Alabama’s Draconian Abortion Ban Has Women On Twitter Ready To Fight

Well there may not be a right to privacy, there is a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", which covers the privacy and the abortion matter. Just like no one has a right to a refrigerator, but they to have the right to trade for free of government control, as in "it you life and you are at liberty to know what think is best for it as you live you life, happily."

After Ayn Rand, this really isn't that hard. Are there devious motives at work here?

 

Robert said: ↑
I did not intend this to be another of the very long crappy lectures about women.


FoxHastings said: ↑
That sure sums up how Anti-Choicers feel about women.....

WHAT TF does that have to do with the exchange above and the quote of mine you posted? Nothing.


You couldn't face what you said so had to segue off on another topic ? LOL!!!!

And you have already been schooled on unenumerated rights.....sorry you didn't learn anything...

 

Alabama’s Draconian Abortion Ban Has Women On Twitter Ready To Fight
I hope every woman votes to defeat every Republican who voted for this horrid law. As men, I wonder how any of them would feel if their wife got raped & impregnated. Would they really support no abortion then? Would they want to have their wife give birth to a rapist's child? Would they want to raise that child? Or, would they be helping to create more orphans? Lawmakers often get stuck in ideology & forget to consider the possible consequences of their actions. Anything I can imagine, can actually happen.

 

I dont WANT women to be punished

But the reason its called risk is because bad things can happen

 

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/free-publications-women/birth-control

• Share
• Tweet
• Linkedin
• Email
• Print the Birth Control Chart (2628 KB)
  
  En Español(433KB)
  
  If you do not want to get pregnant, there are many birth control options to choose from. No one product is best for everyone. Some methods are more effective than others at preventing pregnancy. The only sure way to avoid pregnancy is not to have any sexual contact. This page lists FDA-approved and cleared methods for birth control. Talk to your healthcare provider about the best method for you.
  
  Types of Medicines and Devices for Birth Control
  • Permanent Sterilization
  • Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives (LARC)
  • Contraceptive Injection
  • Short-Acting Hormonal Methods
  • Barrier Methods
  Other Contraception
  • Emergency Contraception
  Some things to think about when you choose birth control:
  • Your health.
  • If you want to have children in the future.
  • How often you have sex.
  • How many sexual partners you have.
  • If you will need a prescription or if you can buy the method over-the-counter.
  • The number of pregnancies expected per 100 women who use a method for one year. For comparison, about 85 out of 100 sexually active women who do not use any birth control can expect to become pregnant in a year.
  • This page lists pregnancy rates based on typical use. Typical use shows how effective the different methods are during actual use (including sometimes using a method in a way that is not correct or not consistent).
  • For more information on the chance of getting pregnant while using a method or on the risks of a specific product, please check the product label or Trussell,J. (2011)."Contraceptive failure in the United States." Contraception 83(5):397-404.External Link Disclaimer

 

I report accurately that as far back as 1973, all Democrats needed to do was create a law to allow abortion. Get past the court.

I give the path to keeping abortion legal.

Same path as when the SC legalized slavery.

Congress came up with laws against slavery.

Easy peasy.

So why won't Democrats do this?

Abortion never was their actual issue. They created a war on Blacks.

This allows them to keep abortion as a pet issue to discuss SC judges up for confirmation.
To keep it as a political campaign issue.

Republicans are now taking the high road. They do create laws.

Democrats have virtually stopped blacks from expanding their numbers.

They are currently saying blacks and latinos. As were the two the same. They are very different.

A good many hispanic people are far more religion based than are whites. And at the moment the latinos come in due to Democrats wanting them here. Democrats know how to close the border.

But they want to trick the hispanics.

 

You seem to not be able to refute Shapiro. He is one of the league of intelligent people.

Terminating a child is crude, a terrible cause and of course had Democrats actually wanted this law, they would simply legislate to create a more bulletproof abortion system. I am loathe to say Roe v Wade is law. Same as when they ruled slavery was fine under the law.

It was congress that fixed the slave problem.

 

Here is the Democrats prime problem with that argument.

Her child is not her property. As such she has no right to own another human. Slavery was outlawed.

I only see a part of this some Christian issue. I believe it is Catholic dogma it is wrong. Christians get the blame due to the Democrats.

I say one more time with a classic proof.

The supreme court did indeed make Slavery legal. And what was the solution at the time?

The republicans passed a law to ban slavery. Then the court no longer approved slavery.

Why has this argument festered since 1973?

Democrats love to beat their gums about it when they have since 1973 had ample opportunity to preserve abortions using legislation. Using courts can produce some pretty wrong rulings.

The Supreme court never was empowered to legislate. They do play a role in judgment, but not as legislators.

At the time the court approved slavery, it was approved in the constitution. Why haven't Democrats tried to correctly legislate. This crappy issue is good for Democrat politics. It is like name calling. They get so say nasty things about republican.

One of my brief yet spectacular arguments is the court did not claim to approve killing children, it acted to <snicker> invent something they called right of privacy.

I can also argue she has the right as the owner of the child to terminate it at will. She birthed it. Democrats see it as personal property. So what is to stop a woman from ending her problem child at any age up to the age of legal rights for children?

 

You are beating a dead horse with your obsession with sperm

 

What is wrong with his love of sperm?

 

You have already asserted that sperm by itself is not a human being

But that argument does not interest me one way or the other

You just want to avoid talking about the killing of almost fully develooed human beings

 

You have a very strange world view.

 

I didn't say otherwise, they are her eggs. Haploid cells, gametes, produced while she was still in the womb of HER mother. They are not a human life. What is your point?

 

No it's not, yes it does and you have presented nothing to refute the science.

Yes it has human DNA because it is a human zygote, what human who has ever existed began life as a zygote with something other than human DNA?

It is self explanatory but do give me some examples of life that had human DNA but were not human.



Second - aside from the fact that the claim ( this cell has human DNA so this cell is a living human) is not supported - this claim is easily refuted by anyone with half a brain and a smattering of high school biology.

Yes a heart is part of a human and because it has human DNA is a human heart cell, a specialized cell that develops as the human life develops. A zygote and fetus is a complete human AT THAT STAGE of human life starting as a one celled zygote all the way to full grown adult.

Not even close it is a scientific and logical fallacy.

What is pathetic is that you have to start a sentence with "What is pathetic..."

 

And spout these totally biologically fallacious statements about life in the womb, the baby in the womb and embryology and what happens when a new life is conceived.

 

Yeah nature developed so that whenever we try to propagate the life of the mother is threatened and the new life is threatened.

We propagate QUITE successfully with mothers coming out quite fine which is why there is so many of us in spite you your desired mothers being able to kill a lot of the new ones.

 

What part of the Bible?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
So you think women should be punished for taking a risk, like every other human on earth does at some time or another.

If a person lives in tornado alley I guess you think they have to stand outside in a tornado because they took a risk living there and NOT get any aid if they're injured or lose their belongings…or not have the CHOICE to move... how odd..

No, you have no point.

So? That DOES NOT mean you can't FIX the "bad things" that happen....

One risks a lot mountain climbing but that doesn't mean if they fall and are injured they should just lay there and die...that would be stupid.

 

Vote democrat so you can impose YOUR ideas on others

 

That is certainly disputable, the vast vast majority of pregnancies do not in any way threaten the mothers life, noted you can't call her a mother but just "woman".

Yes in those extremely rare cases where the pregnancy and other health concerns went wrong and threatened the mother too.

 

I think he hates sperm

As do many libs

 

Your “fix” jnvolves killing an innocent human being

 

Tell us all how your mother was punished. And who punished her?

Clearly you made it to this forum. Some mother saved you by the bell.

 

As I suspected. Few share your unusual view that the "right" to kill an unborn baby -- sorry, "terminate a malignant growth in one's uterus" -- is a "natural right." I find most leftists have an aversion to the notion of natural rights anyway, because it raises the question, "Who or what bestowed these natural rights on the individual?" And the answer to that raises the awful specter of ... uh oh!

Also, there is no significant difference in the pro-life movement's current legal objection to Roe v. Wade than there will be to your objection to Roe v. Wade, the Rematch, if there is one.

 

By ignoramuses who think it covers anything that some malcontent can imagine. It doesn't.