Comparing Roe v. Wade to Alabama's heart beat abortion law (Page 3)

Kekraptico: Just to make a point, about how weak an argument the golden rule is to this administration, where are all the pro-lifers on the subject of putting children in detention centers? Where are the pro-lifers on the value of the lives of immigrant children? Is the object to make abortion illegal for the white ethno state to promote white fertility rates, or is it really because we care about ALL of gods children?

Kekraptico: I dont think they mind rape, as long as it produces a white baby in white america.

Super Esquire: Let's address the immigration vis a vis abortion issue. For example, kekraptico wrote, "where are all the pro-lifers on the subject of putting children in detention centers? Where are the pro-lifers on the value of the lives of immigrant children?"

Here, this can actually be an argument for the need for a rape exception to these heart beat bills. If someone pushes themselves upon a woman, against her will, whether a rapist, or in this case a refugee who breaks all the laws to come here (akin to legal raping of the host country), exploiting kids as collateral, one should not be forced to carry the baby, but they can if they wish. Immigrants and rape-result babies still can be a blessing to the woman or country.

Immigration is beyond the scope of this thread, but a few words can be said. There comes a point when enough is enough, and we have to stop the flow, or disrespect of our laws. And help ppl assimilate into our country. Otherwise, where will they flee to, if they turn this place into the place they came from? We respect our heritage and our forefathers and mothers too much to let this nation slip away from us and our children's future.

Therefore, with rape exception, the prolife golden rule position is consistent.

kittybobo34: Perhaps this should be a United Nations issue. Refugees have strained the resources of many countries before ours.

kittybobo34: If refugees were limited to the neighboring countries only, They might just stop running away and stand and fight for what they want.

theHating: Not all refugees break laws, and there is nothing criminal about seeking asylum. Putting kids in jail on american soil, .... Why is gop policy always dealing out so many "unintended consequences"?

Aside from abortion.

Dont you get the feeling the unintended consequences of criminalizing pregnancy are the desired result?

kittybobo34: Just my personal opinion, but it seems the GOP runs on fear, they see a mass wave of people overrunning their country.

The flying Squirrel: Alabama was the last State to get rid of segregation wasn't it . I suppose you could hardly call it a progressive state.

Super Esquire: Hating, et. al: by one report, merely 12 to 15 percent of asylum cases are adjudicated as genuine, most merely economic based masquerading as fear of persecution, a type of fraud

Kitty, I get it though, the need aspect. And u.s. is collapsing morally, becoming a nation of heathens, where anything goes. The immigrants are filling the vacuum of our corruption as a ppl.


Like Ocassio Cortez says yes yes yes to immigrants, just not immigrants from the womb. Let's kill those off, bc they interfere with a woman's career, right? Babies in the womb are just "fetuses," and they are just "property" of the woman's body, with no distinct, unique genetic identity, right? And these "fetuses" (not babies) were spontaneously produced by the woman, and have the status of her arm pit hair, or her eye brows, both of which can be plucked or disposed of at will.

Dehumanizing ppl into property (babies in womb), has a nasty history in the u.s., like with slavery. Dehumanizing is a necessary precursor to genocide.

SandraLee62: keep the babies get rid of all men hows that

kittybobo34: Wow, that's harsh Sandra. regarding men's status.

We consider a person dead when their brain waves stop, why not consider fetuses a person when they have a detectable brain wave,,, which as I understand is at about 5 months.

SandraLee62: well if there were no men, women could not get pregnant case
solved.

Blackshoes: In saying the following you clearly relegate all moral and legal judgements to Religion ?

" kittybobo34: Seems that most of the antiabortion rhetoric is based on religion. "

Therefore you are making the case that mankind cannot decide for themselves what good bad ,or what morals are' unless mankind evoke religion ?


The following is so true ! Well said Super Esquire:


"Dehumanizing ppl into property (babies in womb), has a nasty history in the u.s., like with slavery. Dehumanizing is a necessary precursor to genocide."


I would add ', that it's a major precursor to the entire world history of genocide .

SandraLee62: look what the cat drug in

Super Esquire: Sandra, getting rid of all the men sounds like an idea, except the human race would eventually die out.

SandraLee62: it will anyway from the global warming and wars

kittybobo34: Can't imagine having to restart civilization from the bottom again. Not even sure we could do it a second time.

kittybobo34: NPR had TED talks on, they are saying by 2050 growing crops world wide will be a challenge because of the constant weather changes,, so mass starvation. We may have to resort to greenhouses to ensure a food supply.

theHating: Strawman, esquire.

The point of scientific distinguishment is not in contention with the argument to promote abortion rights. Pro-choice isnt ordering scientists to call kids "fetuses", that is silly. Pro-life refuses to observe the distinction. The idea isnt to reduce a toddler to a zygote, it's to point out for a different argument. But, ommiting the context of that argument, which would you save from a burning building, a toddler, or a freezer full of zygotes?

Now, if you think pro-choice is conspiring around the femi-nazi pools of thought; that is to get rid of child-bearing responsibilities and make it easier for other women to get off the hook for terminating their fetuses, then you are paranoid. Pure and simple, if you're criminalizing pregnancy universally, what makes you any better than the mother who wants to end her pregnancy?

theHating: I think its a no brainer: if you think a fetus is equal to a human in post-birth development, then why not save the freezer full of zygotes? 1000 perfectly fine human embryos is greater than a single four year old's priceless memories.

Personally, i would save the toddler because he has kind of autonomy that pro-lifers reject even within their own arguments. He has the kind of personality that comes from experiencing life that a zygote does not possess the ability to comprehend.

Perhaps you could say no to abortion without criminalizing pregnancy?

theHating: I mean, you talk a bit about precursors to slavery.

Do you think criminalizing pregnancy will reduce, increase, or have no effect on rates of "fetal murder"?

kittybobo34: I say it would increase it, since pregnant mothers would be trying to hide the evidence.

theHating: Such is life, i suppose.

But surely its a bit more complex than just stricter regulations on abortion. Pro-life makes the argument quite strongly in my opinion that it should be regulated, but instead of making a right turn at the junction of personal liberty and criminal law, the take a huge left turn and assume the issue of abortion is a big problem that requires a simple fix; criminalization. We saw how well it worked for everything else, but you can't find a strong enough argument to say there are no victims in a murder case.

And the problem i have with that is that pro-life keeps strawmanning pro-choice regarding the scientific definitions or distinctions drawn between a fetus and a newborn. First of all, no body wants to reduce human life to something that is not human. Second of all, AT NO POINT DO SCIENTISTS SIMPLY DECLARE A FETUS A FETUS. During ALL stages of fetal development, from zygote to birth, the fetus is always "human being".

The point is that distinction is necessary to convey the developmental stages of human tissue, my biggest problem with making an argument against the idea of criminalizing pregnancy is that the argument against pro-choice is contrived and largely hangs on legal definitions, not scientific or standard definitions. So to introduce a heartbeat bill based on the ability of advanced science to detect a heartbeat is contrived and has no context other than declaring clinical death of the brain: which requires a brain.

I dont see any logical argument for declaring a heartbeat is where we ought to draw the line. Based on what?? The zygote is a human being at the point of conception, pro-life understands that, to, but they might word it in ambiguity.

I see no logic in the decision to distinguish the legality of an abortion just because the zygote has a hearbeat. I see that as a contrived reason to push forward the american evangelical christian agenda; aka the god argument.

theHating: Its hilarious that pro-life will reject science until they can use it to move "science-based" policy, where the implications of such policy are desirable "unintended" consequences

theHating: Being anti-abortion has nothing to do with protecting gods children and 100% to do with protecting man's seed and the human species; aka, making women property of men.