Woman gets more sucked out than she bargained for

Yes, abortion is legal. If a pregnant woman is murdered and her fetus dies, the person responsible is charged with TWO murders. If the mother aborts it's legal. Abortion is legalized murder. Simple stuff here.

 

""""""I knew you couldn't refute a single thing I posted ...just on and on with whining about ""abortion is murder, squawck! Abortion is murder, I don't need no damn facts, squawck abortion is murder!

But whatever YOU call anything , abortion is still legal Women still have a right to choose .........and whining about " abortion is murder" hasn't , and won't , change a thing """"


I'm afraid things like CHOICE and CONSENT will be beyond comprehension........so wail away....

 

Yes, CHOICE and CONSENT to murder her baby legally.

 

Because the anti-choicer (whomever that is) forced her to have an abortion.

ffs, that's brilliant.....

 

They did? How odd....I think you misunderstood....Anti-Choicers want to force women to give birth, you know, pay for having sex as in "you play, you pay"..........are you confused?

 

You ask if I'm confused yet you haven't a grasp on the topic of the thread.

The topic is a woman who chose to abort a baby and had her insides removed along with it... oops.

She played with the abortion option and paid for it.



If I had crayons I'd use them, though somehow I doubt they'd help.

 

Oh, sorry, the thread got so far away from the topic which had nothing to do with abortion but more to do with a botched medical procedure.....which can happen with any surgery.

Your hatred of women and delight in what this woman went through is noted ....but not surprising.....now I get your flippant , "you play, you pay" ....which IS the base line of Anti-Choicers, women should pay for having sex...

 

Your constant whining, accusing and twisting of words has no affect on me.

Same would be true even I respected you.

Just to save you those usual hours of time trying your hardest.

 

OH NO! YOU don't respect me! How will I ever survive that vital knowledge"!?!....for gawd's sake you think I care that someone like you doesn't respect me? That is a badge of honor


Now, care to discuss the topic? It isn't me although I do seem to be your obsession......try the topic....

 

I already did.

When you chimed in with your juvenile trolling.

 

If it had a speck of truth about it then yes it might have some merit, it doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean the disingenuous word games of pro-lifers claiming a fetus is a "baby" and that abortion is "murder", actually it isn't disingenuous word games it plain lying,

- - - Updated - - -

no one is killing viable babies, do you mean viable fetuses?

- - - Updated - - -

There is no such thing as "an unborn, viable baby " that's like saying an undead, viable corpse

 

Well the reference to religion is irrelevant to the subject .. but that derailing is standard for pro-lifers.

does it .. hmm, let me know when you find where one person has the right to life at the expense of another person through a physical connection.

 

an of course like most pro-lifers you have absolutely no idea why this is so .. do you?

 

Yes. It's law.

 

Oh you mean like it is law for a woman to get an abortion up to 24 weeks without requiring a reason to.

Why not be honest and actually admit you have no idea what the Unborn Victim of Violence Act means or implies.

 

Questions Presented​

1.. . . . . .Is it acceptable to treat the “viability” variable as the linchpin of the Roe v Wade decision and use this to invalidate the natural human dignity of millions of concerned Arkansas voters supporting Act 301 to preserve their conscience? Respect for human dignity would have sustained the Roe v Wade ruling far better forty-plus years ago and would continue to this date without as much challenge. Protection of the Ninth Amendment right to maintain human dignity still sustains artificial abortion of gestation better than the “right to privately choose” which exist "for a time" (12-weeks) but only while preserving human dignity like allowed already by Arkansas Act 301.


2.. . . . . . Does a lack of “viability” warrant ignoring human dignity? Arkansas voters asserted human dignity begins with an audible heartbeat or the same test normally given to detect life. The Supreme Court once attached individual human rights at “viability” but never recognized the Ninth Amendment right to dignity because Noah Webster created the “American English” dialect in 1790. The existing British right to protect personal dignity was ignored and an old British law from eighty years before was copied though not current at the time.
. . . . . .Human dignity is usually respected when humans are in comas on life support and unresponsive or are otherwise unable to exist alone. Human dignity warrants protection from the first audible heartbeat until the last according to the determination of most humans on earth. The last heartbeat is sometimes scheduled by a jury for retribution or revenge in the United States.
. . . . . .Death penalties are no deterrent for crimes or for undesired gestation and neither killing respects human dignity.


3.. . . . . .Should an Arkansas law with broad exceptions for preserving the dignity of pregnant females, over the new life within, be called unconstitutional because of protecting the dignity of humans after an audible heartbeat develops and 12-weeks of gestation pass? Artificial abortion of gestation based solely on female choice is not allowed after 12-weeks pass and a heartbeat is heard except to preserve the dignity of the pregnant female. No abortion of gestation needed to protect the life of the pregnant female is stopped by Act 301. Elective abortion of gestation for 11-weeks is an inferred, de facto, fundamental human right in this law for females.

 

Your law is NOT FOR "females", it is against women. It is against the human dignity of women. IT has NO human dignity


Respect for human dignity disappears the second women lose the right to their own bodies.

Those who have respect for the human dignity of a fetus but none for women have "issues".

They should not be allowed to pass laws dissolving the human dignity of women.

Those opposed to respecting the right of women to have human dignity have none themselves....

 

Understanding human dignity is too complicated for most and sometimes/often even me...

A female has dignity and the life inside her has dignity. A convicted murderer sentenced to die has human dignity. Human dignity was gone immediately "before and during" the crime of murder but human dignity is always current tense. Human Dignity is not or should not be a measurable trait. It either exists and is recognized or is not.

Artificially stopping a heart within a pregnant female respects human dignity only if the alternative is harming to the dignity of the female. In these cases human dignity requires removal of a pregnancy burden.

The life of a baby, fetus, or child has human dignity and therefore would elect to die with human dignity intact and not harm the female or negatively impact her life. Dignity requires a heartbeat and no plan or desire to harm another human.

Act 301 is not MY own personal law but is close to a law I would write. I would write the exceptions more clearly, but this was enough to get the law past "church folks" though Act 301 only outlaws artificial abortions of gestation "to fit in a prom dress" or other frivolous reasons after 12-weeks gestation. The State of Arkansas will file a petition tomorrow. The SCOTUS clerks and judges will get two chances after getting mine in Nov.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

 

(Bolding above, mine)


"All BORN beings.......that doesn't include fetuses BUT DOES include women.......and NO. no "brotherhood" just sisterhood to protect from people like you who


seek to take away the human dignity of women....repeating yourself endlessly about this terrible law won't change that.


Your law is NOT FOR "females", it is against women. It is against the human dignity of women. IT has NO human dignity


Respect for human dignity disappears the second women lose the right to their own bodies.

Those who have respect for the human dignity of a fetus but none for women have "issues".

They should not be allowed to pass laws dissolving the human dignity of women.

Those opposed to respecting the right of women to have human dignity have none themselves....

 

There is no constitutional amendment that protects dignity, where as there is a constitutional amendment that protects privacy, the law has no remit to "preserve their conscience", not does it have standing to do so .. more so the only way that a fetus can be protected is by the court designating it rights, once that happens it is no longer a product of nature, but one of man and as such is held to ALL the laws that pertain to that status, including the restriction of not being able to use another person to achieve it's own ends without consent.

Act 301 is unconstitutional, it violates the Roe decision in that it restricts the ability of a woman to undergo an abortion prior to viability, a fundamental right upheld in Casey as well .. The only restrictions that can be placed on 2nd trimester abortions are if the state can show that an abortion would be detrimental to maternal health .. so far there has been no research that proves a 2nd trimester abortion is detrimental to maternal health, any research that attempts to forge casual links between mental health and abortion has failed on numerous methodological issues including, but not limited to, ignoring previous mental issues of the females involved prior to any pregnancy and/or abortion.

What ever Arkansas people assert has no bearing on the constitution, the USA is not a mob ruled country .. it is a Constitutional democratic republic and has procedures in place for any changes made to the Constitution, what Act 301 is attempting to do is to circumnavigate the constitution using faulty evidence and mob lobbying.

 

I wouldn't worry about it Fox this Act has little to no chance of being heard, it is simply a ploy to keep it in the news .. give it another few months and it will be forgotten just like so many similar legal attempts in the last 40 years to over turn Roe.

The whole of Act 301 is unconstitutional, it's whole premise is based on faulty data and mob rule.

 

Thanks for all the info on it.....it sounded whacky.

But this poster who keeps bleating about "human dignity" as he proposes to abolish it for women by making them nothing but broodstock is a piece of work....

Where DO these "people" come from ?

 

Human dignity to them is a blinkered commodity, the designate more dignity to an unfeeling fetus than they do to a feeling female .. the reason has nothing to do with the fetus, it is, and always has been, about punishing women for daring to have sex outside of marriage and not for procreating reasons.

I get that some of them actually do want to help and protect the unborn, the problem is they are going about it in totally the wrong way .. IF they supported and lobbied their Republican Representative for comprehensive sex education and free at source contraception of all types people would be more likely to support some further restrictions on abortion - such as reducing the elective time frame down to 20 weeks, while they stick their heads in the sand and ignore the root causes of abortion they will NEVER gain any traction.

 

The Roe v Wade ruling is not a divine writing. I prefer to say it needs updated others say overruled. The Beck v Edwards Petition for Certiorari filed yesterday says it is time to reexamine and overrule Roe.

• (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
• (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
• c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
• .
• .
• With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb.

The fetus presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb after developing an audible heartbeat, if not killed by an outside interference.
The same test done by EMTs for the unconscious unable to give signs to indicate life is a more just demarcation for attaching human dignity than "viability". "Viability" was an unknown and arbitrary forty years ago and has only gotten more variable and became a violation of human dignity.

Regarding he UDHR; Being BORN does not magically bestow human dignity because sometimes the human is BORN female! Ha...
Just teasing. ... maybe... goodnight.