He isn’t asking about life-saving medical care. He’s asking if they think there should be ANY limit on when a woman can CHOOSE to have an abortion. Quit being obtuse.
2 Likes
It’s like gun rights; you give up an inch and you open the door to having more taken.
Only 1% of abortions take place after 21 weeks anyway, and we can assume a certain number are for medical reasons. The whole line of questioning is the representative’s way to try and get a soundbite of a pro choice activist saying they are ok with an abortion at the moment of birth, when it’s actually too late, in order to be able to claim democrats are ok with post birth abortion. Which is technically murder. “They literally want to kill babies!”
This isn’t about coming to some resolution but scoring political points. Come to some consensus on when a human life becomes a human being/person first.
Except one is a right and the other is giving an inch on when you can kill your kid.
That will never happen. We can’t even come to a consensus on what a woman is.
Can we all agree what Northam was suggesting is wrong?
1 Like
Who is that? That man prefers “Coonman.”
1 Like
What if you use a gun?
If the clip had some context.
Which, depending on legislation, may or may not be a right.
A woman is whatever I say it is dammit!
1 Like
An inalienable right always exists as a right regardless of legislation.
Doesn’t a right need to be recognized as such via legislation?
I think a distinction needs to be made between legal rights, which are in effect privileges, and metaphysical rights.
In the sentence previous to this you acknowledge it as both human and a being. From a scientific perspective, there is absolutely no controversy. The only way you can make this argument is if you want to inject the religious notion of some sort of soul status that give a human being worth. So you are arguing that human life is not inherently valuable, what’s of value is the human soul, which has no basis in measurable science. It’s one of the ironic things I find about this argument, the left is the one arguing religion.
1 Like
Inalienable rights do not need to be recognized to exist. They existed long before the legislation was put into place. I think codifying them is important because governments suck in general.
Depends on the right like you distinguished. This is why I don’t like throwing the word “right” around.
Privileges are not rights.
2 Likes
wooooaah. We are at 60+ million abortions in the US. There is an abortion every like 10 seconds. 1% is still a huge number. We are at about a million abortions a year right now. 1% is 10000 a year. Even 1% of abortions is more than half all murder of born humans in the US. 10,000 murders a year of pain feeling viable humans is still a big fucking deal in my book.
4 Likes
It’s funny how the pro-choice movement can try to right off something that might be murder as just a low percentage. Like what if only 1% of NRA members murdered someone with fire arms. Maybe it’s a horrible evil crime, but 1% is such a little number so why would you care… right?
1 Like
Natural negative rights (what are codified in the constitution) are what people are NOT allowed to do to you. A positive right (not in the constitution) or what you’d call a privilege describes something that other people MUST do for you. It’s confusing because the left and right use the same word, but they are not only different, they are both opposites and mutually exclusive.
1 Like
No. Human, as an adjective, can describe anything from a finger to feces.
I don’t think human being and/or person is defined by science. Science can perhaps measure or identify those things which would be part of the definition for human being.
Value is a matter of perception that can change at any given moment.
You need to do two things:
- Think about what you posted and reconsider if it makes any kind of sense.
- Find better sources.
How many were for health reasons?
That’s not the point. The point is using the extreme example for abortion to argue against it is not a persuasive argument. The congressman brought up abortion at the point of birth, something which makes no sense, to argue against abortion. If abortion is murder, then why does it matter when it occurs during a pregnancy?
Murder is already defined by law so what does this even mean?
1 Like
Where do you find them? I’m sure you could find people with differing ideas of what would be considered inalienable rights, across regions and time.
I mean, I have my own ideas of what should be considered inalienable rights but I know not everyone would agree and I can’t prove I’m right.
Yep. I take the libertarian stance on positive rights as only existing via contract.
Most of the inalienable rights listed in the constitution have been around in various forms across most civilizations. I would argue they are inherent to civilization.
I think most can agree on inalienable rights in their base form, but may disagree on how they are applied or what extent they go to.
- To act in self-defense
- To own private property
- To work and enjoy the fruits of one’s labor
- To move freely within the county or to another country
- To worship or refrain from worshipping within a freely-chosen religion
- To be secure in one’s home
- To think freely
This is obviously not an exhaustive list and yes some societies do not recognize some or many of them.
3 Likes
That’s the problem with the abortion argument in some of its forms. If someone says they are prochoice, a response might be, “so you are ok with murdering babies?” That doesn’t support a persuasive argument. Pro-choice people are not in favor of murdering babies but they have a different idea of when something inside a pregnant woman should be considered a “baby.”
That’s why the line of questioning by the congressman is silly and just political theater. Moment of birth is not a medical term. It could mean anything but we know what he is implying, that is, the moment the baby is in the birth canal and about to emerge. That’s a point that I would think even prochoice people would say is too late for an abortion. I should add, abortion by the mother’s choice. Asking a doctor if a woman should have a choice at the moment of birth is asking a question that cannot be answered.
I think everyone understood what he meant. Even if they did not he also asked until what “gestational age” would they be ok with an abortion happening which is pretty clear, yet was not answered.
The bigger issue is that this is 100% true… behind closed doors. However a lot of pro choice people would not say that openly due to it conflicting with the ‘side’ they are on.
Same with most anti-abortionists who would agree there are cases abortions should be allowed but they wouldn’t say that publicly because it conflicts with their ‘side’.
This is again 100% correct. Similar to pro-choice people using women’s rights/ oppression narrative when someone says they are anti-abortion.
This isn’t a subject where we can argue our points and convince the other party we are right. People have an opinion either way and have no interest in actually having a debate. All they want is to ‘win’
We did. We won bigly and its awesome.
1 Like