Why is the murder of children now being called a "constitutional right"?

[msc545]

Abortion is now being called a "constitutional right". Where in the Constitution does it say that women have the right to murder unborn children?

[ProbablyClueless]

It doesn't, anywhere. People like to misinterpret the Roe ruling as establishing the right to an abortion, but that's not what it actually did.

The closest Roe came to declaring a woman's right to have an abortion was saying that women's rights to privacy and bodily autonomy allows women to have unhindered access to the abortion services made available to them. It NEVER said that women have a right to access an abortion. Only that, if an abortion service has been made available to them, they can access/use that service without undue restriction.

[msc545]

not the point at all.

[ProbablyClueless]

Ah! I misunderstood you then. What point were you trying to make then?

[msc545]

People that are in favor of abortion like to argue that it is somehow a "Constitutional right" - I am wondering how they concluded that?

[Sevenpointfive]

you take away my gotdmmd ditution and i show your right s. neeneenhe

[msc545]

@Sevenpointfive what?

[Crimsyjo]

Your argue against this. But it's not a child if unborn. It's not even a baby technically until a certain stage in development.

It is a life form tho... or is it?

Whilst the mothers heart, blood and body support it and it cannot survive separate from the mother than it could be argued it is an extension of the mothers own body and only has rights once able to survive separated and alive in its own right. Which is typically after 24 weeks.

Not saying this is right or wrong as such. But there are two rights involved not one. The rights of the woman and the rights of the unborn Embryo/Fetus. And as the Embryo/Fetus cannot survive yet it cannot take precedence over a living breathing thinking adult.

Again, I know you feel too strongly about "murder" to see it anyway other way. But that doesn't make your opinion any more valid over someone else's.

[msc545]

Of course its a child. What else could it be?

[Crimsyjo]

Technically a child is from age 4.
First it is a egg for 14 days. Then an Embryo to week 6. Then a Fetus until birth.
Reason abortion cuts off at week 24 is because around week 27 the brains and lungs develop.
Can a thing that has no brain to think or sense or know nor lungs to breathe be called alive? Or a baby?
I mean... unless for medical reasons or other certain reasons a woman should know if she wants a pregnancy of not and be able to abort before it is much of anything than cells dividing attached to the womb.
I personally would not want to abort so far along in pregnancy. But I would abort early as I know I don't want any more children and my risk of pregnancy is very low but I'd be taking a test as soon as I missed a period.

[msc545]

I understand you want to use different names for different stages of development because not doing so and calling it a child or a baby or a person makes you uncomfortable. People usually use alternate names for people they want to feel free to kill.

[Crimsyjo]

I understand u want to attach the word baby or child to something that scientifically and anatomically is no such thing in order to try to guilt people into not being able to answer your question in the way you formatted it. To say "yes its OK to kill a baby/child".
The word doesn't make me uncomfortable. I don't want a baby. I am happy to kill my baby. Does that make you feel better to hear me say it in those words? I've no problem doing so. I'd women abort than bring a unwanted child into the world that harms both the child mentally (growing up abandoned) and harms the world with over population.
Just for the record I also believe in euthanasia and that it's cruel to keep alive children or adults who are suffering.

[d0x000]

Is a new born's life worth the same as a living, breathing, thinking adult?

[Crimsyjo]

@d0x000 the question isn't asking about a new born. It's asking about an unborn. Big difference. But @msc545 insisted on the terminology being used the same. When it's not the same hence the "constitution" is not condoning "murdering children ".
In terms of your question, in it's own right, again there is always contexts to consider. On a moral surface level yes. A newborn babies life is the same worth as an adult. But usually, say in an emergency situation, hospitals will usually choose to save a mother over an infant. I think. Most certainly over an unborn.
With context... if a choice had to be made to save a mother of 5 young children over her baby who should be saved? Is making 6 infants motherless better than losing one life that knows not what is happening?

[d0x000]

I'm aware of that, I'm just asking you if, under normal circumstances, a new born's life worth the same as a living, breathing, thinking adult?

[Crimsyjo]

@d0x000 yes the value is the same.

[d0x000]

@Crimsyjo Okay good. Now, what makes a new born different from an unborn child?

[msc545]

I think your own words "I am happy to kill my baby" are really all that is necessary. Do you also think it is your Constitutional Right to kill your baby?

[msc545]

@d0x000 Worth is defined in what way here?

[d0x000]

@msc545 In terms of the right to life under the constitution.

[msc545]

@d0x000 Ok, then unborn children have as much of a right to life as anyone already born, including the mother.

[d0x000]

@msc545 Okay cool, I was just asking @Crimsyjo the same question.

[Crimsyjo]

"I think your own words "I am happy to kill my baby" are really all that is necessary. Do you also think it is your Constitutional Right to kill your baby?"
Well i was using the term you wanted to force me to use to prove I could when as I say context is always important and I am calling an unborn a baby as you wish and not talking of a born baby. You want to force me into being uncomfortable killing both, unborn and born, but there IS a difference no matter how much you want to argue there is not. accidentally get pregnant and don't want it? This is the one that most people really have issue with. The constitution could give rights only under special circumstances. But what do you think should happen to these babies born under such circumstances? Is there not enough unwanted children in the world? And what of men's role in creating children? Should the law that gives women rights to have an unwanted child make in law that the father has to look after, care, and be solely responsible for the child if the mother doesn't want it? Maybe that will be enough incentive for both people to think twice about making a baby.

[Crimsyjo]

"Ok, then unborn children have as much of a right to life as anyone already born, including the mother."

I disagree because an unborn (and we are talking before brain development) is not a part of society yet. It has no rights hence all rights on its behalf go to the mother. And if the woman does not want to be a mother or cannot carry the pregnancy to term with out risk of death does she not have rights to choose?

Is your abortion protests against ALL unborn life being ended? Do you believe a raped woman should be forced to carry to term? What about one who medically will die doing so? What about an abused child made pregnant at age 12? Do none of those have rights? Do they have rights over an unborn? Because of the contexts?
What about a cocaine addict? Or homeless woman? What about a woman who did use contraception but it failed?

And what about women who just

[Crimsyjo]

I wish there was an edit button as my answer was two long for one post and now is chopped weirdly between this reply and the other. But I think still makes sense enough

[msc545]

@Crimsyjo I have no ability to force you do do anything. Who taught you to argue You are now engaged in erecting multiple straw men that you then proceed to knock down and somehow expect applause. This sort of thing where you also make up[ your own unique causation and rules:

"I disagree because an unborn (and we are talking before brain development) is not a part of society yet. It has no rights hence all rights on its behalf go to the mother. "

You decide who does and does not have rights, and where the left over or inapplicable rights go. What the hell sort of "thinking" produced this drivel?

[Crimsyjo]

Well exactly. Who gives you rights to choose any more than the mother who's body we are talking about?

Who has rights to choose anything? To choose moral standards at all?

For a peaceful society we have to give over some rights to an authority (government or some such institute) who then male decisions that not everyone will agree with. But that's the price we pay. Instead of destructive anarchy.

"I have no ability to force you to do anything"
No but you wanted to disagree with the definitions of what constitutes a baby and blur the lines of unborn and born. To force me down a path that you could then manipulate with forcing wrong word usage. I was just proving your point by using Yr forced terms to see how yes it quickly leads to the manipulation I spoke of "so you would kill a baby".

I knew when I replied to this there would be no reasoning. And conveniently an avoidance of my questions on if a abused child or raped woman has rights to "kill her baby"? Because you do not want to look at context. Which as I say, is everything.
And with constituents, governments, laws... they have to either make a blanket case (all) or a case by case ruling. Which leads to non stop questions on ethics and rights. Hence when taking into consideration the medical and scientific evidence - that a unborn is not yet a baby. And has no consciousness. At least not until brain development. It is plausible that they can make a blanket decision based on majority of expert opinion.

If you think this thinking drivel then it is you that needs to learn how to break out of your small box and look at bigger pictures than your own biases and learn that it's OK to disagree but that doesn't make everyone else wrong and you right.

[msc545]

Nothing you have said so far justifies murder no matter how you twist and turn.

[msc545]

Also, define "consciousness" since you used that term.

[Crimsyjo]

Defining terms like consciousness is again something experts have yet to agree on and I'm not an expert. But the dictionary definition is "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings." Which a unborn Fetus/Embryo before brain development is most certainly incapable of.

"Nothing you have said so far justifies murder no matter how you twist and turn."

Nobody is trying to justify murder. If you let go of the belief it is murder you can keep your moral intact and concede that a woman has a right to abort something not yet alive/conscious. And only argue that at the point it is alive is when it's murder.

I'm a philosophy student so I'm well aware that every question just raises more questions (define worth? Define alive? Define value or rights?) And many questions do not have right or wrong or clear answers. What is absolutely right and makes sense to you the opposite is absolutely right and makes sense to the other.

To go in a slightly different direction as you are fixated on the word murder.. if a man broke into a house and tied up the parents and then raped, tortured and dismembered their children in front of them... would the mother or father, upon breaking free, not be justified in murdering the evil person?

Some will say he is absolutely justified (therefore murder can be justified) and some will say murder is never justified. Even in this case, and as socrates would agree, you can't fight injustice with injustice.

Who decides - who even has a right to decide - which group of people are right?

Therefore once again majority usually wins. And the majority of people believe abortion is a womans right over rights of the unborn. You don't have to agree. But it's where democracy rules.

[msc545]

So you keep using a word you cannot define, right?

[msc545]

Your majority wins argument is just a restatement of the ad populum fallacy.

[Crimsyjo]

Are you arguing against the multitude of scientific and medical research that has gone into pregnancy studies and Fetus development?
You are blinded by your single mindedness.

There could be 5 billion people telling you not to jump off a cliff but because you believe so wholeheartedly you can fly you would do it anyways.

[Anonymous]

abortion has never been a right let alone a constitutional right

if it's taxpayer funded, it can't be a constitutional right

free speech doesn't need taxpayer funding

self-defense doesn't need taxpayer funding

innocent until proven guilty doesn't need taxpayer funding

abortions do require taxpayer funding and therefore can not be right. at best a privilege that can be revoked upon abusing the privilege

heck the right to life is actually a constitutional right

[goaded]

The idea that a fetus is a person, especially "from the moment of conception", is a religious idea from parts of a single religion, and the first amendment gives people freedom of religion.

A child has to have been born.

It's not murder, it's either a choice, when it's early, or an end of life decision made by the undoubtedly next of kin, when it's late.

Abortion access reduces suffering.

Roe was a reasonable compromise; Republicans screwed it up and threw it out and at least two young, grown, women have died as a direct result of it in Texas alone. The rate of maternal mortality cases in Texas rose by 56% from 2019 to 2022.

[msc545]

It is not a religious idea - it is a scientific fact that makes you uncomfortable, so you rename it.

[goaded]

No, it's not. It's also ridiculous, because, scientifically, that one "person" might end up twins.

[msc545]

Nope. It might end up as two people. Changing the name does not decriminalize the act of killing it.

[goaded]

Look, we both know where we stand on this. We agree about far more, including that democracy is important. Good luck tomorrow!

[msc545]

Thanks - luck to us both and to our candidate!

[exitseven]

It does not say anything about the right to an abortion. The constitution grants us to be secure in our own bodies. I think that includes the bodies of the unborn. It also means no vaccine injections against our will

[dragoblack]

Because abortion is not just that. It's a medical procedure & treatment that covers r*pe, incest, medical complications with fetus development, as well as miscarriages and the treatment of miscarriages. People want to umbrella lable it as just "not taking responsibility for getting pregnant" but it is way more complicated than that, that will cause major complications, death, and life threatening issues if abortion is banned. That is why it is considered a right, because it is a life or death situation for womens lives.

[msc545]

Abortions are always death for the unborn child, except when the executioners mess it up and the child is born alive, then left on a table to die. Don't kid yourself that this doesn't happen.

[Sevenpointfive]

it their right to a point. but you can't do it after a cutoff point. that's not even the republicans saying this. that's your party as well. that's your doctors and experts that say it's inhumane. that i agree with. but would-to-be mothers have that responsibility. any biological female that's not on birth control should be held responsible for that life. it's not a homework report that you forgot to turn in. either way you failed.

[Crimsyjo]

Yes the brain develops at week 27 so cut off date has been set by experts, science, medical research, to terminate no later than week 24 to be on safe side.
That seems reasonable to me.

[msc545]

@Crimsyjo At 24 weeks that is a 6-month-old human being you are proposing to murder.

[Crimsyjo]

First... when born a human baby is considered ZERO days old. When you say "my 6 month old baby" you are not counting time in the womb.

Secondly until we agree on what constitutes "alive" - for you the moment of conception, for me and science, the development of a brain, we will never agree on when it is "murder" of a living being.

Thirdly under your concept of murder then picking a flower or pulling up veg from the ground or chopping trees is murder. Because they don't think but they feel. And why do human lives matter more than any other life on this planet? What makes humans so superior? (Hint. Mostly because of our brain power. Which.. again.. a Fetus under 6 months doesn't have).

[Sevenpointfive]

@Crimsyjo hell no. i'd never have a baby! time in the womb should be taxed by the government for 18 years and 9.5 months!

[msc545]

@Crimsyjo Your uneducated opinions as to what unborn children do and do not have or can or cannot do are worthless.

[Sevenpointfive]

@msc545 i just got her pregnant. with twins! and that was harsh

[msc545]

Pregnant or not... she still knows nothing about child development- she just has opinions.

[Sevenpointfive]

and you still do

[msc545]

In this case, I have expert opinions.

[Crimsyjo]

@msc545 I see no education or expertise in your opinions. In fact my opinions are based on known scientific and medical documented facts and research and my degree in psychology and philosophy that actually investigates what consciousness is and brain development and biology. Your "opinion" is so bigoted it is rendered utterly worthless among all except other insane zealots such as yourself.

[msc545]

I'm a PhD neuropsychologist and I don't really want to argue credentials with you.

[Sevenpointfive]

@Crimsyjo i trust you.

[Twalli]

The same place where an attack on The Capitol after an election loss can only be seen as a day of love.

[slatyb]

This is simple. There is no such thing as "unborn children". Believing otherwise is religion, not scientific reality.

[msc545]

Nice tht you have an opinion. Your opinion is not "scientific reality".

[slatyb]

The scientific reality is thatuntul 24 weeks it's clear that brain development is minimal so it is impossible for the fetus to be conscious of anything. We kill millions of food animals daily that are far more conscious than a 24 week fetus.

[msc545]

Define "conscious" and tell me where in the brain or body it is located.

[KrakenAttackin]

Facts.