New poll: Majority of Americans oppose Supreme Court ruling on abortion

Fetus's are human (scientific fact). And human's have Rights (legal fact).

Illegal immigrants also have Rights. IE: Rights are not dependent on Citizenship. And whatever word you use, Be it "person" or "human being" or whatever....in the end a Fetus is still human. And Humans have Rights.

When it comes to the Right to life, yes, it is.

Ohio's State District Attorney said that she could have had an abortion. Even the President of a Pro-Life group said she should have been able to get an abortion. Its not near as complicated as so many pro-choice folks are making it out to be.

And yet, it happens all the time. Medicaid/Medicare alone will not pay for certain drugs, even though that drug might be the best option for the patient, which forces poor patients to take only "government sponsored medications".

 

To repeat for emphasis -- ABORTION IS TOTALLY LEGAL IN COLORADO! You're welcome to come over here and have all the abortions you want.

Bring your friends and you can all have abortions at the same time! The more the merrier!

 

No, that is not a legal fact.

Yes. Our constitution is careful about separating the rights of "citizens" and the rights of "people".

A fetus is not a person or a citizen. And, it is not A human.

This is total BS.

This is true. There are other procedures that our medical system will not pay for, too.

I doubt they would pay to have an arm reattached, for example.

And, one might look to see if they will pay for fetal surgery.

 

Actually, it is.

Really? Please show me where the Right to Life is applied only to Citizens in the Consitution.

Science says otherwise. Thought you didn't like science deniers? Because you're denying science by saying that. And saying the same things slavers did about blacks.

LINK: Can 10-year-olds get an abortion under Ohio's heartbeat law? (wdtn.com)

Does 2 News, an ABC affiliate, often report "total BS"?

At least you admit that the government gets involved in medical decisions all the time. As for you last sentence inquiry... Generally... if its an emergency (such as congenital heart failure...which does happen in fetus's), yes. If its an elective surgery, sometimes. If its cosmetic, not at all. Though it does vary from State to State.

 

No one said human fetuses weren't human....why are you arguing with yourself ??

Funny how you believe """human's have Rights"" but don't believe women, who are humans, have rights.

 

Women have rights just not the right to murder.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
No one said human fetuses weren't human....why are you arguing with yourself ??

Funny how you believe """human's have Rights"" but don't believe women, who are humans, have rights.

No, they don't have the right to murder but they do have a right to bodily autonomy LIKE EVERY OTHER person....and those who want to destroy that right are fiends.

Abortion isn't murder.

NO one has the right to use another's body to sustain their life...so even if a fetus was deemed a person the woman would still have the right to kill it.

No one can force you to give them your heart or a kidney to sustain their life ....and no one should force a woman to use her body to sustain their life.....women are human.

 

Nobody made that claim. Nobody.

A fetus is not a human. It has the potential to become a human.

Your cite PROVES that the 10yo could not get an abortion in Ohio.

Her condition does NOT conform to any of the medical exceptions proposed.

Plus, the prosecutor in that state has strongly stated readiness to prosecute.

These decisions are not NEARLY as cut and dried as you propose.

The various conditions found in pregnancy can have percentages of possible permanent damage or fatality of the woman or failure of the fetus.

Prosecutors are free to challenge the decisions of doctors, with the entire medical career of the doctor at stake.

There is no way for doctors to know what they can and can not do in these situations. There are cases of doctors consulting hospital lawyers, hospital boards, prosecutors, and even congressmen to find out what their intent is in forming or carrying out the law, should the doctor work in the best interest of the woman.

 

nope, she can give the doctor what ever reason she wants, does not have to report it to the police

 

a doctor should be able to be sued when they work behind the patient's back

and not just by the patient, anyone that wants to sue the doctor

 

even most republicans are pro-choice it seems

 

I simply do not agree with your idea that a fetus is a human. Becoming a human is a potential. But, fetuses fail on their own. And, there is absolutely is NO "right to life" for a fetus. And, as you point out it can be medically necessary to terminate a fetus due to the threat to the life of the woman.

As for your consent to termination for the saving the woman, you have to remember that the laws written do NOT give medical level guidance for what a doctor may do. And, I don't believe there is any possibility of that happening. The medical issues are too complex and changing to be captured in a congressional bill. They have to do with percentages of likelihood of various outcomes. And, those percentages have no clear possibility of measurement by congressional bill - they come from the experience and education of the doctor. They also come from the woman. A woman may choose to delay chemotherapy on the hopes of birth followed by chance of curing the cancer. Or, the couple may decide that the chemo must come at once, meaning the necessity for termination. How do you plan to measure the odds of survival should they wait for birth? Of course, this is NOT just about cancer - I just used that example. There are other diseases that have a bearing on the health of the fetus and the mother.

I don't like the term "unwanted", because it makes the issue sound emotional. But, the issue actually has a serious bearing on families as a whole, on women who are on their own and trying to support themselves, on the ability to provide adequate pre/post natal medical attention, on the psychological damage to rape and incest victims, etc.

 

True.

My point was a little different than that.

Doctors are reporting that before they treat their patient, they have to consider whether they will lose their careers for doing so. I listed some of the individuals and agencies they have to consult, given today's laws in a number of states.

I would assume the patient is kept fully informed as to what agency is making it impossible for her to be treated in the way she and her doctor believe is correct.

 

Then why try and use the argument that you did? Because that is the only reason to make that argument.

So you are denying science. Got it.

Dude, I quoted their (the state AG and the pro-life presidents) exact words. Yet you still deny? Guess you don't just deny science, but facts in general.

All that you're doing is equivocating. You already agreed that the government gets involved in medical decisions.

 

Simple requirement of reporting rape claims of doctors can handle that. Just as they are required to report gun shot wounds.

 

The moment unique DNA is formed it is considered as unique human DNA by the scientific community. Ergo it is a unique human. Able to be differentiated between mother and father. What you're talking about "potential to become human" is a spiritual argument, and government has no place in legislating spiritual matters.

And yes, the Right to Life is not currently applied to fetus's. But then again the Right to Life was also not applied to slaves at one point in time also. Why? Well, your post is a perfect example. You don't consider them human, just like slaves were not considered human.

All the law has to state is:

I got that directly from a California law. You can find the link to it here: LINK: California Assembly Bill 2223 | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

You're the one that brought it up. Not me.

 

As I pointed out, their words did not cover the issue.

The fact that the government gets involved is no indication that they are successful.

 

What about “This young girl […] she did not have to leave Ohio to find treatment.” does not cover the issue? Keep in mind he was talking about abortion.

Irrelevant.

 

You can tell it is human. But, that doesn't mean it's a person.

You need to choose some other line of argument besides your "slaves" thing.
Slaves were obviously persons. A fetus is not.

Hilarious!

I agree with that law. However, YOU DON'T!!! You just don't understand what it says.

The law you quote states that abortion is allowed up to the point of fetal viability.

Fetal viability is the time when the fetus could be extracted (such as by cesarean section) and the fetus would survive.

Up to that point, abortion is legal in California.

 

There it is. The crux of the abortion "debate". Some believe the fetus has more Rights than the woman it is growing inside of. To them, woman is sub-human somehow. Not smart enough to make their own choices.
I beg to differ. Women are fully human and well qualified to make their own health care decision with their doctor, without interference from medically ignorant politicians, most men, in various government legislatures.

 

You just haven't read the full case.

That girl absolutely DID have to leave the state.

At the very least, she would have become a legal case with Ohio's prosecutor going after her as a test case.

 

"Person", given the context, is a spiritual argument. Otherwise its just another word for "human".

Discuss that part in that thread if you would. The point, for this thread, is that a law can be made.

 

No, she didn't. And no, he wouldn't have. His own words belie your assumption.

 

I laugh in your general direction.

"Fetus's are Human" - as is the dump you took this morning (scientific fact)

"And human's have rights" Correct .. but the dump you took this morning is not a human

Most anti aborts yet to figure out the difference between a descriptive adjective an a noun .. wanting to make law on the basis of this ignorance - "fallacious utilitarianism" a horrible atrocity in Law .. and anathema to the founding principle.

 

A lot more than republicans.