I would rather the option of a bailout be made available to her, than see another (potentialy) unfit mother be placed upon the system, or another child placed within the system. But, I would rather see the education in place in the first instance so we can be certain that her choice is a fully informed one.
Just because you don't want an unfit mother, or a burden on the system- is no explanation that you are taking away a life. Where is the 'equal' protection gone when this is clearly a question of right to life? Whether someone makes an informed choice or not, doesn't give you the right to take a life. If you want to place educational systems in place for woman, go ahead, that is something I don't mind as compared to taking life.
Would that you'd figured that out several pages ago. Yeah, great - in a fantasy world that you know perfectly well will never exist, you'd theoretically be okay with black people oppressing white people. And this is somehow supposed to excuse you from advocating for the right of white people to oppress black people, right here in actual reality. It's a really persuasive argument, supposing your audience are a bunch of oblivious nincompoops. Says you. Again, go ahead and make a campaign slogan out of this and see where you get: "A vote for me, is a vote against fairness and merit!" "The best man for the job - as long as they're WHITE!" "Racism is a RIGHT!" Says you. And you're in the (extreme) minority, on that one. No, that's what you're doing. My list of rights aligns quite nicely with the ones actually recognized and protected by our Constitution. You're the one with the radical redefinition of such that you'd like to impose, thereby stripping millions of various rights, dignity, freedoms, etc. That's why I'm the one arguing in favor of retaining generations-old, settled laws, and you're the one foaming at the mouth pushing an extreme revision of such. If you're content to stop demanding that others refrain from recognizing and identifying the obvious racism of your positions, then we are indeed done. To the extent that you voice any resistance to being honestly, clearly labelled as a racist (without changing your stances, that is), then you can expect to keep hearing about it.
But if there is no life, there is no problem, right? But at what point is it alive, and at what point is it still just a cyst? Is a drop of fluid alive? Is an unshaped lump of flesh alive? If an unshaped lump of flesh is alive, is it neccessarily any more alive then the endometrium which gets shed every 28 days? If an unshaped lump of flesh is alive, and aborting it amounts to murder, does that mean that circumcision is murder? How about amputation? Is that murder? Or would you rather see women do it at home with Misoprotosol, knitting neeldes, coat hangers? I'd go on, but I really CBF.
@quad We disagree. But your definition of racist doesn't apply to me I don't care if you can see that or not. You can call me whatever you want.
An early-term fetus is hardly a "life." You want equal protection? Then pregnant women should be perfectly free to remove said "life" from feeding off their bodies, and leave them to feed and care for themselves. Why are you compelling women to feed this separate, unwanted "life" that has attached itself to them? If they're equals under the law, that fetus can just go ahead and try its luck on the job market. This also goes for infants, children, etc. The right to life is simply the right not to be actively killed right? And not an obligation for anyone else to feed, clothe, house, etc. you. So there should be no problem with a women leaving a newborn baby on the street to fend for itself, nor any problem with a woman having a fetus extracted (intact) from herself, and likewise leaving it to fend for itself. It's not like anybody owes the fetus a living - they just can't actively kill it. Right? Isn't that how the right to life works? So don't kill the fetus then. Just remove it, intact, from the woman's uterus, and leave it to look after its own interests. No rights violated there, right?
Well, then, I'm going to reiterate that any reasonable definition of "racist" clearly applies to you, and note that you haven't provided any serious argument to the contrary. All you've done is petulantly refuse to own up to what you're advocating. That doesn't excuse your racism, it just makes you childish in addition to racist. By all means, though, keep digging your hole deeper.
That is the only discussion that is logical. When does life start? I believe it starts with conception, others who disagree may then defend abortion. But it is good to note that if a pregnant woman is killed the person who kills is tried with double homicide. So not only is this about 'belief' but also a legal question. By current law then separate life would exist within the mother if she is pregnant, to be tried like this. Change the laws and then defend abortion. As currently the laws would suggest pregnancy (i.e fertilized egg) amounts to life. She can go ahead and do it then go and rot in jail for all I care. As she has committed murder, abortion wouldn't have been anything else either.
Your definition requires me believing someone is inferior to another. Which I clearly don't do. You make some biased cases like Rich White men abusing the black. Even if the Rich Black man abusing the white argument is a 'fantasy world' to you- it still nonetheless shows that in principle I don't place any 'greater' value in either, that is simply your own assumption which you simply want to make. The definition can only be applicable in any and all cases, so yes you would have to consider the hypothetical. Once examined, my view clearly doesn't show favoring any race over the other. In fact I don't even recognize that rights belong to 'groups' (race), they belong to individuals. They don't belong to whites or blacks, they belong to humans. So there is no way your definition applies whether you want to admit it or not because I place equal values on HUMANS. This is far more equal than even the consideration of race. I place no greater value on one human over the other. So its practically impossible to be racist as a 'race' is a secondary component and being a 'human' is a primary component. I place all rights as equal on the primary component, which leaves no room for discrimination on secondary things like race, religion, gender, etc. I don't care if you understand this or not, and I don't plan on continuing this discussion because I think I've stated my case quite clearly. If you don't understand my view, or understand it yet disagree then we agree to disagree. No reason continuing as I can't force you to comprehend your own definition of racist :wave:
So then you disagree with Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari? He teaches that if done in the first trimester, although it's a crime, it's not a crime to the degree of murder. So what you're saying then, is that even though it's in support of libertarian ideals, that you would pass an authoritarian measure that limits what can and can not be done within a private property, and would neccessitate a second authoritarian measure - the imposition of taxes, to maintain? All so you can force someone to follow through on the consequences of something they may well have taken every other reasonable measure to prevent?
Lol.. Bringing in Islamic scholars because I'm a Muslim? I don't agree with the Mufti. I don't care what 'he teaches'. The fundamental right is the Right to Life. All other rights, although rights, stem from the fact of life. Another's life is not a private property issue. If I were to take your understanding of 'libertarian' view, then If I were to invite the President of the United Stated into my home, which is my private property, then I have the right to kill him. Libertarians recognize another's life is not a property. Protection of the rights of others, and life being the most fundamental of all rights, is a duty of the government. Prisons are not 'unlawful' or 'un-libertarian'. Governments main goal is to protect those rights and if that requires such facilities then they have an obligation to collect taxes for that. In fact if they can't protect people's rights, life being the most fundamental, then government shouldn't even exist. Yes because everyone is responsible for their choices, and all choices come with a risk. If you want to gamble at the casino, there is a risk. If you want to use contraceptives there is yet a risk you should know of. Regardless if you know the risk or not, the result was a materialization of your choice. Whether you 'wanted' it or not is not a concern. What matters is that you own up to the choices, including the associated risk, you made. That is the libertarian principle. Individual choices and individual responsibility. No one there to bail you out from your choice or your mistake. There are ways to totally prevent pregnancy surgically.
And by choosing to continue to inhabit its mother's womb, a fetus is assuming the risk that it may be evicted and have to fend for itself. It's an equal life, with equal rights, and so equal responsibilities for its choices, right? Well, I don't see where a woman is obliged to feed and house another life - she should be free to evict the fetus from her womb at any time, and leave it to fend for itself. If the fetus dies because it fails to obtain the food, shelter and medicine it needs, well, that's life. Individuals are responsible for their choices. Right?
Misogyny by Superficiality The human body is not the same as a house. If you knock on my door to tell me the Good News of Jesus Christ, I can certainly invite you into my home. There is nothing about that, though, that says I must feed you. There is nothing inherent about your presence in my home that alters my body or affects my health. Comparing a human body to a house is one of the reasons people find anti-abortion rhetoric misogynistic. Meanwhile, how do you propose to enforce the law? Did a woman fail to report an unusual or off-schedule vaginal discharge of blood? Open a case file, then. Investigate her sex life; has she had any sexual contact with a man in the last month? Yes? Okay, now the government needs to force her to undergo a gynecological exam in order to make certain that the discharge wasn't a miscarriage. Did a woman get pregnant and have a miscarriage? Open a case file, then. Investigate her diet, her wardrobe, her everything. Did she slam on the brakes in her car to avoid hitting a child who ran into the street? Maybe the seat belt caused the miscarriage. Uh-oh, now the government is going to file some kind of homicide charges, since she did not just stayed at home like a good woman should. Did she trip over someone's chair mat at the office and catch herself against a desk? Do we know that she didn't fall against the desk? Well, she did not stay at home like a good woman should. Is it a mysterious miscarriage? Did she consume any alcohol? Smoke a cigarette? Encounter second-hand smoke when she failed to stay home like a good woman should? How about this: Should the government force pregnant women to remain hospitalized and under direct medical supervision throughout her term of pregnancy? Or, perhaps, this one: When I was in high school, one of my teachers conceived. That "person", as you would hold the growing organism, developed into an anencephalitic fetus. That she chose to attempt to carry the organism to term despite it having zero chance of being born alive—apparently hoping that God would reach out His hand to change His will and give this thing a brain—and nearly died as a result is actually immaterial to the present discussion unless you wish to install an arbitrary "life of the mother" clause. Rather, what is the legal status of that "person" inside her body? You know, that "person" with no brain and no life? After all, it's a "person" from the moment of conception. Pregnancy is a seemingly unique circumstance insofar as it is one of the only "property" fights to take place within a human being's body. Of course, we could always argue about whether or not one conjoined twin has the right to demand severance at the stake of the other twin. Whose body is it? But I digress. Have you ever heard of Rh incompatibility? In that case, an abortion can be self-defense. Or, perhaps, you might charge the host woman with murder, since her immune system is trying to kill the incompatible fetal cells; and also the male gamete provider with manslaughter, for any contribution to the Rh imbalance. "Life at conception" sounds great to many, I know. But it's clearly superficial, a mere slogan, because few if any pro-life advocates delve into the deeper issues. I can see how you might hold that view, especially since you view this as a property fight, thus reducing a woman to property. Which alleged breach of Article II are you referring to?
Okay calling a woman 'property' wasn't my intention but the idea is similar. I'll back off from that since it sounds offensive- Another's life, is not her's to take. Its just that simple. As I said 'life at conception' is totally an opinion, go to court, have the courts rule on what life is and then defend abortion accordingly. I will back your view. I'm not a hardliner, I recognize when something is a opinion and when something is not. I gave an example above of 'double homicide' as an example of how courts view pregnancy. I think the best thing pro-Choice or even pro-life advocates can do is ask the government to define if an embryo is life or not. If it is, then we know where I said, if it is not, then I will support you. I may have my personal belief, but I will not use that as a means to deprive woman their choice to abort. As I said, I'm not a hardliner. As for DOMA, I provided a pretty lengthy response about the Article 2 which you never responded back to, you can go back and read it yourself.
Yes. I will accept that argument. If artificial incubation techniques to extract the embryo are developed I would expect that embryo to be incubated in those by the government. I don't know if that exists yet. But I can agree with your argument. Others could argue that governments fundamental right is to protect the life itself, they might have authority to save it even suppressing someone's right to choose because all other rights stem from the right to life itself. But I won't go that far, and I'll accept your argument however distasteful it may be. Also the body now is of both the fetus and the woman- is another argument that can be used against what you said, so still there is room for debate but I don't want to get into it. One could argue both have equal rights to it, so you can't choose to evict it from a place it has a right to. But I really don't want to get into this, I will accept your argument as satisfactory as I'm already tired of the discussion of other things. But if this is the argument that you will use to support abortion, then you'll have to give up on every other social welfare program which forces others to contribute. The question is whether you want to take such a position Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You're welcome to assume that if it makes you comfortable. That's not my understanding of Libertarianism, however, which would make this a strawman hypothesis. What I find amusing is that I have backed you into a logical contradiction, and you do not even realize it. On the one hand, you support an authoritarian measure to ensure the freedom and equality of a group of people (fetuses). On the other hand you oppose an authoritarian measure to ensure the freedom and equality of a group of people (non-white americans). So which is it? Do you support the use of authoritarian measures in a libertarian society to ensure the freedom, equality, and rights of a group of the population, or not?
Why would you bring in a Muslim scholar in a discussion of American law for any other reason? Separate of church and state? Other than the fact I'm Muslim. You had tons of Christian scholars to choose from. As I said before, labels don't mean much to me. I don't agree with whatever libertarianism you have understanding of. Not quite. No, to protect their RIGHT to Life. No. I support authoritarian measures to protect everyone's RIGHT. Choice is a secondary to life though. Without life all other 'rights' cease to exist. You see there can't be a conflict of rights. You don't have the right impinge upon another's right to life. No one has the right to abuse the rights of others. In this case the mother would be abusing the right of the fetuses life. I 100% support authoritarian measure to ensure the right of 'non-white' americans. But none of the the things you talk about 'equality' and so forth are rights. Equality with respect to government yes. But equality in a people to people interaction is not a right. People can think of others however they want, they simply don't have the right to abuse other's right. There can absolutely be no impinging on taking the life of another, this is the issue. But I'll give you an example where that is possible in relationship to 'equal protection' Say there was a complication with the pregnancy that if the child is not aborted then the mother can die. Now here since the conflict is life vs life, the government must standby because now both life's are equally protected and one has the right to take another's life under self-defense. You have the right to protect your life. And in this case abortion would be legal and the government should not be involved. This is one reason I don't support a federal ban on abortion, because I can't trust them to create a law that recognizes complications. I think you're confused about how rights are to be protected, and that you having a right cannot be used to take another's right. There is no logical contradiction here.
? Since when does anyone have the right to be fed and housed by the government? Let that fetus make its own choices, and suffer the consequences. It's an individual life, equal to any other, and so it must be required to provide for itself on the free market, no? Why does a fetus get special privileges? But only in so far as making sure that nobody else actively kills the fetus, right? There's no positive right to life that requires the government to ensure that you have food, shelter, access to work, medicine, etc. Right? Provided that the woman can get the fetus out of her body without killing it in the process, her obligations end right there. Don't they? Doesn't make any sense. They have separate bloodstreams, separate nervous systems, etc. The fact that a parasite is growing inside someone's body, doesn't make the parasite an equal owner of that body. Nobody has an obligation to give food, shelter, medicine etc. to anyone else, regardless of the implications for that person. Their only obligation is to refrain from actively, directly killing anyone. Right? This is an argument that I'm using to illustrate that the premises of your position (fetus is "a life" with the same rights and responsibilities of any other, right to life is only the right not to be killed, etc.) are inane, and don't even add up to the policy implication that you've been pushing (which is a prohibition on abortion). Note that you've just done a 180 from insisting that nobody has a right to be provided for, to insisting that a fetus has a right to be fed and provided for by others (its mother, the government) even though it is supposedly an individual life just like any other. The point being that if you want to formulate a sensible stance on abortion, you're going to have to get into the nuanced question of when life really begins, and at what stage adulthood begins, and then what sets of rights and responsibilities correspond to each stage along the continuum. The simplistic "a fetus is a life from conception!" stance produces idiocy.
Of course. You don't want to bring back all of Jim Crow. Just the segregated hiring, restaurants, housing, etc. Obviously that's a totally not-racist position to take.
The simple answer Well, therein lies part of the confusion. To the one, I don't see how Article II comes into it. However, as you quoted IV.2.1, I think I can reasonably presume that is what you meant. Meanwhile, there is no current suit on Section 2 of DoMA; prior lawsuits have been dismissed for lack of standing, not on the merits of the law. You might as well be arguing that a person of age, carrying proper identification from the state of Oregon, cannot buy a beer in Washington state.
