Abortion should be illegal

Ankozzz

@Dee

Hmm... defensive, let’s see:
” cow” “are you on drugs”
”are you really this ”

Even saying like this makes you sound emotional. Don’t resort to insults just because you don’t have anything else to back up your argument.
You’re right. You’re not defensive at all. You have a very calm, civil personality.

Anyways, On June 20, you said this...

You say ......When I say child I am trying to ask you if you believe it is human.

My reply ......It lacks personhood so no a fetus is not a person

... that literally means you believe something must have personhood to be human. You don’t have to state “there’s a difference between human and fetus” in order to convey that determination.

Here is the definition of person: 

A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility.

Read that a couple times so it can get past your thick skull.

*That is the dictionary definition of a person. That is NOT my definition of a person. Every post since I provided that same definition, has been implying that when we use labels we are doing so with their dictionary definitions. You and I have different definitions of “person”. I would assume—because mentally disabled people cannot be classified as “persons” under this definition—that the dictionary definition is completely different from any humane person’s understanding of the term. 

You can keep correcting me that a fetus is not human and I can keep correcting you that it is. Whatever. But, thanks for letting me know what the “process” was called; I just thought we were remaining civil.

One thing I’d like to add though, is that anything I have stated, I have researched thoroughly. When I said “ordinary reasons” , you can look up most common reasons for an abortion and see the same info I do. 

You, have also used a great source of information (very qualified organization). However, that is not the only organization of scientists/doctors in the world. A set point hasn’t been determined for when a fetus can feel pain. ACOG says 20 weeks and this organization says 8 weeks, and that one says 30 weeks. Don’t just pick a source that agrees with your side. One thing is for sure though: they all agree that embryos can not feel pain. 

The US government doesn’t know what to do with itself right now. In one state they ban abortion after 6 weeks and in another they allow it until the moment of birth. Also, why would you even think I’m from the US? Where are you from?

Also, I know this won’t change either of our arguments at all, but I’m a woman. Are you? It won’t change our arguments, but it does matter whose mouth the words are coming out of. 

******************

I’m afraid this conversation has took a turn for the worse. You see my argument as unreasonable; I see your argument as unreasonable. You see me as a bully who attacks women’s rights; I see you as someone who is encouraging murder. You see me as a cow on drugs; I see you as a criminally-insane piece of .

Somehow, I don’t think we’ll agree on anything. 

If there’s something specific you want me to reply to let me know. It is challenging reading and absorbing everything you say. Perhaps, in your next response, answer/comment first and then at the end you can have a list of personal attacks.

On my side, I’m pretty much ready to end the conversation when you are. I can agree to disagree. But, if you want to continue, that’s ok too. You’d just have to agree to read my response. Otherwise, it’s not really a conversation, just you letting the world know your superior beliefs (you don’t really need me to do that).

Dee

@Ankozzz


When you use terms like “the likes of you “ in reference to me I lost all respect for you , I asked you politely one simple question from the start and instead you attempt to define personhood , baby , child etc , etc , yet I keep telling you I don’t care how you define them , you keep avoiding the question because you’re an over sensitive emotional bully so can you answer now after 30 odd attempts why a fetus has the right (in your mind) to continuous  use of a woman’s body without her consent?

I bet this latest reply is met by the usual  wailing as in “buh , buh , it’s a baby a person /child etc , etc , “ 

So can you tell me why without a long diatribe about exorcisms , the Holocaust or Hell?

You are indeed a cow and maybe not on drugs but just unhinged , now run off and have another wail 

John_C_87

@Dee ;

why a fetus has the right (in your basic principle and legal precedent) a continuous  use of a woman’s body without her consent? Because the egg is part of that body and the woman had a direct role in the length the egg will spend as part of that body. A woman can also make a choice to not be married before she has sexual intercourse as a united state with all other woman. Woman are asking for a diplomatic immunity on a united state described as a crime that is not always a crime that takes place with all woman. This is called lying. A young child coming across a nations border as a united state the child does not just stay in a woman.

 Roe Versus Wade legally describes the whole truth in legal challenge as a loss of a woman's privacy. Having a description of a crime along with an alibi for that crime is not the same as not describing a crime as the basic principle in a untied state from the beginning. All woman are created equal, female specific amputation is a united state of all woman that is true, not self-incriminating, and deals with facts only the woman may know about the perspective citizen and her constitutional right to not kill but stop the immigration process of that person.

John_C_87

@Ankozzz ;

...It lacks personhood so no a fetus is not a person.

This is admitting that a united state is not recognized as part of the legal precedent or basic principle for all woman to be created equal under Constitution. The united states constitution is accused by blame for the inequality between all woman. It is woman and men who hold that responsibility of negligence in preservation of the united states consitution and is enough to justiofy legaly addressing the public grievance. Female specific amputation is not pregancy abortion all woman as united state take part in a pregancy abportion by not having sexual intercourse. All woman perform, and/or have performed a female specific ampuitation if sexual intercourse has taken place.

Any womans independent United state Consitutional right is on control of private immigration not the begining of life. It is the basic principle as right to return the state of life to its very beging that takes placing inside her borader as a united state with all woman who share the burden of pregancy.

Dee

@John_C_87

You say ......Because the egg is part of that body and the woman had a direct role in the length the egg will spend as part of that body......

My reply .....So what? The fetus is there by permission this may be withdrawn at will what  gives a fetus a “right “ to use a woman’s body without her consent?

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

Too many people avoid the core issue here... Does the right to life (A) creates (B) a right to use someone else body without continuous consent?.

If one answers yes, he must be prepared and able to demonstrate the logical steps that allows us to absolutely infer B from A...
If B doesn't follow from A, then it's a settled matter and the right to abortion cannot be infringed upon... 

All the rest are red herring, deflections, special pleading, fallacies and avoidance... It's as simple as that...

Just pay attention to comments that will assuredly follow, they will prove my point...  

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

You’re absolutely spot on and no matter how many times they define a fetus as a child , baby  , infant they still cannot get that the terminology is irrelevant to the core point you and I keep making.

John_C_87

Dee said:

@John_C_87

You say ......Because the egg is part of that body and the woman had a direct role in the length the egg will spend as part of that body......

My reply .....So what? The fetus is there by permission this may be withdrawn at will what  gives a fetus a “right “ to use a woman’s body without her consent?

All woman kill the egg by not having sexual intercourse as a united state as truth that is a pregnancy abortion and can be proven in basic principle in a court of law as a united state. sorry describing all woman must have diplomatic immunity because of a alibi to a crime is not a discrimination made by lack of presenting a United States Constitutional right in which all woman are created equal.

There are several reasons all woman might refuse citizen ship made on a personal sacrifice to her-self as point of entry. 

John_C_87

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Dee

Too many people avoid the core issue here... Does the right to life (A) creates (B) a right to use someone else body without continuous consent?.

If one answers yes, he must be prepared and able to demonstrate the logical steps that allows us to absolutely infer B from A...
If B doesn't follow from A, then it's a settled matter and the right to abortion cannot be infringed upon... 

All the rest are red herring, deflections, special pleading, fallacies and avoidance... It's as simple as that...

Just pay attention to comments that will assuredly follow, they will prove my point...  

@Plaffelvohfen ;

Not every woman is cracked up to preserve a united state consitution................
Not every man is disqualified from preservation itself by a woman's choice not to preserve united state consitution..................

Life is not a right it is a liberty for at some point a person man or woman can become so evil all around them will cease to be.

Ankozzz

@Dee
You are absolutely right when you say that I keep trying to define terms.  Obviously, you and I have different meanings and connotations of different words. I was trying to be respectful by using “fetus” instead of something like “unborn child” whenever I could. 

But, I need you to know that I am not trying in any way to ignore your main question. Of course, it may appear that I am deflecting, but I am not sitting here thinking “oh no, she got me, I better bring up something completely irrelevant”. While things I say may seem totally irrelevant, in my mind, and many other pro-lifers, they are not irrelevant at all. 

I know you believe you are right. And I’m not even saying your wrong. All I’m saying is that I view things differently from you. You bring up excellent, valid points. I knew you would (you as in whoever would reply to my original post). But you don’t seem to be able to even consider what I am saying at all. Sure, I think some of the things you’ve said are too, but overall your argument is strong. 

Right now, I’m going to try to be as direct as I can in answering your question:

No one should ever be able to use a person’s body without their continuous consent. 

In your view, that is the end of the sentence. However, I believe in something called exceptions. We can say “You always have the right to free speech”... but we all know that if that free speech is a danger to others (ex. Shouting fire in a public place) then that right is no longer protected.
The person who shouted fire literally infringes on his own right.

In the same way, I believe we all have a right to bodily autonomy. 
But, there are 2 steps before a fetus infringes on a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. 1) the woman has sex and 2) the egg is fertilized
Sometimes step 1 doesn’t ever result in step 2. Then there’s no problem. 
But every woman knows that it can. By having sex, a woman must be ready to take on the responsibilities of step 2. 

Here’s another analogy:
Every time a driver gets into his car, he know that something tragic or undesirable can happen on the road. Nobody thinks it will happen to them and the chances are probably very slim. But, if someone is not ready to pay a ticket for speeding, they don’t speed. 

Again, in my eyes, these comparisons make sense and are directly relevant to what we are talking about. 

Lastly, I want to remind you that I came here to see if I should change my stance on this topic. I know it may seem like I’m actually trying to persuade you... but, I grew up surrounded by “ cows”. You know what I mean? I’m saying the things that the pro-lifers around me instilled in me. I know it sounds like babbling to you, the same way a religious person sounds to an atheist, but when you grow up for years believing something, you have to question and question and question when you come into contact with opposition.

One of the main things in the pro life argument is that the fetus is human. Maybe I don’t agree with that anymore. Maybe this conversation has changed my mind. The only problem I have is how I would explain it to someone else. 

How do you explain a fetus isn’t human to someone? Why isn’t it human? 

I looked up the definition of fetus, this is the first thing that popped up. No pro-life websites, just the google dictionary definition:
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

That still seems like it’s indicating a fetus is human. Can you explain why it’s not? (I’m not saying this in an argumentative, defensive, or accusatory way, I need to know.

John_C_87

@Ankozzz ;

“You always have the right to free speech”. In whole truth the 1st Amendment gives the right to legally prove your words are not a filed grievance and come without cost or self-value. Nothing more the right to a constitutional common defense can be taken when the tranquility has been interrupted. This comes by way of negligence or by crime under law by United States Constitution.

Ankozzz

@John_C_87

You have been in this conversation from the start and I’m probably the only person in this chat that hasn’t directly responded to you.

I just have one question for you... what the hell are you saying?

You can’t honestly expect to change someone’s mind or have them agree with you if they don’t know what you’re saying. 

I feel like we’re on the same side and kudos to you for being intelligent, but man, tone it down a little. 

Translate it for me; put it in layman’s terms.

All I was saying, with reference to free speech and the 1st Amendment was that in Schenck v. US, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the 1st Amendment does not protect “dangerous speech”. 

I feel like your comments and overall argument would be not only valid, but beneficial to this conversation, if everyone else could make sense of your 1600s style of writing.

Dee

@Ankozzz

You say .....You are absolutely right when you say that I keep trying to define terms.  Obviously, you and I have different meanings and connotations of different words. I was trying to be respectful by using “fetus” instead of something like “unborn child” whenever I could. 

My reply .....Respect matters not to me but correct terminology is important pro choice always misapply terms so as to assign personhood to the unborn ......

fetus

listen

(FEE-tus)

In humans, an unborn baby that develops and grows inside the uterus (womb). The fetal period begins 8 weeks after fertilization of an egg by a sperm and ends at the time of birth.

See that? Ends at the time of birth , now your argument is not with me but with medical science and I keep telling you but you keep ignoring it has no bearing either way on my argument 

You say ......But, I need you to know that I am not trying in any way to ignore your main question. Of course, it may appear that I am deflecting, but I am not sitting here thinking “oh no, she got me, I better bring up something completely irrelevant”. While things I say may seem totally irrelevant, in my mind, and many other pro-lifers, they are not irrelevant at all. 

I know you believe you are right. And I’m not even saying your wrong. All I’m saying is that I view things differently from you. You bring up excellent, valid points. I knew you would (you as in whoever would reply to my original post). But you don’t seem to be able to even consider what I am saying at all. Sure, I think some of the things you’ve said are too, but overall your argument is strong. 

My reply .....I’m a he not a she. I have considered what you said but keep telling you your use of labels regards the fetus is a red herring you still have not addressed or attempted to address what I asked.

Regards saying things why do you play this game? I’ve stated nothing that’s deemed you’ve reinterpreted what I’ve said into something it’s not , you talked about the mentally disabled and and the fetus and asked me unfairly to defend points I never made.

Please point out where I said something as it’s grossly unfair to say so without referencing the particular parts you refer to.

You say ......Right now, I’m going to try to be as direct as I can in answering your question:

No one should ever be able to use a person’s body without their continuous consent. 

My reply .....Correct 

You say .....In your view, that is the end of the sentence. 

My reply .....Not my view it’s a statement of fact anything else is a continuation and thus a contradiction of my original statement 

You say .....However, I believe in something called exceptions. We can say “You always have the right to free speech”... but we all know that if that free speech is a danger to others (ex. Shouting fire in a public place) then that right is no longer protected.

The person who shouted fire literally infringes on his own right.

My reply .....You’re Incorrect , there are and most are aware of the exceptions , so these are not your exceptions but ones we are all aware of.

What you’re doing is assuming it’s a right to shout “fire” in public when there is none so there is a denial of “free speech” in this case , this implied rights not covered by the exceptions 

 ......The basic exceptions to free speech include:

• speech that threatens someone with violence
• speech that incites listeners to take illegal action
• speech that is harmful in certain other ways (see more about this below)

You say .....In the same way, I believe we all have a right to bodily autonomy. 

But, there are 2 steps before a fetus infringes on a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. 1) the woman has sex and 2) the egg is fertilized

Sometimes step 1 doesn’t ever result in step 2. Then there’s no problem. 

But every woman knows that it can. By having sex, a woman must be ready to take on the responsibilities of step 2. 

My reply .....Must? Why must she? Just because she had sex really?

You say ......Here’s another analogy:

Every time a driver gets into his car, he know that something tragic or undesirable can happen on the road. Nobody thinks it will happen to them and the chances are probably very slim. But, if someone is not ready to pay a ticket for speeding, they don’t speed. 

My reply ......Again how does this explain why a fetus has a right to use a woman’s body without her continuous consent?

You say .....Again, in my eyes, these comparisons make sense and are directly relevant to what we are talking about. 

My reply ....So you say but you’re still deflecting  how does any implied fetal right to life somehow entitle a fetus  to use another’s body without consent? 

You say .....Lastly, I want to remind you that I came here to see if I should change my stance on this topic. I know it may seem like I’m actually trying to persuade you... but, I grew up surrounded by “ cows”. You know what I mean? I’m saying the things that the pro-lifers around me instilled in me. I know it sounds like babbling to you, the same way a religious person sounds to an atheist, but when you grow up for years believing something, you have to question and question and question when you come into contact with opposition.

One of the main things in the pro life argument is that the fetus is human. Maybe I don’t agree with that anymore. Maybe this conversation has changed my mind. The only problem I have is how I would explain it to someone else. 

How do you explain a fetus isn’t human to someone? Why isn’t it human? 

My reply .....Because a person is an individual do you deny that a fetus has potential to be a person but potentiality does not make it a person

You say ........I looked up the definition of fetus, this is the first thing that popped up. No pro-life websites, just the google dictionary definition:

an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

That still seems like it’s indicating a fetus is human. Can you explain why it’s not? (I’m not saying this in an argumentative, defensive, or accusatory way, I need to know.

My reply .....I keep saying it a fetus lacks personhood the use of the terms your applying is to assign “personhood “ to that which is not a person , finally it’s still nothing to do with what I keep answering and you keep avoiding so once again .......How does any implied fetal right to life somehow entitle a fetus  to use another’s body without consent? 

John_C_87

@Dee ;

The idea abortion should be illegal is an acknowledgment that an felony admission complete with alibi must be tested by the Court when made. This is a whole truth set in the pre-amble of the united state constitution describing the whole process of any licensed attempt of the creation of justice as common defense to all.

Pregnancy abortion is a political asylum by it's created legal precedent, it is not a search for religious liberty which in may have been by choice. A woman commits a pregnancy abortion by not having sex, a woman orders a female specific amputation from a medical Doctor in basic principle these two different things can be proven in a court of law as not the same.

Looking at a woman's body autonomy. Are woman looking for rent on behalf of all woman outside of the practice of prostitution from an egg which is created in the area that some or all woman hope to sell? Yeah, how’s that united state working out for you? 

Do we compete against each other to preserve the American united state constitution or are you at Civil War as describe by woman in the 1960’s?

John_C_87

@Ankozzz ;
All I was saying, with reference to free speech and the 1st Amendment was that in Schenck v. US, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the 1st Amendment does not protect “dangerous speech”. 

In whole truth it does protect dangerous speech. It is one way the preservation of United State in American Constitution takes place. In detail to protect the court the ruling is based on the Courts seniority to preserve the American united state Constitution.

Like Dee there is a need for a direct question. Do we compete against each other to preserve the American united state constitution or are you at Civil War as describe by woman in the 1960’s against the American united State Consitution?

John_C_87

The difference in basic principle is I am holding some woman responsible, before the American United States Constitution for the death of woman as a united State. This to by basic principle establishing clearly, in whole truth,  all woman are created equal. 

Something lawyers had stated can be done in Civil Court.

Dee

@John_C_87

I suspect your alcoholism has taken a turn for the worse , lay off the booze for a day ( if you can ) and attempt to answer coherently if you can 

John_C_87

I have not had a drink in 109,000 minutes. It was half a beer not to insult someone I love greatly. .It physically hurt. It was over 26,280,000 seconds before that drink, I have not taken a drink of alcohol since. So be honest.
 Are you saying a man is not allowed to compete for a United State Constitutional right placing all woman in a equal united State? I remember specifically a declaration made to a battle of the sexes on a civil War launched in this country against the United States Constitution. On National Television.

to answer coherently if you can 

First I think you are just looking for a more basic medical principle, so, here goes. The egg is made as a body part by the woman and all things which must be explained before a court must be capable as a united state to be explained in basic principle to the Court. Pregnancy Abortion is a petition to seek diplomatic immunity from law not by law. Going on.
For your information the Diplomatic immunity that woman have been given in this American Civil War has been used to claim the lives of woman as a United State. The basic problem in understanding comes from our different in our experiences of life not inteligence as a whole.

Plaffelvohfen

@John_C_87

qatlh Data' chatlh chenmoH pagh vay' DaSov'a' qap???
yajbe' nuvpu' DaSov'a'? lugh??? 

Dee

@John_C_87

What you’re trying to say is beyond me maybe you should sleep it off and try again?

John_C_87

@Dee ;

Pregnancy abortion is something a woman, or doctor would perform under diplomatic Immunity not legislation of United State Constitutional law. A woman orders a female specific amputation the egg is removed surgically in basic principle.

 All woman as united state perform a pregnancy abortion only between the eggs motion of leaving the ovary, entering the uterus, and menstruation without making an attempt to fertilize the egg with sexual intercourse or medical fertilization of some kind.

 

http://www.ob-tampons.com/period-calculator?&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=OB%20-%20Non-Brand%20-%20Period%20Calculator%20-%20Exact&utm_term=what%20is%20a%20menstrual%20period&utm_content=Menstrual%20Cycle%20-%20General&gclid=CMj2-O6-iOMCFQLgtQod7NMHOg&gclsrc=ds

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=uterus&id=8CFA379B282CF58E18687846251A471124374D16&FORM=IARRTH

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/diplomatic+immunity

Ankozzz

@Dee ;
You say... Respect matters not to me but correct terminology is important pro choice always misapply terms so as to assign personhood to the unborn ......

fetus

listen

(FEE-tus)

In humans, an unborn baby that develops and grows inside the uterus (womb). The fetal period begins 8 weeks after fertilization of an egg by a sperm and ends at the time of birth.

See that? Ends at the time of birth , now your argument is not with me but with medical science and I keep telling you but you keep ignoring it has no bearing either way on my argument 

My reply...

Ok, thank you, the definition helps! I’m not trying to find something that will have a bearing on your argument. Think about this: You and I have no idea what John C is saying (for the most part); that is because he is using words and meanings that no one understands. Did it ever occur to you that I didn’t know the definition of fetus? Of course, I could look it up myself, but I don’t want to assume you agree with a definition (I’m trying to be careful about implying things). Also, I’m answering this by assuming you meant to say “pro life” in the first sentence.

In regards to the definition itself, I understand the definition, but I just want to be clear about something. In the beginning of this conversation, I used the term “unborn child”. 

Your response was ,” Why do you say unborn “child”? What you’re doing here is attempting to apply personhood to the unborn”.

But then, doesn’t your dictionary definition apply personhood to the unborn by saying “unborn baby”?

You say...I’m a he not a she. 

My reply.. My bad. Sorry. Good to know though, that detail changed the way I view our entire conversation.

You say...

I have considered what you said but keep telling you your use of labels regards the fetus is a red herring you still have not addressed or attempted to address what I asked.

My reply.. I have addressed what you asked many times. In fact I did so in my last response when I said, “Right now, I’m going to try to be as direct as I can in answering your question:.....”. A failed attempt, maybe, but an attempt nonetheless. Very unfair for you to quote me and then make a statement that contradicts what is in the quote.

You say...Regards saying things why do you play this game? I’ve stated nothing that’s deemed you’ve reinterpreted what I’ve said into something it’s not , you talked about the mentally disabled and and the fetus and asked me unfairly to defend points I never made.

My reply...

In regards to the mentally disabled and unfairly asking you to defend points you never made, the things I said can definitely be implied or interpreted to seem that way. However, I never said I agreed or that you agreed with anything I said about the mentally disabled and I never asked you to defend my comments. As a matter of fact, most of the questions I asked you were things I knew you’d disagree with and therefore wouldn’t have to defend. 

Basically, what happened with that situation was that I found a definition of “person” online. And then I applied that definition to the conversation and it wasn’t making sense at all so I asked for your input. Your input meaning your definition (or a correct dictionary definition) of person. The fetus definition is clearing stuff up, so I’m asking you to give me one of person too. Then, we won’t have problems with correct terminology.

You say...Please point out where I said something as it’s grossly unfair to say so without referencing the particular parts you refer to.

My reply... Here’s an easy, obvious one: your “ cow” comment. I thought that was a really thing to say given that it was completely unnecessary. It wasn’t really appropriate since I didn’t do anything worthy of that. I know you think my logic/comments/position is , but I’m just trying to explain myself in the way I learned it growing up. Think about this: When a teacher is trying to help their student understand something, they don’t insult them no matter how long it takes to get them to understand it. Also, is there a difference between a cow and a smart cow? You don’t actually have to answer that, I’m just trying to show you why I thought the comment alone was .

You say...Not my view it’s a statement of fact anything else is a continuation and thus a contradiction of my original statement 

You’re Incorrect , there are and most are aware of the exceptions , so these are not your exceptions but ones we are all aware of.

What you’re doing is assuming it’s a right to shout “fire” in public when there is none so there is a denial of “free speech” in this case , this implied rights not covered by the exceptions 

 ......The basic exceptions to free speech include:

• speech that threatens someone with violence
• speech that incites listeners to take illegal action
• speech that is harmful in certain other ways (see more about this below)

My reply... This is exactly my problem! I’m noticing that all the exceptions to free speech are things that, if allowed/protected, would harm others.

I just don’t get why abortion can’t be an exception to bodily autonomy if it hurts someone else (the fetus). To continue on this comment, I need you to tell me why the fetus isn’t a “life”. And let’s be fair about it and talk about a point in the pregnancy where abortion would occur; for example when you tell me why a fetus isnt a “life” do so referencing like an 8 week old fetus (not a fertilized egg or a fetus in the 8th month).

You say...Must? Why must she? Just because she had sex really?
(my driver example)

Again how does this explain why a fetus has a right to use a woman’s body without her continuous consent?

My reply... The driver example was there to explain why “she must take responsibility”. However, maybe this will clear things up: The purpose of sex wasn’t to show love for one another or have a good time (although these can be benefits). It’s purpose is to create babies. Just like the purpose of breasts is to breastfeed babies.

You say...So you say but you’re still deflecting  how does any implied fetal right to life somehow entitle a fetus  to use another’s body without consent? 

My reply... Ok, let’s assume for a second that the fetus is human. Let’s pretend it is equal to you and me. Then it has a right to life. But the main problem here is that you believe  that a right to life still doesn’t override bodily autonomy. You are right. Ex. I have a right to live and I need a kidney, but I cannot take your kidney just so I may live. If I kidnapped you and took your kidney, then I would be punished (jailed). 

But I believe there is a difference between this situation of bodily autonomy and pregnancy in the sense of bodily autonomy. 

That difference, in my opinion, is that the woman is not (necessarily) at fault and the fetus is not at fault. Neither had a (direct) say in the matter. With that being said, I’m going to rely on only facts: no one has complete bodily autonomy. There are fine lines: Rape and taking someone’s organs are clearly an infringement on bodily autonomy. However, if no one can tell anyome what to do with their body, why should we force someone to wear clothes in public? Why should we force people to get vaccines? *I’m not saying you or me agrees with this idea. The answers may seem obvious, but aren’t these infringements on bodily autonomy as well?

So to get back to your question: We all have rights. Those rights are protected. But some people believe that protection should extend more or less. Some people believe the right to free speech protects hate speech and others believe it doesn’t. In the same way, I believe the right to bodily autonomy doesn’t extend to pregnancy. Did I answer this directly enough? 

You say...Because a person is an individual do you deny that a fetus has potential to be a person but potentiality does not make it a person

I keep saying it a fetus lacks personhood the use of the terms your applying is to assign “personhood “ to that which is not a person , finally it’s still nothing to do with what I keep answering and you keep avoiding so once again .......How does any implied fetal right to life somehow entitle a fetus  to use another’s body without consent? 

My reply... I don’t think the definition of person is “individual”. I think they are synonyms. Here’s what I found for definition of individual: 
a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family.

If you don’t agree with this definition pleas provide a better one. 

But, according to this definition, I’d classify a fetus as an individual. It has its own DNA, distinct from the mother. It has its own body, distinct from the mother. It is dependent on the mother; however, an infant is dependent on its parents as well.



Sorry it took so long for me to reply. I found it very difficult to reply in the same style you do, lol.

Dee

@Ankozzz

You say ......

Ok, thank you, the definition helps! I’m not trying to find something that will have a bearing on your argument. Think about this: You and I have no idea what John C is saying (for the most part); that is because he is using words and meanings that no one understands. Did it ever occur to you that I didn’t know the definition of fetus? Of course, I could look it up myself, but I don’t want to assume you agree with a definition (I’m trying to be careful about implying things). Also, I’m answering this by assuming you meant to say “pro life” in the first sentence.

My reply .....Yes indeed pro life. Well there you go go then that’s the definition 

You say .....In regards to the definition itself, I understand the definition, but I just want to be clear about something. In the beginning of this conversation, I used the term “unborn child”. 

Your response was ,” Why do you say unborn “child”? What you’re doing here is attempting to apply personhood to the unborn”.

But then, doesn’t your dictionary definition apply personhood to the unborn by saying “unborn baby”?

My reply .....You seem to love these terminology battles I keep telling you and you keep ignoring the core issue why’s that?

The dictionary definition would hardly work if a fetus was described as an unborn fetus would it? Also the dictionary is not saying it’s a person , individual etc ,etc or the various other terms used by pro lifers

You say .. My bad. Sorry. Good to know though, that detail changed the way I view our entire conversation.

My reply .....That’s a strange comment how would it change your view?

You say...

.. I have addressed what you asked many times. In fact I did so in my last response when I said, “Right now, I’m going to try to be as direct as I can in answering your question:.....”. A failed attempt, maybe, but an attempt nonetheless. Very unfair for you to quote me and then make a statement that contradicts what is in the quote.

My reply......You still haven’t and you’re still deflecting also why are you getting all sarcastic?

Let’s try again one more time ......Why has a fetus got the right to use someone’s else’s body without their consent? Why do you think it should be a right to force a woman to give birth to something she does not want?

You say ......

In regards to the mentally disabled and unfairly asking you to defend points you never made, the things I said can definitely be implied or interpreted to seem that way. 

My reply .....Anything can be implied or made to seem a certain way do you disagree? If so why?

You say ......However, I never said I agreed or that you agreed with anything I said about the mentally disabled and I never asked you to defend my comments. As a matter of fact, most of the questions I asked you were things I knew you’d disagree with and therefore wouldn’t have to defend. 

Basically, what happened with that situation was that I found a definition of “person” online. And then I applied that definition to the conversation and it wasn’t making sense at all so I asked for your input. Your input meaning your definition (or a correct dictionary definition) of person. The fetus definition is clearing stuff up, so I’m asking you to give me one of person too. Then, we won’t have problems with correct terminology.

My reply .....Here is the commonly accepted definition of ....person

/ˈpəːs(ə)n/

noun

1. 1. 
   a human being regarded as an individual."the porter was the last person to see her prior to her disappearance"

4	3 human being, individual, man/woman, human, being, living soul, soul, mortal, creature, fellow; More

So is a fetus a person?

You say ... Here’s an easy, obvious one: your “ cow” comment. I thought that was a really thing to say given that it was completely unnecessary. It wasn’t really appropriate since I didn’t do anything worthy of that. 

My reply ......It wasn’t really appropriate since I didn’t do anything worthy of that...........

Really? You said this ......Women are terribly misled, mostly by people like you 

You said this .....I see you as a criminally-insane piece of

Do you want some more examples of things that made you unworthy of my comments?

You say ......I know you think my logic/comments/position is , but I’m just trying to explain myself in the way I learned it growing up. Think about this: When a teacher is trying to help their student understand something, they don’t insult them no matter how long it takes to get them to understand it. Also, is there a difference between a cow and a smart cow? You don’t actually have to answer that, I’m just trying to show you why I thought the comment alone was .

My reply ......Listen if you dish it out you will get it back I debate a lot my rule is the minute a snark , mockery or unrelated remark is tossed out you get two back 

You say ..........This is exactly my problem! I’m noticing that all the exceptions to free speech are things that, if allowed/protected, would harm others.

I just don’t get why abortion can’t be an exception to bodily autonomy if it hurts someone else (the fetus). 

My reply .....How does it “hurt” it?

What about hurt as in mental anguish forcing a woman to have what she doesn’t want?

You say .....To continue on this comment, I need you to tell me why the fetus isn’t a “life”. And let’s be fair about it and talk about a point in the pregnancy where abortion would occur; for example when you tell me why a fetus isnt a “life” do so referencing like an 8 week old fetus (not a fertilized egg or a fetus in the 8th month).

My reply ...Well science , philosophy and various other fields cannot decide at what stage a fetus becomes a being with the right to life , this question again is yet another deflection as it’s meaningless to my position as personally I care not.

You are a moral gradualist the later  into the pregnancy you seem to imply more “personhood” just like most in this debate

You say .....(my driver example)

My reply .....Yes your opinion is she has to pay the price no matter her circumstances, this is a form of tyranny

You say ... The driver example was there to explain why “she must take responsibility”. However, maybe this will clear things up: The purpose of sex wasn’t to show love for one another or have a good time (although these can be benefits). It’s purpose is to create babies. Just like the purpose of breasts is to breastfeed babies.

My reply ......Incorrect that’s merely your opinion on the matter what if one said the purpose of sex was fulfillment?

Why do millions of people engage in sex if not for fulfillment and love and never a thought of having a child crosses there minds?

Sexis much more than physical and concerning procreation. It is important to recognize and identify the breath of sexuality. Sexserves several of life's basic purposes: from pleasure, stress reduction, and formation of our identity to our intimate connection and (of course) procreation for some

You say .....Ok, let’s assume for a second that the fetus is human. Let’s pretend it is equal to you and me. 

Then it has a right to life. 

My reply .....Ok , let’s assume that owning slaves is moral. Let’s pretend they are not equal to you and me.

Then slaves don’t deserve equality 

You say .......But the main problem here is that you believe  that a right to life still doesn’t override bodily autonomy. You are right. Ex. I have a right to live and I need a kidney, but I cannot take your kidney just so I may live. If I kidnapped you and took your kidney, then I would be punished (jailed). 

But I believe there is a difference between this situation of bodily autonomy and pregnancy in the sense of bodily autonomy. 

My reply .....That’s your belief , what if I said I’ve the right to your kidney because there is a difference?

You say .....That difference, in my opinion, is that the woman is not (necessarily) at fault and the fetus is not at fault. 

Neither had a (direct) say in the matter. 

My reply .....What do you base this assumption on? A fetus certainly had no say how do you know the same is true for all women?

You say ......With that being said, I’m going to rely on only facts: no one has complete bodily autonomy. There are fine lines: Rape and taking someone’s organs are clearly an infringement on bodily autonomy. However, if no one can tell anyome what to do with their body, why should we force someone to wear clothes in public? 

My reply ......Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one’s own body without external influence or coercion. It is generally considered to be a fundamental human right. I still have rights over my own body no one is damaging or bodily harming me

You say ......Why should we force people to get vaccines? *I’m not saying you or me agrees with this idea. The answers may seem obvious, but aren’t these infringements on bodily autonomy as well?

My reply ......But most don’t force people to get them. Let’s say a deadly killer virus is on the loose would you not want vaccines enforced if it was to save the human race as this affects all of us.

You say .......So to get back to your question: We all have rights. Those rights are protected. But some people believe that protection should extend more or less. Some people believe the right to free speech protects hate speech and others believe it doesn’t. In the same way, I believe the right to bodily autonomy doesn’t extend to pregnancy. Did I answer this directly enough? 

My reply .......Yes you believe that but you’re missing the point so tell me ......Do you believe you have the right to force a woman to have a child against her will? 

You say ... I don’t think the definition of person is “individual”. I think they are synonyms. Here’s what I found for definition of individual: 

a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family.

If you don’t agree with this definition pleas provide a better one. 

My reply ......This constant terminology battle you insist on doing is pointless as it’s nothing to do with my question you keep avoiding as in ......Why should you have you the right to force a woman into giving birth to an unwanted without her consent?

Here you go yet again .....person

/ˈpəːs(ə)n/

noun

1. 1. 
   a human being regarded as an individual.

Tell me using your definition is a single human being not an individual? If not why not?

I don’t think you know what synonym means......a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language

You say ......But, according to this definition, I’d classify a fetus as an individual. It has its own DNA, distinct from the mother. It has its own body, distinct from the mother. It is dependent on the mother; however, an infant is dependent on its parents as well.

My reply .....Back to your terminology battle oh dear!  Individual means single, separate and this latest red herring is meaningless all your doing is deflection and avoidance .......Let’s try one final time ......Why should a woman be denied a right while a fetus is granted a right which forces a woman to give birth without her consent?

I have a feeling you will keep saying it’s a baby , person , individual so let’s allow that so what? Why is it fine to force a woman into giving birth without her consent?

John_C_87

I have a feeling you will keep saying it’s a baby , person , individual so let’s allow that so what? Why is it fine to force a woman into giving birth without her consent?
In basic principle woman are forced to continue the pregnancy because the process of ending the creation of a nations citizenship is replaced with a admission of guilt to murder which self-incriminating and is not a simple explanation which can by used in a very pain way for all woman.


Diplomatic immunity is asking for an political immunity for crimes that can take place in a Country. Those who seek diplomatic immunity or are given diplomatic status forfeit citizen ship in the most basic way. You and I have no idea what John C is saying (for the most part); that is because he is using words and meanings that no one understands. 

1. used as a noun

An excuse is a reason that you give in order to explain why something has been done, has not been done, or will not be done.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/excuse

united

adjective

unit·​ed | \ yu̇-ˈnī-təd\

Kids Definition of united

1 : made one United States of America

 state

noun, often attributive

\ ˈstāt \

Definition of state

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1a : mode or condition of being a state of readiness

b(1) : condition of mind or temperament in a highly nervous state

(2) : a condition of abnormal tension or excitement

2a : a condition or stage in the physical being of something insects in the larval state the gaseous state of water

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state

Diplomatic Immunity

A principle of International Law that provides foreign diplomats with protection from legal action in the country in which they work.

Established in large part by the Vienna conventions, diplomatic immunity is granted to individuals depending on their rank and the amount of immunity they need to carry out their duties without legal harassment. Diplomatic immunity allows foreign representatives to work in host countries without fully understanding all the customs of that country. However, diplomats are still expected to respect and follow the laws and regulations of their host countries; immunity is not a license to commit crimes.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/diplomatic+immunity

Dee

@John_C_87

What information you’re attempting to impart is beyond me , I have a feeling any further musings on your part will be equally void of implication 

Ankozzz

@Dee

I agree, one final time. This time pretending that we both agree that it is a baby/person/individual.

It is fine to force a woman to give birth without her consent because the baby has a right to life. You are not legally allowed to kill any person. Even in cases of self-defense your life has to be in direct danger. You can’t just kill someone because they are in your house. Yes, trespassing is a crime, but not one that warrants a death sentence. 

Also, because it’s not “forcing”. Pregnancy is a natural process beginning with the fertilization of the egg and ending with birth. 


********
That’s the main thing, the rest of this response is details relating to your latest reply, not necessarily your main question.

You being a man changes the way I view our conversation, not belief/opinion related, but just the tone in general. Like, coming from a fellow woman, “ cow” seems nicer than it coming from a man. The former had a shock to it and the latter makes the rest of this conversation more uncomfortable.

As far as terminology battles; 
This was a part of your definition of person:
human being, individual, man/woman, human, being, living soul, soul, mortal, creature, fellow; More

I believe a fetus is a person because it is a “living soul”.


you say....
Incorrect that’s merely your opinion on the matter what if one said the purpose of sex was fulfillment?

My reply... This is from 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3343355/
Which I’m pretty sure isn’t biased, but let me know if you find it is biased

Modern societies have increasingly separated the pleasure of the sexual act from its purpose—sexual reproduction—such that sex and sexual identity have become forms of expression, rather than a mere biological function.


If there’s something specific you wanted me to respond to, let me know. I think I got the main things.
Also, I have attempted to answer your question a few times, the first half of this response being one of them. 

John_C_87

Dee said: @John_C_87 What information you’re attempting to impart is beyond me , I have a feeling any further musings on your part will be equally void of implication.
Your going to make me pee my pants laughing that hard. Na! You got it. Just say the words Diplomatic immunity. You want all woman to have diplomatic immunity. "What information you’re attempting to impart is beyond me."  These are your words.

@Ankozzz ;

Also, because it’s not “forcing”. Pregnancy is a natural process beginning with the fertilization of the egg and ending with birth. 
Pregnancy starts with the creation of egg not fertilization. In the easiest to understand way not all woman create eggs to become pregnant, littler girls do not perform this process yet, and some woman stop producing eggs by natural process. Finally there are woman by illness who will never bear an egg.

John_C_87

Dee; I do not what to become any more annoying then absolutely necessary so I will not reply any more. The question Ankozzz asked was about why Pregnancy abortion is by choice illegal. Not why something like female specific amputation may in truth be a united state for all woman as basic constitutional principle in America.

Plaffelvohfen

@John_C_87

Pregnancy starts with the creation of egg not fertilization.

What???? So all women are "pregnant" during their period???? 

Wow... just wow....

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

Oh dear, he has a lot of bizarre ideas 

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

That's an understatement...   

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

I was attempting to be charitable I’m getting soft in my old age 

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

The older I get, the less I'm inclined to be charitable... I have less time to suffer idiots... lol  

John_C_87

Dee said:

@Plaffelvohfen

Oh dear, he has a lot of bizarre ideas 

What???? So all women are "pregnant" during their period????    Plaffelvohfen's idea.

 A woman can not have a pregnancy without a egg is constitutional basic principle, Plus scientific fact as united state. it is not even my idea. ???? But thank you for the credit?
ah...…. your getting old...….. that explains it. Not everyone grows wise with age. okay good to know thank you.

Plaffelvohfen

@John_C_87

It's not my idea dear... it's your very own statement that "Pregnancy starts with the creation of egg not fertilization"...

It does mean, (at least for normal and sane, English speakers) that a woman would be legally pregnant when menstruating... It is beyond absurd, even for you...

John_C_87

Oh dear, he has a lot of bizarre ideas 

Truth is stranger than fiction and not as useful as a lie....

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;
It's your idea. Can any woman get pregnant without an egg, no this process is legally unprecedented. Can any woman get pregnant before her body produces an egg, again no this process I also legally unprecedented. In basic idea someone may have been able to teach you this is a truth you are not as capable to teach it to me this simple lie.

Has any medical Doctor ever set legal precedent where as united state a woman had been made pregnant without a woman producing an egg before the pregnancy? Has a woman ever be impregnated as the result of a creation of human egg by a woman. Yes every woman known to medical science has  either witnessed or experienced this as United State.

at least for normal and sane, English speakers)
 I would strongly suggest a translator be hired by you so that basic principle can be made understandable by translation. This too is a legal precedent.

Plaffelvohfen

Seek therapy John, it's for your own good...

Ankozzz

@Plaffelvohfen

Hi! As per your wish, I will not contact you privately any longer. 
*this is publicly

I just wanted to say thank you for having this discussion with me for as long as you did. I know it was probably not enjoyable for either of us at most points. But the fact remains that I now fully understand your position and even though I could not be taught to share it, I respect it. I’m sure by now you’ve lost all or most respect for me, but I could not let you go without extending my gratitude for someone who put up with an like me . 

I’m only a senior in high school, so my beliefs aren’t all that firm yet. I’m sure after a couple more conversations with educated people like you, I will be able to distinguish my flaws.

But, for now, I’m giving you a virtual handshake that you may or may not accept, and that I hope brings a mutual ending to a great discussion.

I wish you a happy life!

Ankozzz

@Dee

I’m sorry, in my last post I forgot to specifically mention something important!

You say...
Really? You said this ......Women are terribly misled, mostly by people like you 

You said this .....I see you as a criminally-insane piece of

My reply...  My deepest apologies, the only reason I called you a “criminally insane piece of ” was in response to your “ cow” comment. I didn’t realize I was the one to make the first blow.

In regards to the comment that started it all, I didn’t realize that it was a personal attack until now... again, sorry, my fault entirely. I think I could’ve expressed what I meant in a different, more appropriate way. 

What I meant was: I don’t believe the comments you’ve made are valid and that they include inaccurate information.

*I’d also like to note that I take back what I said (even though the harm is already done) and that I don’t firmly believe in what “I meant” to say. You’re information is not inaccurate, and much of your comments are valid; I respect them, but I cannot agree with them.

In a conversation I had with Plaffelvohfen, we discovered that the core reason I don’t support abortion is for religious not legal reasons. I don’t know if you want to get into all that though 

Dee

@Ankozzz

You say ..... apologies, the only reason I called you a “criminally insane piece of ” was in response to your “ cow” comment. I didn’t realize I was the one to make the first blow.

In regards to the comment that started it all, I didn’t realize that it was a personal attack until now... again, sorry, my fault entirely. I think I could’ve expressed what I meant in a different, more appropriate way. 

What I meant was: I don’t believe the comments you’ve made are valid and that they include inaccurate information.

I’d also like to note that I take back what I said (even though the harm is already done) and that I don’t firmly believe in what “I meant” to say. You’re information is not inaccurate, and much of your comments are valid; I respect them, but I cannot agree with them.

In a conversation I had with Plaffelvohfen, we discovered that the core reason I don’t support abortion is for religious not legal reasons. I don’t know if you want to get into all that though 

My reply  .....It’s all good and it’s in the heat of battle no apology necessary I’m also sorry for reacting the way I did.

Sure I’m good to go on that I had a feeling religious belief may have been a motivating factor in your reasoning , what are your religious reasons for your position?

YeshuaBought

Free birth control prevents so many abortions.

John_C_87

YeshuaRedeemed said:

Free birth control prevents so many abortions.

In whole truth it's birth control in which the person who pay's does not have the sex prevents unstented pregnancy.   

Ankozzz

@Dee ;

I’m Christian. Now, individual bible verses can be taken out of context. They can also be used to argue in favor of pro-choicers or in favor of pro-lifers.

That’s why I always look to the Ten Commandments; in this case the 6th Commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. The Ten Commandments is where God puts his “rules” into layman’s terms. They are very clear.

As I consider a fetus a living soul, I consider it a sin to have an abortion.

I also believe that if someone does have an abortion, and they ask for forgiveness, they will be forgiven. Nonetheless, I don’t believe any sin should be supported/encouraged.

Are you religious?

Dee

@Ankozzz

You say.......I’m Christian. Now, individual bible verses can be taken out of context. They can also be used to argue in favor of pro-choicers or in favor of pro-lifers.

My reply ....Why would you refer to a book that’s open to so many interpretations, it’s remarkable when Christians don’t agree with challenges to the Bible the go to defence is “its out of context” 

You say .......That’s why I always look to the Ten Commandments; in this case the 6th Commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. The Ten Commandments is where God puts his “rules” into layman’s terms. They are very clear.

My reply ......Not clear enough when countries like America have the death penalty which is people killing people and America calls itself a Christian country , also if a man was going to press the red button to release nuclear mayhem and you could save the world by shooting him you wouldn’t do it? 

You say ......As I consider a fetus a living soul, I consider it a sin to have an abortion.

My reply ......What is a soul? Can you show me a soul? What is sin?

You say ......I also believe that if someone does have an abortion, and they ask for forgiveness, they will be forgiven

My reply .....Why would someone ask for forgiveness for exercising a right? 

You say ........ Nonetheless, I don’t believe any sin should be supported/encouraged.

My reply .....What is a sin?

You say ......Are you religious?

My reply ......No I’m not , I previously was a devout Roman Catholic but realized it was utter nonsense when I read the Bible 

John_C_87

@Ankozzz ;

Okay there are a couple of issues in layman’s terms. First: killing can be accidental and God is saying don't have accidents. Great! Second: it said thou shall not kill, a person can take on the deliverance of death themselves by their choice of action using a person as the weapon of choice to end their own life. Again! Great. Third: This truth, death can be an implement of mercy in which a person is not killed they are spared cruel formalities of the living. Basically, you must be mad to kill someone this is a whole other debate.

all of this having nothing to do with truth that pro-choice and Pro-life argue only admission of confession and not the whole truth set in motion of that confession. Speaking of truth in basic principle a Christian can only believe killing takes place when the person is not taken into the house of their Lord to live forever.

As I consider a fetus a living soul, I consider it a sin to have an abortion.
This is not true, Pregnancy abortion is provable as not a sin, it is still having sexual relationship without marriage is the sin, the act of sin is provable in a court of law, or before GOD, not always enforceable in a court. Provable. God not always the necessity to still insist on the account of truth. A woman performs a Pregnancy abortion by not having sexual intercourse only as she alone is in complete control, killing a child as a result of not having sex, the woman knows how to save the life held as united state in all woman. decides not to by Pro-choice. It is already documenting that abstinence is not a sin in Christian religion, yet, it is still killing. It has nothing to do with sin presented to the public as the truth or lie.  Female specific amputation is not pregnancy abortion