How to Overturn Roe v. Wade

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The DNA in a zygote is the exact same as that same person's DNA on their death bed. The whole "Yes a fetus is alive but not a person" is more of a moral argument and not a scientific one. Science says that life begins at conception, and what other life could that be if not human life? It's not like one day it's a blob of tissue and then the next it's a person; it's always a person.

So identical twins are only one person? Arguing that DNA equals personhood is just as much a moral argument as a fetus is not a person.

[Abraham Reagan]

The DNA in a zygote is the exact same as that same person's DNA on their death bed. The whole "Yes a fetus is alive but not a person" is more of a moral argument and not a scientific one. Science says that life begins at conception, and what other life could that be if not human life? It's not like one day it's a blob of tissue and then the next it's a person; it's always a person.

So identical twins are only one person? Arguing that DNA equals personhood is just as much a moral argument as a fetus is not a person.

My main point was not that DNA equals personhood, but rather that science shows that conception and pre-birth development are parts of the human life cycle just in the same way that pubescent development and death are. Conception and early development in the womb are not things that occur before a person's life but simply the first stages of that person's life.

PS, I apologize to ExtremeRepublican for filling up his thread with an off topic argument.

[NeverAgain]

Amend the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment begins "All persons born ..." and with that the pro-life people basically lose the argument.

Well, the 14th Amendment also states "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note that it says person and not citizen. All people within the boundaries of the US have these basic rights. It's the same reason why we can't just kill all illegal immigrants even though they've broken the law and aren't citizens. Since we conservatives believe (and science shows) that life begins at conception, we believe the unborn should be included in this clause. So no, we don't lose the argument.

Fetuses, like corporations, are not people.

That was probably one of the best quips I have heard in a while...

[Abraham Reagan]

Amend the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment begins "All persons born ..." and with that the pro-life people basically lose the argument.

Well, the 14th Amendment also states "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note that it says person and not citizen. All people within the boundaries of the US have these basic rights. It's the same reason why we can't just kill all illegal immigrants even though they've broken the law and aren't citizens. Since we conservatives believe (and science shows) that life begins at conception, we believe the unborn should be included in this clause. So no, we don't lose the argument.

Fetuses, like corporations, are not people.

That was probably one of the best quips I have heard in a while...

I bet it would be, if only it were true. 

[NeverAgain]

Fetuses, like corporations, are not people.

That was probably one of the best quips I have heard in a while...

I bet it would be, if only it were true. 

What part of it do you disagree with? Fetuses, or Corporations? Both, I assume.

[Abraham Reagan]

Fetuses, like corporations, are not people.

That was probably one of the best quips I have heard in a while...

I bet it would be, if only it were true. 

What part of it do you disagree with? Fetuses, or Corporations? Both, I assume.

Well, it's pretty obvious by my posts on this thread that I vehemently disagree with the fetus part. I feel that the corporations part is a false choice. When Mitt Romney said that, he wasn't trying to say that corporations themselves should actually be considered people. What I took away from it was that he was saying corporations are made up of real people with real aspirations and families and goals and that they shouldn't be viewed as a menace to society.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Oh yeah, the corporate personhood argument. Corporate personhood is indispensable when it comes to corporations, particualy with regards to ensuring contractual obligations, tort liability and a number of other matters for which the company is necessarily treated as having the same rights as the individuals which formulate it.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Amend the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment begins "All persons born ..." and with that the pro-life people basically lose the argument.

Well, the 14th Amendment also states "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note that it says person and not citizen. All people within the boundaries of the US have these basic rights. It's the same reason why we can't just kill all illegal immigrants even though they've broken the law and aren't citizens. Since we conservatives believe (and science shows) that life begins at conception, we believe the unborn should be included in this clause. So no, we don't lose the argument.

Fetuses, like corporations, are not people.

The DNA in a zygote is the exact same as that same person's DNA on their death bed. The whole "Yes a fetus is alive but not a person" is more of a moral argument and not a scientific one. Science says that life begins at conception, and what other life could that be if not human life? It's not like one day it's a blob of tissue and then the next it's a person; it's always a person.

The DNA in a drop of blood you leave on the sink shaving is the exact same as the rest of your DNA. Is that drop of blood then entitled to full rights because DNA?

[All Along The Watchtower]

As others have stated, Republicans don't really want to overturn Roe v. Wade, but they can and have done a lot to undermine it.

[Blair]

Lol aruging that DNA equals personhood means that your semen is a person, literally

[Frodo]

What is the best strategy for pro-lifers to take to overturn Roe?  Is it the life at conception act (because of the loophole in Roe that the Court wasn't going to decide when life begins)?  Is it a case as a direct challenge?  Is it to gradually chip away at it?

Win the White House, hold the Senate, and end the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations.  Thoroughly vet all court nominees to ensure that they will be strict constructionists.

^^^^^^^^

Pretty much this. 

[JohnRM]

Abraham Reagan already addressed the DNA matter, if you'd like to actually read a thread before responding to it. Or you can continue taking turns beating him over the head with it like a nerf club to amuse yourselves as you goose-step around him in circular patterns.

My God people, find some honor. Would it kill you?


A drop of blood or semen, if let go, will not amount to anything. A fetus will be born and turn into an adult human being. That is the major difference.

[Clark Kent]

Probably pass a law banning abortion in one of the red states (Texas?, and when it inevitably gets challenged in the Supreme Court,  hope we win.

[WVdemocrat]

Abraham Reagan already addressed the DNA matter, if you'd like to actually read a thread before responding to it. Or you can continue taking turns beating him over the head with it like a nerf club to amuse yourselves as you goose-step around him in circular patterns.

My God people, find some honor. Would it kill you?


A drop of blood or semen, if let go, will not amount to anything. A fetus will be born and turn into an adult human being. That is the major difference.

No. A fetus, if left alone, will not amount to anything. It cannot survive outside of the womb of its mother.

[Clark Kent]

Abraham Reagan already addressed the DNA matter, if you'd like to actually read a thread before responding to it. Or you can continue taking turns beating him over the head with it like a nerf club to amuse yourselves as you goose-step around him in circular patterns.

My God people, find some honor. Would it kill you?


A drop of blood or semen, if let go, will not amount to anything. A fetus will be born and turn into an adult human being. That is the major difference.

No. A fetus, if left alone, will not amount to anything. It cannot survive outside of the womb of its mother.

A baby, left alone, will not be able to survive, either. Without the proper care from its parents or guardians, it will die.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Amend the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment begins "All persons born ..." and with that the pro-life people basically lose the argument.

Well, the 14th Amendment also states "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note that it says person and not citizen. All people within the boundaries of the US have these basic rights. It's the same reason why we can't just kill all illegal immigrants even though they've broken the law and aren't citizens. Since we conservatives believe (and science shows) that life begins at conception, we believe the unborn should be included in this clause. So no, we don't lose the argument.

Fetuses, like corporations, are not people.

The baby in the womb is more a person than a corporation. Funny thing is a baby in the womb is and a corporation is not.

[JohnRM]

A baby, left alone, will not be able to survive, either. Without the proper care from its parents or guardians, it will die.

Go ahead and leave a baby at a bus stop or public park somewhere. I've got ten grand that says that baby survives. We can do it a hundred times and I bet the baby survives every single time. There are still some good people in this country.

[Clark Kent]

A baby, left alone, will not be able to survive, either. Without the proper care from its parents or guardians, it will die.

Go ahead and leave a baby at a bus stop or public park somewhere. I've got ten grand that says that baby survives. We can do it a hundred times and I bet the baby survives every single time. There are still some good people in this country.

Yes, but it survives with help. On its own, it dies.

[Slander and/or Libel]

A baby, left alone, will not be able to survive, either. Without the proper care from its parents or guardians, it will die.

Go ahead and leave a baby at a bus stop or public park somewhere. I've got ten grand that says that baby survives. We can do it a hundred times and I bet the baby survives every single time. There are still some good people in this country.

Yes, but it survives with help. On its own, it dies.

How many adults could survive without help?

[Clark Kent]

A baby, left alone, will not be able to survive, either. Without the proper care from its parents or guardians, it will die.

Go ahead and leave a baby at a bus stop or public park somewhere. I've got ten grand that says that baby survives. We can do it a hundred times and I bet the baby survives every single time. There are still some good people in this country.

Yes, but it survives with help. On its own, it dies.

How many adults could survive without help?

An adult wouldn't need to be fed. It would be able to look for its own food. Theoretically, they could go hunting. A baby wouldn't be able to do that. My point is that, if you consider being able to survive on its own as the beginning of human life, a baby wouldn't qualify, which is why that's a terrible way to classify life.

[Slander and/or Libel]

A baby, left alone, will not be able to survive, either. Without the proper care from its parents or guardians, it will die.

Go ahead and leave a baby at a bus stop or public park somewhere. I've got ten grand that says that baby survives. We can do it a hundred times and I bet the baby survives every single time. There are still some good people in this country.

Yes, but it survives with help. On its own, it dies.

How many adults could survive without help?

An adult wouldn't need to be fed. It would be able to look for its own food. Theoretically, they could go hunting. A baby wouldn't be able to do that. My point is that, if you consider being able to survive on its own as the beginning of human life, a baby wouldn't qualify, which is why that's a terrible way to classify life.

I think you know full well what viability means. Thinking people mean that human life only begins when someone can go foraging and build a makeshift shelter is insane and disingenuous.

[JohnRM]

A baby, left alone, will not be able to survive, either. Without the proper care from its parents or guardians, it will die.

Go ahead and leave a baby at a bus stop or public park somewhere. I've got ten grand that says that baby survives. We can do it a hundred times and I bet the baby survives every single time. There are still some good people in this country.

Yes, but it survives with help. On its own, it dies.

Oh, I see. Based on that standard, you must support post-birth abortion and the decriminalization of murder in general. Minorities of just about any age are incapable of surviving on their own. We should let sick and injured people die too, right? To hell with those with diabetes, because they can't survive on their own, either. Then, of course, most of us can't survive without help from the grocery stores for food. By that standard, I guess 99 percent of human beings should be eligible for post-birth abortions. Oh wait, but then again, even primitive tribal people need the help of nature and their kinsmen to survive, so...kill 'em all, let the god that doesn't exist not sort them out.

[Clark Kent]

A baby, left alone, will not be able to survive, either. Without the proper care from its parents or guardians, it will die.

Go ahead and leave a baby at a bus stop or public park somewhere. I've got ten grand that says that baby survives. We can do it a hundred times and I bet the baby survives every single time. There are still some good people in this country.

Yes, but it survives with help. On its own, it dies.

Oh, I see. Based on that standard, you must support post-birth abortion and the decriminalization of murder in general. Minorities of just about any age are incapable of surviving on their own. We should let sick and injured people die too, right? To hell with those with diabetes, because they can't survive on their own, either. Then, of course, most of us can't survive without help from the grocery stores for food. By that standard, I guess 99 percent of human beings should be eligible for post-birth abortions. Oh wait, but then again, even primitive tribal people need the help of nature and their kinsmen to survive, so...kill 'em all, let the god that doesn't exist not sort them out.

Or, you know, maybe it means that I oppose abortion and am pro-life. But nah, it must mean that I support killing babies and minorities, right?

[JohnRM]

Or, you know, maybe it means that I oppose abortion and am pro-life. But nah, it must mean that I support killing babies and minorities, right?

So, let me get this straight. You're pro-life and, in the climate of this board, with all the left-wingnuts they have around here, you decided to pick a fight with another person arguing against abortion; another pro-lifer? Am I right on this; because I think that a fetus will develop into living, breathing adult human being and because blood and semen left on the ground won't develop into **** and that is a substantial enough of a difference to treat them differently; am I reading you correctly?

[Clark Kent]

Or, you know, maybe it means that I oppose abortion and am pro-life. But nah, it must mean that I support killing babies and minorities, right?

So, let me get this straight. You're pro-life and, in the climate of this board, with all the left-wingnuts they have around here, you decided to pick a fight with another person arguing against abortion; another pro-lifer? Am I right on this; because I think that because a fetus will develop into living, breathing adult human being and because blood and semen left on the ground won't develop into ****; am I reading you correctly?

I was replying to a person who said that a fetus is not a human because it cannot survive outside of a human body. As a counterpoint to that, I pointed out that a baby can't survive on its own, either. I think you may have misinterpreted my initial comments, so I apologize for not being clear.