#2 Examination question for Womb Police cadets of the future-

I "misinterpreted your comments"? Really???

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=333480&page=2

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=333480&page=7


Then let me ask you again.....and think REAL hard before answering, Sam...

Do you support or oppose the use of contraception?

 

I would like to add an observation to your very good post.

If a zef were to be legally seen as a person, then it would have to be given greater rights than the woman, and a woman would have to lose (for a period of time) some of her rights . .the only other portion of the population who lose some of their rights are those convicted of a crime and imprisoned.

ie.

A woman who does not become pregnant has the same rights as any other person, her body autonomy is intact and she has complete control over who she allows to 'use' parts of her body eg. in a sexual encounter.

A women who becomes pregnant immediately loses her body autonomy, she no longer has control over who can use her body (this is based on the zef being declared a person under law), the zef over rides the previous rights she had and as such it is obvious that the zef has been given greater rights. She cannot defend herself from the invasion of her body in the same way any other person can.

Once the zef is born the woman then has her body autonomy and body control rights returned to her, while the (now) baby loses its rights to use her body.

This willy-nilly giving and removing rights is just wrong.

 

Well I did not know this but I suspect it must be huge amounts to do damage

 

Yes, obviously. But not so much that it would be impossible for a woman to consume enough to induce a natural abortion, i.e. miscarriage.

So again, how do the "pro-lifers" propose banning pineapple...or papaya.....? Are they prepared to put Dole Foods out of business? Or how about any of a 1000 natural abortifacients, some of which grow wild in fallow fields and woodlands, ready for the picking.

DEA choppers going to be flying over State Parks looking for fields of anise?

 

i love babies and do not like abortion but I would never want to force it (my beliefs) on others and I would be totally surprised if it was ever outlawed again so I really never worry about it.

 

Precisely. Even if we grant the absurd notion that a fetus has human rights like any other individual, no human being has the right to live in the body of another human being. The right to life it is claimed the fetus has is not simply that--it is claimed the fetus has the right to aggress against the mother and violate her self-ownership. If that were the case, the mother could do the same to the fetus, thus allowing abortion again. It is an absurd double-standard.

 

It won't be....it's all a thought experiment, aimed at folks who never give their beliefs much thought...i.e. the "pro-lifers" (the political ones, or the ones who ACTUALLY believe an "Abortion Prohibition" is possible).

It simply points out the futility of their fantasy....and perhaps catchs a few, who harbor a hidden support for an authoritarian police state aimed at women and "outs" their misogyny, something the "pro-lifers" deny exists within their ranks.

 

You mean the studies where you conveniently left out the conclusion, where it states "The factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation."

As stated before cherry picking at it's finest.

 

Sam could have a big future working for the folks at Breitbart.

 

What's Breitbart?

 

http://www.breitbart.com/

Should suit you very well.

 

Fugazi helped out.

It's politically Far Right...and they were founded by a man who "selectively edited" video of Shirley Sherrod to make it seem as if she was saying one thing...when she was saying something completely different.

He's also now (since his death) been given a hagiographrical treatment by the Right....who ignore his penchant for "massaging" the truth. Some even weave conspiracy theories that he was assassinated.

Like Fug said.....you'd like it.

 

There were fewer abortions before Roe. Vs. Wade, when abortion was illegal, and there were no "airport ultrasounds", or "fruit bans", or "womb gestapo".

 

Why are you reposting Ander's photoshopped graph when it was debunked at the time? It shows that LEGAL abortions increased after Roe v. Wade. Duh...

The original, before photoshop:

 

How many states had abortion legal before Roe Vs. Wade?

 

About 1/3 of them.

 

You are so predictable.

You now pick up on a topic that was thoroughly blown apart in the actual thread, it seems to be a common thing with you to recycle arguments that have been debated and shown to be false .. why can you not formulate an argument of your own?

Apart from the fact that the graph posted has had the explanation title cut off (a dishonest thing to do) I would have been very surprised if abortions figures did not go up AFTER it was made legal, you, as pointed out before, are trying to use data that in no way can be used for the item you are trying to prove. No one actually knows the total number of abortions performed before the legalization struck down all anti-abortion laws in all states, extrapolation of data from places where abortion was legal and performed show that around 800,000 to 1 Million abortions per year took place prior to Roe, this in no way is an accurate figure and in fact it could have been many more or many less.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_abortion_laws_pre-1973.svg



Red - Illegal
Purple - Legal in cases of rape
Blue - Legal in cases of danger to woman's health
Green - Legal in cases of danger to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus.
Yellow - Legal upon request.

 

And as banning women from drinking and eating certain things while pregnant is ridiculous, so is banning abortion.

 

Why is banning abortion ridiculous, in your opinion? What are the reasons that you believe abortion should be legal?

 

Because making it illegal does not work

 

Because Government control of human bodies is a very scary thing, and flies in the face of the freedoms this country stands for.

 

I've said it several times.....there is a HUGE streak of disengenuousness even dishonesty on the "pro-life" side. No suprise....moralist/religious extremists have always used the excuse that "lying is okay, because our cause is righteous"....even the cults like the Moonies, etc. believe that.

They even lie to themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

As I said, the point of my hypothetical was to show just that....the futility of their desired goal, or to force them to support such an authoritarian misogynistic police state that any credibility they have is completely lost.

 

The fetus is not a part of the woman's body. It's a child.

 

If it's not part of her body....then it should be able to survive without her. A heart cannot beat outside a body...nor a lung breathe....nor a kidney filtrate. Thus we know them to be "part of the body".

If a fetus is not...then it should behave differently when excised from the body.