Mostly because the rights of citizenship begin at birth.Doesn't mean that right is just or should be upheld. Do you have something more to go on?
I'm pretty certain they call themselves "pro-choice". Nobody is advocating for mass abortions. Nobody wants people to have abortions.They are simply arguing that it should be an option. It is an unpleasant choice that is less-bad than many of the alternatives.Clearly semantics
or I don't know you are triggered by some framing.
I am pretty sure that the majority democratic stance is if they need an abortion then they should have it which goes for every single abortion occurring right now and in the past.
The Supreme Court’s decision finding a right to privacy arose in a 1965 case involving the right of a married couple to use contraception called Griswold v. Connecticut. But the right has become responsible for court decisions supporting adult rights to sexual intimacy, to gay marriage, and to the rights of parents to make family decisions, such as whether their children are home-schooled or go to religious schools. The right to privacy also supports an adult’s right to decide their medical care, and an adult’s right to die, by rejecting medical care in certain circumstances. This medical care area also implicates the rights and autonomy of the physically disabled and the mentally ill. Further, the right to privacy can support artificial insemination. And transgender individuals have used privacy to argue that schools cannot ban them from certain bathrooms, and that government must generally support their gender identity choices.Where was the part that being against abortion impacts this again?
Fact: the rights of citizenship begin at birth.
It is an unpleasant choice that is less-bad than many of the alternatives.
I appreciate your dime-store psychoanalysis.
I'm pretty sure it's a private matter between a woman and her doctor.
De facto protection for abortion stems from a right to privacy. [LINK]
Most miscarriages are preventable. (IFF) an embryo is a citizen (THEN) a preventable miscarriage is manslaughter.Any evidence?The definition states: the spontaneous or unplanned expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently.So if you were proving anything you would be proving that it wasn't a miscarriage instead was intentional fetus killing or something.
Manslaughter is the unintentional killing of another citizen.
Most miscarriages are preventable. (IFF) an embryo is a citizen (THEN) a preventable miscarriage is manslaughter.
Some lifestyle habits – such as drug abuse, alcohol use during pregnancy, and smoking – have been found cause early miscarriage and pregnancy loss in later trimesters. Optimizing your health leading up to your pregnancy could help reduce your risk of miscarriage. "Up to half of pregnancies are unplanned, which means women are often not best prepared for pregnancy when it occurs," Dr. Zobel says. "Most women do not realize that they are pregnant until a couple weeks after their missed period. By that time, the fetal spinal cord has already been formed and the heart is beating. Preparing for pregnancy by modifying diet and exercise, limiting stress, optimizing chronic medical disorders, and beginning prenatal vitamins is ideal for all pregnancies. [LINK]
It does not really matter whether a woman is pro- or anti-abortion. In states like Tennessee, with its freshly passed anti-abortion amendment, you can be arrested for having a miscarriage.Am I supposed to be for this or something? I am not given the definition that is "spontaneous" or "unplanned". If a miscarriage is preventable it is not a miscarriage.
An alarming number of women are being arrested, prosecuted and jailed just for losing their pregnancies. In addition to anti-abortion measures, you can thank the advance of “personhood” fights for embryos, fetuses and even fertilized eggs for that.Guess more filler. What were you trying to show with this again?
Being anti-abortion = anti patient-doctor confidentiality.If I said I was going to murder a bunch of people to a therapist and carefully laid out how I would do it. Are you telling me the therapist would not speak to the proper authorities regarding what I just said?
You would have to demonstrate how anti-privacy in this specific [RED HERRING] context is more valuable than a life either by showing a fetus isn't a life or anti-privacy is more valuable.
What happens inside a woman's body (sovereign territory) is her business.What do you consider sovereign territory?
Why should what she want be valued more than what is inside of her?
Please provide an example of something that happens inside a woman's body that is NOT her business.An abortion.
It requires the business of lets say planned parenthood given the authority to do so by the government.
Her business is only granted by the state. She wouldn't have it without the state and even if the state gave her the right she still has to use the facilities given by the government to commit to an abortion.
If it was her business she wouldn't need the government to make it happen but she does.
Are you assaulting or murdering a person in a foreign sovereign territory?Fetus. What do you consider a person then?
Here's the problem. [LINK]A crooked system is a crooked system. Do you think I am for a crooked system?
Are you suggesting we are in danger of running out of children?No. In order for there to be people to take part in a democracy we require people.
Please dial back the hyperbole. You are free to make as many babies as you see fit.It wasn't hyperbole. It is what would actually occur or you think non-existent hyperbole then I can't help you.
Calling me out for the hyperbole yet you started it? Isn't that hypocritical?You said:Suggesting that every embryo should be granted the full rights and protections of citizenship from conception essentially criminalizes miscarriage and eliminates all personal privacy."eliminate all personal privacy"
Hypocrite and a liar.
Fact: the rights of citizenship begin at birth.Should it stay a right or are you going to cower behind muh law instead of making an argument?
It is an unpleasant choice that is less-bad than many of the alternatives.Oh so you were triggered over my framing and still want to discuss. Okay.
I appreciate your dime-store psychoanalysis.Worth more than your cold takes. Muh hypocrite. Muh liar. Muh because the law said so.
I'm pretty sure it's a private matter between a woman and her doctor.I have already shown a therapist example and you would have to show that either a fetus is not a life or privacy is more valuable.
De facto protection for abortion stems from a right to privacy. [LINK]I am not advocating for the against abortion that leads to more privacy concerns.
A slippery slope fallacy is still a slippery slope fallacy.
Free speech is not actually defended in the United States because people are not able to simply state they want to murder someone but that hasn't led to other violations because of it.
Republicans will have the power to do so anyway and by the looks of it they will remain in power given the next election cycle so they are still going to do it. I am not for that. Doesn't mean there can't be a system where the US has an anti-abortion stance yet maintain other privacy.
If they don't nor have access to this information then it is not their fault. Fault lies with people who know what they are doing is bad yet they still do it.
That is a lot to go through.I don't want to spend time on it.Agree to disagree I guess.
8 days later
OMar---That is a lot to go through...I don't want to spend time on it....Agree to disagree I guess
..."3Ru7AL---A person's right to their own autonomy is equivalent to a nation's sovereignty. Why should the rights of a sovereign country be valued more than that of an immigrant (inside of that country)?"...
18 days later
Having a pro-life position yet be for the death penalty.
Saying everyone should have equal rights yet not have the same position when it comes to fetuses.
Irrationality defending your side instead of bringing out rational critiques.
Pro choice is referring to giving women the option to abort a baby.What if I am pro-choice and against the death penalty?
Does "everyone" include:
criminals?illegal immigrants?foreigners?aliens?animals?sub-humans?insects?bacteria?
fetuses?
This is why I think people, including myself too since I am guilty of this too, should be careful with words like "everyone" because I'm not sure we would all agree that a cockroach should have the "intrinsic right to life" "the right to bear arms" "the right to free speech" "the right to a free education" and "the right to free healthcare" the same way people do.
Also, when it comes to "rights," it's important to remember that certain rights can be LOST. If a criminal commits a mass murder with a gun, then they lose their second amendment right to bear arms. If someone slanders and defames, then they lose their first amendment right to free speech and are legally penalized. If an unborn baby puts too much burden on it's mother, then it could lose it's "right to life" before it's even born.
Irrationally defending your side isn't hypocritical. It's stupid, yes, but not necessary hypocritical.
Example:Having a pro-life position yet be for the death penalty.Saying everyone should have equal rights yet not have the same position when it comes to fetuses.Irrationality defending your side instead of bringing out rational critiques.
Irrational comments can be hypocritical if it is inconsistent with their other views but it isn't always the case.And you listed "Irrationality defending your side instead of bringing out rational critiques." as an example of being hypocritical, right?
Also, when it comes to "rights," it's important to remember that certain rights can be LOST.
The second amendment gives the "right to bear arms" to a "well regulated militia".What good is having a second amendment right to bear arms...
So I guess there aren't any unalienable rights then? Or there are unalienable rights, but only to specific people?
