Do you own your body?

[ll74]

Currently no they do not. They argue and pay half the bill at best, but they can not turn down there responsibility to pay if I have any issues. They can not refuse my treatment until my policy max.

Sure they do. They pay for what they want to pay for and not for what they don't. Nobody has the ability to refuse your treatment...they can refuse to pay for it in any capacity

Healthcare for all won't change anything about that.

 

[ll74]

Again, these are all arbitrary definitions.

definitions copied from Merriam's

 

[ll74]

That’s great! Send it to your State lawmakers!

Lol ....it was law before the recent SCOTUS ruling, precisely because it wasn't arbitrary

You're all over the place

 

[ll74]

Yes, you continue to conflate a fetus and a child. And then expect me to do the same. That doesn't actually make an argument

If it had been legal in the United States for the past 50 years for Mothers to kill their children until they reached age 18, would your reaction to the scotus decision be the same?

Age 16?
12?
4?
1?
Up until birth?
6mos pregnant?
3months?
12 weeks?
5 days?
3 days?

 

[ll74]

Yes, you’re in the Merriam Webster camp, i remember.

I’m not sure which States use that Dictionary to set their legislative agenda.

With 50 different abortion laws, I like Funk & Wagnell’s chances for Abortion Supremacy.

I certainly don’t expect any american lawmakers to go by Science.

That would be crazy.

You've completely switched to the law when before you were talking about arbitrary terms.

Way to pivot when your talking point goes to shit.

Lawmakers have consistently used viability as a measure when creating legislation. Perhaps read up on it sometime. It pops up from time to time in SCOTUS decisions as well ¯\(°_o)/¯

 

[ll74]

Yes, you’re in the Merriam Webster camp, i remember.

I’m not sure which States use that Dictionary to set their legislative agenda.

With 50 different abortion laws, I like Funk & Wagnell’s chances for Abortion Supremacy.

I certainly don’t expect any american lawmakers to go by Science.

That would be crazy.

Oh...and there's absolutely no confusion between a child and a fetus in legislation.....they use the correct term (coincidentally, it's the one from Miriam's)

 

[ll74]

So what’s the problem then?

Why are you here whining about it day and nite in 1,000 post threads if it’s all sorted?

The thing is, I'm just responding to your whining. You're the one who continually engages on this thread. And you're certainly the one who keeps being an ass about it as well.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I find it very odd that there are people who don't understand that having an abortion is being responsible.

And that the greater number of people who are being responsible in this way are already married with family.

 

[hedonisatlurist]

Draft isn't coming back. And if it does, the soldiers will be paid. So technically they aren't owned, they are rented.

Black market for.... oh holy cow.

Most people with diabetes 2 wanted to eat the junk food and not exercise. Time to not let them have insulin then!

Great that you do the my body my choice thing, but there's a shit ton of disinformation in your post.

I OWN MY BODY, and the bodies ot 3 slaves

 

[adrina]

Have a cookie.

 

[ll74]

Oh look, iso36 deleted all his comments again. Luckily I quoted them all. I'm sure he'll pop up as another alt soon enough

 

[ll74]

40 pages later, you’re still trying to convince yourself that a fetus isn’t a distinct human being until it leaves home and can fend for itself. “Viability”

This means a preemie that dies right after leaving the love canal wasn’t a human being.

It’s a legal fiction, one about half your country chooses to believe.

Science says otherwise.

Which is interesting, because people like you normally argue on the side of Science.

Awkward!

Somehow deleting 20-something posts is meant to prove something. And yet here you are blaming it on other people yet again. Good for you

 

[ll74]

40 pages later, you’re still trying to convince yourself that a fetus isn’t a distinct human being until it leaves home and can fend for itself. “Viability”

This means a preemie that dies right after leaving the love canal wasn’t a human being.

It’s a legal fiction, one about half your country chooses to believe.

Science says otherwise.

Which is interesting, because people like you normally argue on the side of Science.

Awkward!

I already told you the definition of viability as well as the difference between a fetus and a person. You can continue to believe those definitions don't exist. That's your issue, not mine.

 

[ll74]

“ you already told me”

That’s funny.

The legal definitions are all being re-written, state by state.

38 States will be using something much much closer to “life begins at conception”.

Maybe you can go back and read the quotes portion that you deleted for a refresher. Before you delete them again.

Just a side note- changing the legal definition doesn't actually change the biological definition.

 

[HisArpy]

Anyone who says that is wrong.

Both are human lives!

The entire premise by both sides ignores basic reality.

You don't "own" your body. From a metaphysical standpoint, you only inhabit it. From a biological standpoint, your body is here for the purpose of reproduction and not for your continued personal existence. From a societal standpoint, you can be made to do anything society wants you to do regardless of whether you want to or not. From a religious viewpoint, God has embraced your soul.

Thus, the argument is pure bullshit designed to stir controversy in order to perpetuate the divisiveness which has been fomented by the Left in their quest for power over everyone (and their bodies).

 

[adrina]

Ahhh so that's why when people sell their plasma the government gets the money.

I understand now.

 

[ll74]

The entire premise by both sides ignores basic reality.

You don't "own" your body. From a metaphysical standpoint, you only inhabit it. From a biological standpoint, your body is here for the purpose of reproduction and not for your continued personal existence. From a societal standpoint, you can be made to do anything society wants you to do regardless of whether you want to or not. From a religious viewpoint, God has embraced your soul.

Thus, the argument is pure bullshit designed to stir controversy in order to perpetuate the divisiveness which has been fomented by the Left in their quest for power over everyone (and their bodies).

Yes, there are different definitions, as was brought up previously. Religious definition (or "metaphysical") should never dictate legislative.

 

[adrina]

And men think women are so histrionic and emotional.

The entire anti-abortion movement is based on dishonesty and hysteria.

 

[ll74]

To add to my previous comment - separating spiritual from legislative is not only important from a separation of church and state, but also for clarity of legal doctrine. Various religions define separate life at different points. Viability has a tangible metric.

 

[HisArpy]

If you kill a newborn, it’s infanticide and you go to jail.

If you kill a dog, felony animal abuse, also jail.

Kill a baby by taking it out of the mother?

Somehow, that’s “different”. Huh?

Your argument sucks because it's infantile.

How is the Headsman different from a common murderer?

Is an abortion doctor any different than the Headsman?

 

[HisArpy]

And men think women are so histrionic and emotional.

The entire anti-abortion movement is based on dishonesty and hysteria.

The entire abortion ARGUMENT is dishonest because it isn't based on truth but snippets of perceptions of fantasy.

Abortion is still legal. States get to decide how far that legal procedure can go. In some States, it's nowhere, in others it's nearly limitless. But no matter what the limit is, the facts are that Abortion is LEGAL and yet here you are whining that it's not legal enough and that other States need to change to suit your ideas even if you don't live there.

Here's some truth for you: If you don't like the tax burden in your State, either change the laws or move. Don't like the crime rate, either change the laws or move. Don't like the level of public services, change the laws or move. Don't like the way abortion is regulated, change or move.

It's that simple. Yet morons like you seem to think it's complicated because you want stuff your way.

Life ain't Burger King and no matter how many times he tries to convince you it is, luk's atmydik ain't never going to be a whopper.

 

[adrina]

I find it interesting how when presented with a simple fact, the toddlers among us continue staging a temper tantrum. How many posts will you delete from this exchange after you throw yet another hissy fit.

In the meantime when the government comes knocking demanding your blood to preserve and sustain the lives of others, I'm sure you'll think it's okay because after all, body ownership is just an illusion.

 

[HisArpy]

I am simply pointing out that the 50 States now each have a fresh opportunity to decide how/when/if an unborn child’s life will be terminated.

Obviously, the subject is getting fresh eyes.

No you're not. You're drawing comparisons between laws based on unstated moral principles as seen through a very narrow and rose colored microscope lens.

How is the Headsman different from a common murderer? Answer: The State authorizes his axework and exempts it from criminal consequences.

How is an abortion doctor different from the Headsman? Answer: In some States the abortion doctor is as exempt from criminal consequences as the headsman, in others the doctor isn't exempt at all.

There's no morality in either. Nor should there be because we, as men, aren't supposed to substitute ourselves for God and pass judgement on others based on their/our morals.

 

[HisArpy]

I find it interesting how when presented with a simple fact, the toddlers among us continue staging a temper tantrum. How many posts will you delete from this exchange after you throw yet another hissy fit.

In the meantime when the government comes knocking demanding your blood to preserve and sustain the lives of others, I'm sure you'll think it's okay because after all, body ownership is just an illusion.

I have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Delete what? I haven't EVER deleted a post of mine. I haven't seen you post PROOF that ANY posts are going missing either. Just a bunch of unverified bullshit at this point. And, since you completely FAIL to direct your bullshit at a specific person, it's nothing more than your addlepated attempts to sound reasonable inside your own skull.

Hissy fit? Since when is agreeing that you, if you wish, can legally kill your own progeny a "hissy fit"?

Body ownership is bullshit. You don't "own" your body. You never have and never will. That you believe you do only illustrates how stupid you are because despite what you think eventually you WILL die. Which ought to tell you that you don't "own" squat.

 

[ll74]

The entire abortion ARGUMENT is dishonest because it isn't based on truth but snippets of perceptions of fantasy.

Abortion is still legal. States get to decide how far that legal procedure can go. In some States, it's nowhere, in others it's nearly limitless. But no matter what the limit is, the facts are that Abortion is LEGAL and yet here you are whining that it's not legal enough and that other States need to change to suit your ideas even if you don't live there.

Here's some truth for you: If you don't like the tax burden in your State, either change the laws or move. Don't like the crime rate, either change the laws or move. Don't like the level of public services, change the laws or move. Don't like the way abortion is regulated, change or move.

It's that simple. Yet morons like you seem to think it's complicated because you want stuff your way.

Life ain't Burger King and no matter how many times he tries to convince you it is, luk's atmydik ain't never going to be a whopper.

Medical care should not be regulated by the state. Our status as citizens of this country should afford us all the same level of care as well as our right to privacy. Along with that, spiritual or religious doctrine should not be used to define those regulations. This should be codified at the federal level.

(And before someone jumps this track, this is not my commentary on public health- so the COVID topic is.a different discussion)

I will continue to lobby for representation towards these policy perspectives. I advise others to do the same for theirs.