Lots of things I don't understand about the entire debate.
I don't understand why anyone thinks this decision will in any way affect any rights. It will not. Overturning Roe vs. Wade will not affect any rights at all, since Roe vs. Wade never created nor issued any rights at all, it issued a privilege - the privilege for a female of the species to eradicate her own offspring nation-wide without having to consider anyone else around her, said offspring included. You can easily tell the difference between a privilege and a right once you understand the secret of them. The state cannot eliminate a right, because it does not issue rights. If the State told you you can do it, then it is a privilege issued by the State. If you can do it without asking anyone's permission, then it is a right. By the very act of making the Roe Vs Wade decision, the state declared it to be a privilege issued by the state rather than a right.
I don't understand all these "my body, my decision" people, either. Sure, if it affect only YOUR body, then it is your own decision... but the baby is it's own body, it's own person, so your rights end where the baby begins - which is why the State had to issue the privilege of killing it off, because normally, according to law, the killing of another person without justification is defined as murder. Roe vs. Wade issued a special dispensation that was a defense against that charge. . I am my mother's son. I am NOT my mother's body, nor did I come from her body alone. There were two gametes involved in my production, one from my mother, one from my father. If it can be said that I am her body, it logically follows that I am HIS body, too. However, for some odd reason, had she decided to liquidate me, his input would not have been required had I been born in the modern day. Seems a little unfair and lopsided.
Taken together, these reasons add up to abortion being a State sanctioned murder. Susan Smith was convicted of murder for doing the same thing that millions of other women have done without legal repercussion, the difference? The millions did it in State sanctioned liquidation centers, and Smith did it in a non-state sanctioned lake. That Peterson guy killed his wife, and was then charged with TWO murders because she was pregnant... but had his wife, the same pregnant wife that he killed, instead gone to a state-sanctioned liquidation center, she could have killed that same child at the same time without legal repercussions - no charge of murder for her had she done so, because the State ha issued that privilege to her... but apparently didn't extend it to the male in the equation. Is that sexist? Maybe. Wiser heads would have to ponder the point.
I dunno. just lots of stuff that I can't find the logical handle on in this debate. It seems highly illogical, and more emotion-driven.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not "pro-life", because that is a sucker's bet. We will ALL die some day, so being pro-life is a losing proposition, eventually. I'm also not convinced that parents should not have the power of life or death over their own kids. It worked pretty well for a long time for the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. But if that is to be a privilege, then it should be an equitable privilege. That baby didn't get there all by itself, and unless the woman was impregnated in an Immaculate Conception, then she didn't make it all by herself, either - so when will fathers have the same rights, or at least a say in the matter?
Don't want to be burdened with a child? There's a simple solution, far less expensive than an abortion. Just keep your knees together, and your pecker in your pants. Otherwise, life is full of chance-taking, so you pays yer dime and you takes yer chances with a single roll of the dice... or roll in the hay. The two have some definite parallels.
.
I don't understand why anyone thinks this decision will in any way affect any rights. It will not. Overturning Roe vs. Wade will not affect any rights at all, since Roe vs. Wade never created nor issued any rights at all, it issued a privilege - the privilege for a female of the species to eradicate her own offspring nation-wide without having to consider anyone else around her, said offspring included. You can easily tell the difference between a privilege and a right once you understand the secret of them. The state cannot eliminate a right, because it does not issue rights. If the State told you you can do it, then it is a privilege issued by the State. If you can do it without asking anyone's permission, then it is a right. By the very act of making the Roe Vs Wade decision, the state declared it to be a privilege issued by the state rather than a right.
I don't understand all these "my body, my decision" people, either. Sure, if it affect only YOUR body, then it is your own decision... but the baby is it's own body, it's own person, so your rights end where the baby begins - which is why the State had to issue the privilege of killing it off, because normally, according to law, the killing of another person without justification is defined as murder. Roe vs. Wade issued a special dispensation that was a defense against that charge. . I am my mother's son. I am NOT my mother's body, nor did I come from her body alone. There were two gametes involved in my production, one from my mother, one from my father. If it can be said that I am her body, it logically follows that I am HIS body, too. However, for some odd reason, had she decided to liquidate me, his input would not have been required had I been born in the modern day. Seems a little unfair and lopsided.
Taken together, these reasons add up to abortion being a State sanctioned murder. Susan Smith was convicted of murder for doing the same thing that millions of other women have done without legal repercussion, the difference? The millions did it in State sanctioned liquidation centers, and Smith did it in a non-state sanctioned lake. That Peterson guy killed his wife, and was then charged with TWO murders because she was pregnant... but had his wife, the same pregnant wife that he killed, instead gone to a state-sanctioned liquidation center, she could have killed that same child at the same time without legal repercussions - no charge of murder for her had she done so, because the State ha issued that privilege to her... but apparently didn't extend it to the male in the equation. Is that sexist? Maybe. Wiser heads would have to ponder the point.
I dunno. just lots of stuff that I can't find the logical handle on in this debate. It seems highly illogical, and more emotion-driven.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not "pro-life", because that is a sucker's bet. We will ALL die some day, so being pro-life is a losing proposition, eventually. I'm also not convinced that parents should not have the power of life or death over their own kids. It worked pretty well for a long time for the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. But if that is to be a privilege, then it should be an equitable privilege. That baby didn't get there all by itself, and unless the woman was impregnated in an Immaculate Conception, then she didn't make it all by herself, either - so when will fathers have the same rights, or at least a say in the matter?
Don't want to be burdened with a child? There's a simple solution, far less expensive than an abortion. Just keep your knees together, and your pecker in your pants. Otherwise, life is full of chance-taking, so you pays yer dime and you takes yer chances with a single roll of the dice... or roll in the hay. The two have some definite parallels.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’