individual as a noun. I am asking you to define what an individual is in context and why it matters that the unborn is not an individual.

I was quite clear and succinct in my statement. An individual is just that, an individual. A separate person.

Also, please define when they become an individual.

Birth.

Yes, you said that and I acknowledge it.

Good.

You haven't explained why that means we should preserve the status quo.

Because changing the status quo would mean women would likely lose their rights and choices. Such a scenario used to be the status quo years ago. But that was changed to what we have now. So why regress?

Should she not? We normally expect women who want to give birth to take good care of that life both before and after it is born.

That's a matter of personal choice. The key word in there is "want." If a woman wants to continue a pregnancy and give birth, that is her choice. If she doesn't want to, that is also her choice.

Does that makes mothers slaves, too?

In effect, yes. But that is what they have chosen too.

What a profoundly stupid and dishonest comment.

Then it matches your profoundly stupid analogy.

Do not pretend you are unaware of the controversy surrounding cakes made for gay weddings.

I am familiar with it. But that is a completely separate issue and topic. At best, it's a Strawman here.

They aren't "just as good" as Constitutional law. They are Constitutional law. However, they are not the Constitution.

Semantics. SCOTUS rulings carry constitutional weight and are based on the constitution as the court interprets it. So in effect, it is "just as good."

It is inaccurate to say that the Constitution affirms abortion. The word abortion does not appear in that document.

Do you really think something has to be explicitly stated in the constitution to be legally valid?

Do you have a problem with me pointing this out?

Not at all. But it's also irrelevant. The SCOTUS deemed abortion is covered by the Constitution and established it as a right for women. It's also been reaffirmed and expanded in the years since.

It's a poor choice of words on her part because someone else chose to assign a different meaning to them?

Just a poor choice period.

By that logic, we should repeal the 13th Amendment and allow slavery.

That's what you took from my statement? It seems logic eludes you then. Ending slavery enabled the expansion of individual rights and liberty (which is kind of a big thing in this country. Ending abortion bans also expanded individual rights.

 
 
 
CB
2.3.5  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.4    2 months ago

Good Excellent comment in its entirety. Come to the head of the class!

That's what you took from my statement? It seems logic eludes you then. Ending slavery enabled the expansion of individual rights and liberty (which is kind of a big thing in this country. Ending abortion bans also expanded individual rights

Moreover, ending slavery with liberty and ensuring a girl or woman privacy of her person is in-keeping with the spirit of the Constitution and Modern Law.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.6  Gordy327  replied to  CB @2.3.5    2 months ago

Thank you.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.7  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.4    2 months ago
Scientifically, an embryo/fetus is not yet a born and separate individual.

That doesn't explain what an "individual" is or why that status is important.

An individual is just that, an individual.

Defining a word with the word itself is not useful. 

A separate person.

What do you mean by "separate" and "person" and why are those terms important? If someone is not an individual, what are they? If a fetus is not an individual because it's attached to the mother, isn't it true that the mother is no longer an individual?

Because changing the status quo would mean women would likely lose their rights and choices.

No, they'd lose a single right. They wouldn't lose rights and choices plural. They'd lose the right to abort a pregnancy. All their other rights would remain intact.

That's a matter of personal choice.

No, it's a matter of social and legal expectations, as I said. Several states consider it child abuse or endangerment to abuse drugs during pregnancy. 

In effect, yes. But that is what they have chosen too.

So should we have the same standards of responsibility for women who choose to engage in behavior likely to make them pregnant? i.e. totally unprotected, voluntary sex.

Then it matches your profoundly stupid analogy.

Prove it's stupid with evidence.

At best, it's a Strawman here.

It can't be both a Strawman and an analogy. Make up your mind. In fact, it was submitted as an example of an issue where legal arguments and moral arguments are in conflict, which is what DeVos was actually doing. You apparently didn't like that so you have to resort to the childishness we saw. 

Semantics

Semantics matter, as you shall now see.

Do you really think something has to be explicitly stated in the constitution to be legally valid?

I never said it wasn't legally valid. In fact, I said the opposite.

The reason I make the distinction is because it is far easier to overturn a Supreme Court decision than it is to pretend a word doesn't exist in the Constitution. For example, you wouldn't be able to say that bribery is not an impeachable offense because the word is literally in the Constitution. No amount of arguing in front of the Supreme Court can change that.

The danger of all Court rulings is that they can be decided differently. In its history, the Supreme Court has reversed itself 236 times. So, while the ruling is in effect, it is as good as Constitutional law. But since it's not actually the Constitution itself, it is subject to an easier change.

That's why people worry about the right to abortion far more than they worry about things like speech or quartering of soldiers. The word abortion appears nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments and that's important.

The SCOTUS deemed abortion is covered by the Constitution and established it as a right for women. It's also been reaffirmed and expanded in the years since.

So, for example, SCOTUS also said "separate but equal" was ok. And it remained that way until they changed their minds. But slavery will always be outlawed, without the need for interpretation, through the 13th Amendment unless we go through the far more complicated and difficult process of repealing it. 

Just a poor choice period.

Blame the victim all you want, but this story still misrepresents what she said.

It seems logic eludes you then.

You have no idea. Stop patting yourself on the back and telling yourself and everyone here that you have some kind of corner on the logic market. You are not more logical than other people. You make unsupported claims and emotional statements just as much as anyone else here. The only difference with you is you're more arrogant about it. You actually use this claim of superior logic to support your arguments and dismiss those of others. It's really a logic fallacy in that it's a kind of appeal to authority. It's also a bunch of BS.

You said

"morality is subjective and should never be legislated."

Slavery was outlawed on moral grounds. It wasn't some desire for more efficient economics or something. People realized slavery was just morally wrong, so they got rid of it. If we never legislated morality, we would continue to have slavery. That is a logical consequence of your statement. We legislate morality all the time.

 
 
 
CB
2.3.8  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.6    2 months ago

And, one more, ensuring a girl or woman privacy of her person is in-keeping with Modern Science (Medicine).

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.9  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.7    2 months ago

You seem to have a corner on the 'illogical market'

Go peddle your  nonsense somewhere else.  

 
 
 
lib50
2.3.10  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.7    2 months ago

The ONLY thing slavery and abortion have in common is when women are forced into carrying a pregnancy for 9 months when they don't want it.  Fetus isn't a baby,  clumps of cells are flushed out of uteri all the time.  Men or women forcing other women to  give birth would be the closest thing to slavery.  Your beliefs are yours.  Not mine.  Live yours.  And let others live theirs.  Its that simple.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.11  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.9    2 months ago

You fear opposing points of view. How sad.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.3.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3    2 months ago

Yes thanks for demonstrating my argument so perfectly.:

\he unborn are not yet individuals anyway and have no legally established or defined rights

Just like slaves had no legally established rights!

r is there any way to give the unborn rights without taking away the rights of the woman in questio

Just like there was no way to give slaves  rights without taking away the rights of the slaveowner.

And the Constitution does affirm abortion to be a right and choice for women

Just like the Constitution affirmed the right to own slaves!

It's like you set out to demonstrate how slave owners and abortion cheerleaders make the same points to justify their behavior!  Well done!

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.13  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @2.3.10    2 months ago
The ONLY thing slavery and abortion have in common

In and of themselves, I don't think they have much of anything in common worth talking about. Fortunately, that's not what DeVos said. She said they were both issues with a moral component to the arguments. That's true. Unfortunately, people are so ready to be triggered into outrage that when someone says the words "abortion" or "slavery" they go into some kind of anger mode. Makes it kind of hard to have a dispassionate, analytical conversation.

Fetus isn't a baby

Until when? When does it became a baby? And by that I really mean when does it become a life with value and deserving of protection?

clumps of cells are flushed out of uteri all the time

It's not as if there is a sudden physical transformation when those cells leave the mother's body. The development of any human being - be it prenatal or a teenager - exists on a continuum. A spectrum. There is no sharp dividing line where we can say it's not human and then suddenly it is.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.14  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.11    2 months ago

No, you talk nonsense.

How sad.  

 
 
 
lib50
2.3.15  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.13    2 months ago

And I have specific beliefs on that exact issue.  Thought out, researched and spiritually based.  And it isn't what you believe.    Its a topic on its own, lets keep with women being allowed the full autonomy over their bodies and health decisions without interference from ignorant male politicians.  You know, the way men do.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.16  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @2.3.15    2 months ago
And it isn't what you believe.

I haven't expressed any opinions about what you believe because I don't have idea what you believe. I asked you a couple of question so you could clarify your beliefs on your own.

Its a topic on its own

I don't think you can reasonably isolate the topics considering that it is at the core of the pro-life position. The nature of the unborn (beyond simply being unborn) is the reason that people oppose abortion.

You know, the way men do.

There is no comparison. Men don't carry a living person inside of them.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.17  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.16    2 months ago

It's still none of their goddamned business

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.18  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.17    2 months ago

OK. Thank you. I hadn't heard that before.

 
 
 
lib50
2.3.19  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.18    2 months ago

How are we supposed to have a discussion about our beliefs, especially spiritual ones, on a seed like this?  Its a different topic and there is no 'right' belief!  The point is that you don't have the moral authority over everybody else!   I've talked about my personal beliefs here more than once, but the bottom line is it is NOT YOUR BUSINESS.  Not all pregnancies make it to term and there is no basis for anybody else to have input.  Not your body.  Not your business.  Late term abortion is almost always for reasons that are medically necessary, not for shits and giggles (no woman takes this lightly at any stage.)  The men who like to make these decisions usurping women's rights are usually ignorant of basic physiology.  Like I said, women have the same right to their body as men.  Keep your damn sperm in if you don't like it.  Women don't get pregnant without it. They just bear the consequences.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.20  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @2.3.19    2 months ago
Not your body.  Not your business.

I don’t understand why people constantly repeat this platitude when it has nothing to do with the pro-life position. Pro-life people aren’t trying to say anything about what a woman does with her body. They are concerned with the other body inside of her.

 
 
 
JBB
2.3.21  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.20    2 months ago

Making abortions illegal does not reduce demand for termination services. Three things do...

1. Require comprehensive sex education prior to puberty. 

2. Make all forms of birth control easier accessible.

3. Provide all women with family planning services such as are provided by Planned Parenthood.

That is how you drastically reduce terminations!

 
 
 
charger 383
2.3.22  charger 383  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.20    2 months ago

"Pro-life people aren’t trying to say anything about what a woman does with her body."

That other body is drawing from and effecting her body.  If she wants to provide nutrition and sanctuary  that is her choice only.  Otherwise she does not have full possession of herself. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.3.23  pat wilson  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.20    2 months ago
Pro-life people aren’t trying to say anything about what a woman does with her body. They are concerned with the other body inside of her.

As if the two are mutually exclusive.

How f#@king stupid !

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.24  Tacos!  replied to  charger 383 @2.3.22    2 months ago
That other body is drawing from and effecting her body.

Indeed. It probably won't kill her, though, so the stakes are different for the two bodies. The rate of maternal death in the US is currently about 18 per 100,000 pregnancies or 0.018%. The rate of death from abortion is 100%.

 
 
 
charger 383
2.3.25  charger 383  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.24    2 months ago

Please note my use of "sanctuary"  as well as providing supplies.  I will expand on that later

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.26  Gordy327  replied to  CB @2.3.8    2 months ago
And, one more, ensuring a girl or woman privacy of her person is in-keeping with Modern Science (Medicine).

And the law too.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.27  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.7    2 months ago
That doesn't explain what an "individual" is or why that status is important.

Are you an individual? If so, then you have your answer.

What do you mean by "separate" and "person" and why are those terms important?

Those terms seem rather self explanatory. Otherwise, see previous statement.

If someone is not an individual, what are they?

Unborn.

If a fetus is not an individual because it's attached to the mother, isn't it true that the mother is no longer an individual?

No, it is not. A woman, pregnant or otherwise, is already a born, autonomous individual. A fetus is not.

No, they'd lose a single right. They wouldn't lose rights and choices plural. They'd lose the right to abort a pregnancy. All their other rights would remain intact.

Oh, so to you, losing a single right is ok? How about if someone took away one of your rights? You'd be ok with that then, right? Or do you not see that unjustly losing even a single right is a bad thing, not to mention a possible slippery slope?

No, it's a matter of social and legal expectations, as I said. Several states consider it child abuse or endangerment to abuse drugs during pregnancy. 

That has nothing to do whether a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy or not. Of course, such laws are absurd too.

So should we have the same standards of responsibility for women who choose to engage in behavior likely to make them pregnant? i.e. totally unprotected, voluntary sex.

Yes! If a woman chooses to engage in voluntary sexual activity with or without protection, that is her choice. If they become pregnant, then they have a choice to continue the pregnancy or not. As long as they have choice. So what's the problem?

Prove it's stupid with evidence.

You're the one who brought it up. So you go ahead and make an argument for how it relates to or is relevant to this topic!

In fact, it was submitted as an example of an issue where legal arguments and moral arguments are in conflict, 

If someone has a moral conflict, that's their problem. But from a legal standpoint, the issue is settled.

The reason I make the distinction is because it is far easier to overturn a Supreme Court decision than it is to pretend a word doesn't exist in the Constitution. 

Not as easy as you'd like to believe, and a circumstance which is uncommon in law.

So, while the ruling is in effect, it is as good as Constitutional law. But since it's not actually the Constitution itself, it is subject to an easier change.

But it is in effect, and backed by the Constitution as the SCOTUS interprets. And abortion is a legal precedent which has been reviewed multiple times and reaffirmed and expanded on over the years.

That's why people worry about the right to abortion far more than they worry about things like speech or quartering of soldiers.

Even speech rights have limitations.

The word abortion appears nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments and that's important.

Still irrelevant with regards to legal precedent.

So, for example, SCOTUS also said "separate but equal" was ok. And it remained that way until they changed their minds.

Great. When they change their minds on abortion, then get back to me. Not likely to happen anytime soon though.

Blame the victim all you want, but this story still misrepresents what she said.

Not blaming. Just simple fact. 

You are not more logical than other people. 

I never claimed I was.

You make unsupported claims and emotional statements just as much as anyone else here. 

Such as?

The only difference with you is you're more arrogant about it. 

How droll. If you have nothing but personal attacks, then perhaps you should exit the discussion, before you get "emotional" as you claim I am being.

Slavery was outlawed on moral grounds. It wasn't some desire for more efficient economics or something. People realized slavery was just morally wrong, so they got rid of it. If we never legislated morality, we would continue to have slavery. That is a logical consequence of your statement. We legislate morality all the time.

Wrong! Laws passed are based on the concept of individual rights and liberty. Slavery restricted that. If we legislate based on morality, then who's morality do we go by? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.29  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.12    2 months ago
Yes thanks for demonstrating my argument so perfectly

What argument?

Just like slaves had no legally established rights!

Except slaves were already born individuals and likely free before they were forcibly enslaved.

Just like there was no way to give slaves  rights without taking away the rights of the slaveowner.

The slaveowner wasn't losing any rights. All he was losing was "property." 

Just like the Constitution affirmed the right to own slaves!

And the Constitution affirms women the right to an abortion.

It's like you set out to demonstrate how slave owners and abortion cheerleaders make the same points to justify their behavior!  Well done!

It seems you completely missed the mark then. It's not about behavior. It's about rights. Allowing slavery limited individual rights. Allowing abortion expanded them. That's one reason why comparing the two is flawed.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.30  Gordy327  replied to  Donald J. Trump Fan #1 @2.3.28    2 months ago

You use Instagram as a source? Seriously? jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

Let me help and educate you with that. Here are the leading causes of death in America, from the CDC itself.

As you can see. heart disease tops the list. Abortion isn't even on it. Nor would I expect it to be. Abortions are generally safe and pose minimal risk to the woman, especially if performed early enough, as most are.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.31  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.24    2 months ago

There's no 'death' in abortion

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.32  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.20    2 months ago
They are concerned with the other body inside of her.

That's none of their business or concern! 

 The rate of death from abortion is 100%.

Abortion is quite safe for the woman.

Men don't carry a living person inside of them.

Then they really shouldn't have a say in the matter, especially over what a woman chooses.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.3.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.29    2 months ago

What argument?

You waited two days and you still can't figure out what  "the  arguments employed by slavery supporters and abortion cheerleaders are essentially the same" means? That's pretty amazing, because you proceeded to directly prove my point by making exactly the types of arguments that slaveholders made in favor of slavery.   You must have an innate ability to channel the arguments of slaveholders.

xcept slaves were already born individuals and likely free before they were forcibly enslaved.

The overwhelming majority of American slaves were born slaves, did you not know that?  But that, of course has nothing to do with the fact that slaves had no rights. What a strange rebuttal to the point that slaves had no legally established rights to falsely claim that were "likely" free at some point.  Born free or born slave, they were merely chattels under the American Constitution.

owner wasn't losing any rights. All he was losing was "property.

Property rights are constitutionally protected. 

and the Constitution affirms women the right to an abortion

Do you really need to be walked through this? I'll make it as simple as possible. Remember, the point of this is that slave owners and abortion supporters use the same arguments. Keep that mind!

I said, slave owners justified owning slaves by pointing to a Constitutional right to own slaves and that abortion supporters do the same.

For some reason, you keep restating that abortion supporters point to to a Constitutional right to perform abortions. I know that. That's why I pointed out that's how abortion supporters justify abortion. Just like slave owners justified slavery by pointing to the Constitution!

Get it? You are proving my point that slavery and abortion supporters make the same arguments. 

n. It's not about behavior. It's about rights. 

You don't seem to understand what slavery was. Slaves, like the unborn had no rights. Slave owners and abortion supporters want to ensure those groups never received any rights. 

Don't get so emotional because you borrow your reasoning from slave owners! It is what is. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.35  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.34    2 months ago
You waited two days and you still can't figure out what  "the  arguments employed by slavery supporters and abortion cheerleaders are essentially the same" means?

It's a BS argument because abortion and slavery are two different things and no one is "cheering" abortion. It's an argument that's more of an appeal to emotion or just flat out stupid!

 What a strange rebuttal to the point that slaves had no legally established rights to falsely claim that were "likely" free at some point. 

Many slaves were imported to the colonies. They were forced into bondage.

Property rights are constitutionally protected. 

But people were later deemed not property.

Do you really need to be walked through this? I'll make it as simple as possible. Remember, the point of this is that slave owners and abortion supporters use the same arguments. Keep that mind!

See first statement.

I said, slave owners justified owning slaves by pointing to a Constitutional right to own slaves and that abortion supporters do the same.

Except slaves were already born, autonomous individuals. And ending slavery expanded individual rights. Restricting abortion limits individual rights.

For some reason, you keep restating that abortion supporters point to to a Constitutional right to perform abortions. Just like slave owners did!

And for some reason, you seem to think the two issues are one and the same.

You are proving my point that slavery and abortion supporters make the same arguments. 

Hardly the same argument when the circumstances are entirely different.

Slave owners and abortion supporters want to ensure those groups never received any rights. 

And yet, abortion opponents want to restrict individual rights, just like slave owners did. How ironic.

Don't get so emotional because you borrow your reasoning from slave owners! It is what is. 

Wow, that's funny. Oh wait, you're serious? That's even funnier.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.3.36  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.35    2 months ago
S argument because abortion and slavery are two different things

Really? Wow, that's something. 

Seriously, you need to be able to grasp higher order thinking if you are going to participate in this argument.  

Many slaves were imported to the colonies. They were forced into bondage.

Some were. But the slave trade ended 50 years before slavery. The massive  increase in the slave population between 1810 and 1860 was due almost entirely to natural population growth.  Again, this has nothing to do with the argument. 

But people were later deemed not property.

No shit. Why in the world would that matter?  When slave owners made the argument, they were deemed property. How difficult is that to understand?

Hardly the same argument when the circumstances are entirely different.

Higher order thinking! Work on it!  Pointing out the similarities in different things can be done. 

And yet, abortion opponents want to restrict individual rights, just like slave owners did. How ironic.

DO you still not understand that slaves did not possess individual rights?  Try and grasp this, which I thought was too obvious to bother with but I guess I need to spell it out. Slave owners made  these arguments when slavery was protected by the Constitution.  Those are the arguments being compared. Can you wrap your head around the concept that before the Civil War slaves had no individual rights under the Constitution (just like the unborn do not  under the current legal regime)? And that both slave owners and abortion supporters tried to keep it that way. See how that works?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.37  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.36    2 months ago
Seriously, you need to be able to grasp higher order thinking if you are going to participate in this argument.

Says the one engaging in juvenile tactics.

DO you still not understand that slaves did not possess individual rights? 

And slavery isn't the issue of the day. So equating slavery to abortion rights is a lousy argument. Try to grasp that!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.3.38  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.37    2 months ago
slavery isn't the issue of the day. the issue of the day. Try to grasp that!

When did I came claim slavery was the issue of the day? sheesh! Slavery was the issue of the day when the arguments we discussed were made.  Did you know some people (called abolitionists) had a moral objection to slavery and it was quite the divisive topic in the 40 years before the Civil War?  Abolitionists wanted to end slavery despite it being protected by the Constitution at the time. (Just like the pro life movement wants to end abortion even though it's currently protected by the Constitution)  The debate was quite heated! You can look it up!

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.39  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.27    2 months ago
Are you an individual? If so, then you have your answer.

I would not presume to answer. It's your standard. I guess at this point, you're just never going to explain it.

Those terms seem rather self explanatory.

If they were, I wouldn't have to ask.

Unborn.

You just keep going in the same circle. You said the unborn were not individuals. Then you said a fetus was not yet born and not an individual. You just keep defining your terms with themselves and you still won't explain the significance of them.

I never claimed I was.

You do it all the time.

Such as?

Most recently in this seed? Here is your intial unsupported claim that I have invited you to prove several times, but you can't or won't.

the unborn are not yet individuals

And this statement is both unsupported and emotional:

What a profoundly stupid and dishonest comment.

So yeah, you do it all the time.

Laws passed are based on the concept of individual rights and liberty.

Really? It's your claim that slavery was not eliminated because people thought it was morally wrong? 

Maybe you'd like to explain how Prohibition happened. How about restricting the drinking of alcohol to those over 21? How about ages of consent? Speed limits! What part of those laws advance individual rights and liberty?

And even with all that, the valuing of individual rights and liberty is a moral value. There's nothing scientific about it. For most of human history, people have preferred to have strong leadership at the expense of individual liberty. There's nothing inexorable or scientific about a society that values individual rights and liberty.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.40  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.32    2 months ago
That's none of their business or concern!

Why not? Society concerns itself with the well being of other bodies every day.

Abortion is quite safe for the woman.

It's 100% fatal for the other genetically unique human being growing inside her, though. A human being with a heart beat and distinctive brain activity. A human being that in every respect is alive except that you have decided that person's location makes it not alive.

Then they really shouldn't have a say in the matter

Maybe women shouldn't have a say in military matters since they don't register for the draft.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.41  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.40    2 months ago
Why not? Society concerns itself with the well being of other bodies every day.

So your health decisions is society's concern or business? I think not. Maybe society should make your medical decisions for you then?

It's 100% fatal for the other genetically unique human being growing inside her, though. A human being with a heart beat and distinctive brain activity. A human being that in every respect is alive except that you have decided that person's location makes it not alive.

Spare me the appeal to emotion. It doesn't even have a fully developed brain until the 3rd trimester and the "heart beat" is just cardiac cells depolarizing, especially in the earlier stages. No one is saying it's not alive. But that's not the parameter by which it's allowed to be aborted.

Maybe women shouldn't have a say in military matters since they don't register for the draft.

But they can and do serve in the military. Men cannot uniquely get pregnant at all. Any other poor analogies you'd like to make?

I would not presume to answer. It's your standard. I guess at this point, you're just never going to explain it.

So you don't know if you're an individual?

If they were, I wouldn't have to ask.

A dictionary would probably help you then.

You just keep defining your terms with themselves and you still won't explain the significance of them.

Being unborn means they are not individuals, both scientifically and legally, as I've explained. That is the significance. 

You do it all the time.

Point out when!

And this statement is both unsupported and emotional

That statement is fact, as I've explained. You haven't explained how or why the unborn are individuals.

So yeah, you do it all the time.

"I know you are but what am I," right?

Really? It's your claim that slavery was not eliminated because people thought it was morally wrong? 

Read  my statement again! I didn't say people didn't think it was morally wrong.

Maybe you'd like to explain how Prohibition happened.

A bad decision, that's how.

How about restricting the drinking of alcohol to those over 21? How about ages of consent? Speed limits! What part of those laws advance individual rights and liberty?

Those laws are based on public safety issues.

 For most of human history, people have preferred to have strong leadership at the expense of individual liberty. 

Is that supposed to be a justification for the forcible removal of individual rights? Sounds almost fascist. Some people don't care about individual rights as long as leadership is strong. Until it's their rights being taken away.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.42  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.41    2 months ago

Gordy - It's a waste of time dealing with {deleted} and some others.  They argue just for the sake of arguing.  It's tiresome.  More worthwhile beating your head against the wall.  

All those dumbass strawman and nonsense emotional and illogical comparisons and arguments.  Complete waste of time.

I admire your efforts though. You are logical and factual and rational.  Those others are not.   I don't have the stamina to deal with that garbage.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.43  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.41    2 months ago
'For most of human history, people have preferred to have strong leadership at the expense of individual liberty'

What the fuck does that have to do with anything.

Who is the 'strong leadership' you're talking about?  Certainly not  this 'president'

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.44  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.41    2 months ago
'For most of human history, people have preferred to have strong leadership at the expense of individual liberty.'
'Is that supposed to be a justification for the forcible removal of individual rights? Sounds almost fascist. Some people don't care about individual rights as long as leadership is strong. Until it's their rights being taken away.'

I'm sure tacos and others would be singing a completely different tune if they weren't allowed to have their viagra or their penis pumps or had their rights restricted in any way.  

What a load of bullshit.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.45  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.12    2 months ago

You make no sense whatsoever.

As usual.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.46  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.38    2 months ago

Stop going off topic.  Stop with your nonsense and condescension.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.47  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.41    2 months ago

Something I think I should make clear if it helps eliminate bias and angst in the conversation. I don't have a strong emotional opinion about what the best answer is at this moment for abortion. I can see both sides of it, but logically, I think there is cognitive dissonance at work when people make the argument that abortion is only about a woman's right to make medical decisions for herself. In my opinion you have to ignore scientific fact to make that claim. I'm not saying you have, but that does seem to be the general pro-choice position.

So your health decisions is society's concern or business? I think not.

Oh, well then you won't mind if I run down to the pharmacy and pick up some cocaine or morphine if I feel I need it for my health, right? Society won't care? Yeah, right. 

Maybe society should make your medical decisions for you then?

Society makes medical decisions for people every day in the form of laws and regulations controlling procedures, medications, and the costs for those things.

Spare me the appeal to emotion.

See, this is another proclamation from you that others are emotional while you're just coldly logical. It's not true. Everything I described in an unborn person is scientific fact. But you label it "emotion" and that gives you license to disregard it.

It doesn't even have a fully developed brain until the 3rd trimester and the "heart beat" is just cardiac cells depolarizing, especially in the earlier stages.

No, it actually won't have a "fully developed brain" until it's about 25-30 years old. And anyway, I didn't say anything about the brain being fully developed. I also didn't say anything about the heart being fully developed. Not that it matters. I'm not a doctor, but Wiki tells me the heart is the first organ to form and it forms pretty damned early.

At around 18 to 19 days after fertilisation, the heart begins to form. This early development is critical for subsequent embryonic and prenatal development. The heart is the first functional organ to develop and starts to beat and pump blood at around day 21 or 22.

Anyway, this discussion of development is a straw man, moving the goalposts, changing the subject. Whatever you want to call it, it's not what we have been talking about.

Your central point from the beginning has been that the unborn are not yet individuals and so my focus has been on what it means to be an individual. The dictionary (which you advised me to consult) defines it using the word "distinct."

I said there was distinctive brain activity and that's true. I said there was a heartbeat and that is also true. I didn't specify a point in development, but the only way I'm wrong is if we are talking about the first five or six weeks of pregnancy. To me, distinctiveness and uniqueness of identity is a core part of being an individual. Heartbeats, brain activity, and of course DNA all reflect those qualities.

So, I think that scientifically, I have satisfactorily demonstrated that a developing unborn person in the womb is, in fact, a distinct individual - at least past 5 or 6 weeks, though some obviously argue the individual exists at conception. Therefore, abortion is not just a matter of a woman's health, but also a matter of the health of an individual who is alive and growing and cannot speak for him/herself.

In such a situation - were the person already born - society would have legal protections in place to safeguard that life or punish someone who ended the life without legal justification. In fact, in several states, the unborn are protected against drug abuse by the mother. It's considered a form of child abuse.

We end up with a situation where the criteria for who should be protected or not is not based on individuality, or even development (any born person with brain damage or underdeveloped brains would be protected, for example) but on location. That doesn't strike me as a very satisfying way to go about things.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.48  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.47    2 months ago

You have supplied zero facts, scientific or otherwise.  

Just nonsense.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.49  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.42    2 months ago

Thank you for the kind words. You are too kind.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.50  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.43    2 months ago

I think that reply was meant for Tacos.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    2 months ago

Who supports slavery?

Who are the cheerleaders for abortion?

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lady in black
3  lady in black    2 months ago

This bitch should crawl back under the rock from whence she came.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  lady in black @3    2 months ago

I agree, but maybe the slimy critters she was holed up with kicked her out because she was too slimy for them

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1    2 months ago

That's an insult to those slimy critters under the rock.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.1    2 months ago

Mea culpa to slimy critters everywhere

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.2    2 months ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

They can't help it, they were born that way.

This bitch is slimy/evil to the bone.  

 
 
 
Freefaller
4  Freefaller    2 months ago

It's sort of like saying being Pro-Freedom is akin to supporting slavery (s)

 
 
 
charger 383
5  charger 383    2 months ago

Denying abortion and forced childbearing and raising of unwanted children is slavery 

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @5    2 months ago

Fantastic charger!  You are correct sir.  

 
 
 
charger 383
5.1.1  charger 383  replied to  Tessylo @5.1    2 months ago

Thank You, this is one of the things we agree on

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.1    2 months ago

Probably the only thing we agree on.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
6  seeder  Tessylo    2 months ago

What an ass backwards world these religious freaks live in.  

 
 
 
CB
7  CB     2 months ago

I can't hear anything she says anyway; she needs to "quiet" herself. Give up her wealth, cushy life, and come join the rank and file peoples of this world. Or, better still, create a foundation for unwanted children.

 
 
 
Tacos!
8  Tacos!    2 months ago
Trump Official Betsy DeVos Says Being Pro-Choice Is Akin To Supporting Slavery

Not exactly. She was comparing the form of arguments for or against, not the activities themselves. That is: there are moral arguments and there are legal arguments. That's true for many issues. For example, it has been true for drug and alcohol prohibition. It was true for women's suffrage (Happy Anniversary Ladies!)

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @8    2 months ago

Yes, exactly.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
9  Thrawn 31    2 months ago

Where to even start with this bitch...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
9.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Thrawn 31 @9    2 months ago

A nice dinner and a few glasses of wine should get the ball rolling..................oh wait............never mind.

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Vic Eldred
squiggy
bccrane


45 visitors