20-week abortion ban in West Virginia becomes law >READ MOD WARNING IN OP<

Which of the four is Not an endangered species, which is what the Federal laws cover. Now as for the Fetus, that is covered in one fashion or another by State Laws, so why would we need a Federal law?

 

Well yeah I am going to attack the government in this, who the hell else is the ones who makes these educational courses? Something has to give and ultimately we have to start combating the issue because it is honestly way out of hand with the amount of teenage pregnancy and STD's . Hell there is a high school, and i (*)(*)(*)(*) you not , had a story done on it here in Memphis. This school had something like a 70% female population that either had a child or is pregnant. That is absolutely insane and screwed up on so many levels.

And what does our government do? eh just throw more money at the problem and keep dishing out welfare and move on. Yeah, the governments laziness, pretty much over any subject that does not benefit them personally, is a *******ned problem.

And no I am not opposed to saving a ton of money, children a ton of burden because they are born to idiot parents who can't even wipe their own ass, no matter which party truly wanted to combat the issue. Just depends on their proposal, but we must start somewhere.


As for the purity ball thing, it doesnt surprise me that the girls are still going out and having sex just as a non-promiser. But the article also stated that the girls who did make the promise are less likely to contract STD's or get pregnant. Only thing I can come up with is they still want to have sex but to hide it they know they better take precautions against being prego.

So in a sense it works, but the amount of sex really doesnt change.

Either way, in my opinion, the (*)(*)(*)(*) is kind of creepy with the dad daughter thing. I know it is not meant to be that way but I am not going to make my daughter publicly pledge something about her virginity and then take a picture of me holding my daughter like that lol. I dunno, just weird, not my style lol.

 

I'm sorry, the above post fooled me into thinking you believed the fetus wasn't a person, seeing how you added, "you know where thought and we as people exist."

 

You are confusing someone arguing about a principle (one that is central to arriving at the permissibility of abortion) with someone arguing biology or legal status.

If I was talking about legal status, I would say, if "you are who you are", even in the womb, then why is it ok for the woman to assault you in the womb? People are born addicted to crack. That is a provable, serious injury. Normally the statue of limitations on assault is 2-3 years. Why is it 1day-9months when someone is assaulted in the womb?

Crack babies are the only situation I can think of in which one can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an injury to the person exists, and who caused that injury, but no legal action can be taken. I believe it is another indication that the principle that a fetus is not a person is flawed.

- - - Updated - - -

"Him" is a pronoun used to refer to a person. Anyone using pronouns like "he", "she", "her", "him", when referring to ultrasound photos is grammatically incorrect, if the principle the fetus is not a person is to be acknowledged. Only "it" may be used. "Look honey, there it is!"

 

I guess I confused you with someone who had a point.


Why is it OK for a "person"(YOUR idea of "person") to assault women just because they happen to be in that woman's womb?

And, please, do not give me that "pregnancy doesn't harm women" crap.

 

Assault requires intent. It cannot be proved that the fetus intended to harm the mother. Additionally, it cannot be proved that the fetus was negligent. The pregnant woman has no assault case.

I think my point(s) are clear to most readers: to explain how the principle that the fetus is not a person is flawed, because that principle is central to coming to the conclusion that abortion should be permissible.

 

Formal education might help, but this is largely a cultural issue, and the problem starts with the parents, who don't seem to be guiding their children. Largely because they can't spare the time, because the children were unwanted in the first place.

What any government can do is limited.

And I made a proposal, which combined education with birth control, carrots with sticks. A program that I'm confident would be a LOT less expensive than what's being done now.

Uh, I think you read this backwards. Here's the appropriate excerpt:

There it is: those who took the purity pledge were 10% less likely to take precautions.

No, it made things WORSE. But that doesn't mean we can't learn from their experience, which is that unsupported will power and determination not only don't work, but are mostly kidding yourself and that makes things worse. This is just another form of "just say no", which is a known failure. The problem is, it's not going to fool any teenagers if you tell them "remain chaste, but ALSO use birth control." Parents must understand that their children are generally becoming sexually active LONG before they WISH kids would, and denial is simply wrong. But you don't even have to read between the lines to see that these purity balls are driven by religion, not by practical considerations.

Imagine that any of these girls went to their parents and said "I'm about to become sexually active, like it or not. What should I do to avoid getting pregnant?" Do you suppose any of these hyper-religious parents would be understanding and help their daughter get on the pill? Do you think any of these girls doesn't know what they could expect?

Promises to remain a virgin are like a politician's promises - made to sound good, known to be otherwise a waste of breath. But parents aren't interested in what WORKS, because that means their daughters are, you know, sinning.

 

Interesting that the best you can do is play word games. Abortions become "assault". A male fetus becomes "it". As though if you misrepresent reality using the wrong words, this changes reality.

There are no biological mysteries here. There are no legal mysteries here either. I admit, why the anti-choice mob wants government to make our personal decisions (or rather, OTHER PEOPLES' personal decisions) is somewhat of a mystery to me. This is really a battle over individual liberties and freedoms, and in general, the religious view is that only WE deserve such things. Others who exercise what WE demand, must be punished. Religion is always thus.

 

Trying to mitigate murder to a property crime is pretty low, even for you...

 

Ugh yes very true, I always try to bring up that point about home life and parents doing the right thing by their kids, but for some reason it slipped my mind. Yes indeed, extremely important about what happens in the house hold over anything.Good call.

As true as that might be, it is not like the government is pulling all the strings they can to get something done on the matter. It is only a big deal to them when it is made an issue in the news basically to give the "voters" a sense of security that the government is trying to do something about it, when in all honesty they really don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) beyond that point.

And I find it is a good proposal that could be worked with, as i said we must start somewhere. Doing something is better than doing nothing.

I stand corrected, I did read that wrong. Damned dyslexia gets the better of me sometimes.

Again it is one of those cultural issues, in this case a religious issue. And no on that aspect there are some parents that just flat out do not understand and approach the issue in a terrible manner. Kids are supposed to trust their parents, and that is where many parents drop the ball.

Yeah, personally I wouldn't be bragging that may daughter is a 13 year old virgin, that alone turns her into a possible conquest. Hell that could be part of the reason, their virginity is being broadcasted to every horny teenage boy lol.

I think a major problem is people are too extreme about the talk with their kids. It is hypocritical considering most of us had sex when we were very young, I personally lost my virginity at 13 and my parents did have a small version of "the talk" with me when I was I think 12. Nothing to do with religion, but mainly just educating me on what it is to have sex and to just be careful. They talked to me about STD's, what would happen if I got a girl pregnant too soon that basically i would no longer have time for sports, friends and other things teenagers do. And of course as they told me if I had a kid that as much as they would still love me and the child, that they WILL NOT raise it because that would be my job alone. It seems like a lot but it was a very short and to the point speech. They didn't tell me not to have sex per say, but they told me what would happen if I screwed up doing it. Basically rammed it into my head like they did anything else, that there are consequences for every action we take and that you will have to live with those consequences.

It is the approach, and people talking about sex like it is the plague is not going to help matters.

 

Here's one sentence I agree with. Only I believe an individual exists before birth. All individuals should have the right to life, at all stages of life. All individuals should have legal protection from assault, including being forcibly addicted to crack while in the womb. The injury is verifiable after birth. The person responsible for the injury is verifiable. The typical statute of limitations on assault is 2-3 years. Law enforcement should be seeking assault charges when a newborn is determined to be addicted to crack or another dangerous drug.

 

Nope, don't need intent to cause bodily harm. If someone has no intention of harming you but does harm you, you are in the right to defend yourself. It would be pretty stupid to let someone harm you because they didn't intend to harm you.


Want a good "personhood " challenge? Where you can PROVE you're right?

Go to the Debates and Contest Forum...there's a challenge there.....

 

I think that's dandy, PROVIDED you act according to your beliefs, and let others act according to theirs. I believe the woman is a person and the fetus is not, and I also believe her situation is none of my business.

So you need to understand that OTHER PEOPLE, not just you, have individual liberty, and it's not up to you to tell them that YOUR opinion trumps theirs, but never the other way around.

 

What you are saying is if someone trips and falls, ends up knocking you over then you have the right to get up and beat the living (*)(*)(*)(*) out of them in self defense?

Dude, yes there does have to be intent of bodily harm before you can consider it self defense, you can't just punch people because they looked at you funny causing you to believe they want to hurt you.

And one more thing, who's fault is it that a girl got pregnant, the babies fault or the 2 people to committed the act that creates a baby?

 

Legally, assault requires intent or negligence. Legally, one can only kill someone in self defense if they perceive that permanent bodily injury or death are imminent. Which is why I agree with the abortion procedure being used in those situations. I don't agree that a complication free pregnancy represents an imminent threat of permanent bodily harm or death. Physicians should decide if the procedure is needed for self defense.

 

It's not that I think my opinion trumps others. It is the fetus' right to life that trumps other rights. I believe it is a human rights violation to abort without being in imminent danger. You make it sound as if I'm making a religious argument, and I have never done that, in any thread.

 

There is NO pregnancy that doesn't harm a woman's body.

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
&#8226;exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
&#8226;altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
&#8226;nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
&#8226;heartburn and indigestion
&#8226;constipation
&#8226;weight gain
&#8226;dizziness and light-headedness
&#8226;bloating, swelling, fluid retention
&#8226;hemmorhoids
&#8226;abdominal cramps
&#8226;yeast infections
&#8226;congested, bloody nose
&#8226;acne and mild skin disorders
&#8226;skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
&#8226;mild to severe backache and strain
&#8226;increased headaches
&#8226;difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
&#8226;increased urination and incontinence
&#8226;bleeding gums
&#8226;pica
&#8226;breast pain and discharge
&#8226;swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
&#8226;difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
&#8226;inability to take regular medications
&#8226;shortness of breath
&#8226;higher blood pressure
&#8226;hair loss or increased facial/body hair
&#8226;tendency to anemia
&#8226;curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
&#8226;infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
&#8226;extreme pain on delivery
&#8226;hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
&#8226;continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
&#8226;stretch marks (worse in younger women)
&#8226;loose skin
&#8226;permanent weight gain or redistribution
&#8226;abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
&#8226;pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
&#8226;changes to breasts
&#8226;increased foot size
&#8226;varicose veins
&#8226;scarring from episiotomy or c-section
&#8226;other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
&#8226;increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
&#8226;loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
&#8226;higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
&#8226;newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)

Occasional complications and side effects:
&#8226;complications of episiotomy
&#8226;spousal/partner abuse
&#8226;hyperemesis gravidarum
&#8226;temporary and permanent injury to back
&#8226;severe scarring requiring later surgery
(especially after additional pregnancies)
&#8226;dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
&#8226;pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
&#8226;eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
&#8226;gestational diabetes
&#8226;placenta previa
&#8226;anemia (which can be life-threatening)
&#8226;thrombocytopenic purpura
&#8226;severe cramping
&#8226;embolism (blood clots)
&#8226;medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
&#8226;diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
&#8226;mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
&#8226;serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
&#8226;hormonal imbalance
&#8226;ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
&#8226;broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
&#8226;hemorrhage and
&#8226;numerous other complications of delivery
&#8226;refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
&#8226;aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
&#8226;severe post-partum depression and psychosis
&#8226;research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
&#8226;research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
&#8226;research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:
&#8226;peripartum cardiomyopathy
&#8226;cardiopulmonary arrest
&#8226;magnesium toxicity
&#8226;severe hypoxemia/acidosis
&#8226;massive embolism
&#8226;increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
&#8226;molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease
(like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
&#8226;malignant arrhythmia
&#8226;circulatory collapse
&#8226;placental abruption
&#8226;obstetric fistula
More permanent side effects:
&#8226;future infertility
&#8226;permanent disability
&#8226;death.





Now, if someone did any of those things to you (after first compromising your immune system) would YOU tolerate it? You may but isn't it nice that you aren't FORCED to accept that harm?


Women do not lose their rights because they become pregnant. EVERY pregnancy carries the risks of some of these injuries and all pregnancies leave permanent damage.

 

you want super/extra rights for the fetus, the right to harm another.....

 

I disagree with this. Why does your opinion trump mine? In some people's opinions, the fetus has no right to life. Others think it does. The American compromise is, you act according to your beliefs and bear the child, while others have the individual liberty to act according to THEIR beliefs, and abort the fetus. This is the very essence of freedom and liberty.

I believe the human rights violation is to force your convictions on those who disagree. Abort if you wish, this is the freedom you have. Or preserve the life of the fetus, which is ALSO the freedom you have. Others have the same freedom.

Where there is no CHOICE, there is no freedom. I hope you can understand this.

 

I know you love to whip out that list, but most of those either aren't typically experienced, or don't represent an imminent threat to bodily harm that would warrant deadly force self defense. Besides, I've already said I agree with abortion to prevent those that do warrant it (such as many of the above conditions that an older pregnant woman might experience).

 

I'm not surprised you don't think any of that is serious because YOU will never be forced to endure it.

And what do you mean "" most of those either aren't typically experienced, or don't represent an imminent threat to bodily harm""??....obviously you didn't read the list or the headings ...


AND, neither you nor any other Anti-Choicer has EVER proven that pregnancy causes no harm.

SHOW PROOF....where is it???

 

When you see human rights violations around the world, do you say, oh well, my opinion doesn't trump that dictator's opinion?

The human rights violator can use your same argument:

"I disagree with this. Why does your opinion trump mine? In some people's opinions, the citizens of my country possess human rights. Others, like me, Standard World Dictator, believe they don't. The American way is to act according to their beliefs, while other nations have the sovereign right to act according to THEIR beliefs, and not recognize those rights. This is the very essence of sovereignty."