As it was for blacks under Jim Crow, the South leads in denying women reprod. rights-

You don't ACTUALLY believe the story of "Genesis"?

 

Those are called "social dependencies " . All born people rely on them.

NO one is forced to use any body parts , or give their life , to sustain another. A fetus does not have the right to physically use another's body to sustain it's life ( biological dependency)

 

I believe in the South Jim Crow was about preserving a social structure, might have had something to do with white males being forbidden to vote and run for office after the 14th Amendment. But I do not believe that the pro life movement is about subordinating women for a moment. Nor do i believe the outcry over christian persecution is about oppressing Islam.

you may want to consider the point of view that some believe life starts at inception and that abortion is murder, I am not saying you should feel this way just appreciate that some do.

obviously people from differing circumstance view the issue in different ways. Perhaps true oppression would be to sterilize girls at birth and then they would not have top carry the disproportionate biological burden of being female, or would that be oppression?

I happen to be a pro choicer but for economic reasons. I hardly think protecting life is oppressive even though i disagree with pro lifers on the issue of choice.

 

How do restrict or ban abortion.....WITHOUT controlling women?

 

How many babies have you personally heard complain about it?

 

well. we make them get immunizations to go to school, we make them go to school, we make them get training and licensing to cut hair, we make them follow the speed limits, we don't let them vote till they are 18, we make them wear seat belts, we make them have auto insurance to drive, we make them get a license, we make them pass tests to graduate, we make them wait till they are 21 to drink.
we make them be 18 to sign medical consent forms.

oh and we do the same for men. clear enough i hope, get over your hate and try to understand. Some people just think murder is wrong. Others claim we murder millions in the name of war. Hypocrisy is everywhere. Imagine this, a woman is raped and gets pregnant, woman wants abortion, people say that is her right, baby is dead, people say death penalty for rape, same people that say kill the baby say death penalty is wrong. so who is wrong? the people that want to kill the baby or the people that want to kill the rapist.

 

I am not sure you know the difference between South Central and South Atlantic when you were fashioning your Jim Crow nonsense.

 

All that you mention are laws to protect society from chaos, disease, and expense......

Abortion does not create chaos, does not affect society.

Abortion is not murder and no one has ever proven it is. A person has to be born to be murdered, they have to be a person.

You can't even be a citizen of the US until you're born. Then you are a person and have rights...AND restrictions. One restriction is that you can't use another person's body to sustain your life. So if a fetus is deemed a "person" then the woman it's in has every right to defend herself from the harm it imposes on her and there is only one way to do that.


Plus, it is impossible to investigate, and prosecute abortion, it's even hard to suspect abortion.
And to stem off your "solutions"(they've all been tried in the past with other posters)

You can't tell by belly size if a woman is pregnant or had an abortion.

Forced ultra sound is unconstitutional.

Blood in the toilet is not a give away (even if you are on such intimate terms with someone that you SEE blood in their toilet and then would you turn them in?).

Abortion clinics would NOT have huge signs out in front saying "Abortions Here"

Records would not be kept for the cops to examine.

A natural miscarriage can look like an abortion....will you subject women who have a miscarriage to a public examination and charges of abortion?


We can see someone not wearing a seat belt or there are signs that someone was murdered or something stolen or lack of vaccinations causes more contagious diseases....

There is no indications of abortion unless every woman is FORCED to be monitored monthly like cattle.

 

Notice that you essentially admitted my point? That it WOULD be about controlling women.

BTW, it is NOT "the same for men"....men don't get pregnant. So you're wrong there.


Also, you DO NOT believe abortion is "murder"....I can prove that in a few simple questions, if you are willing to be honest and direct in answering them. (or don't and be like a lot of "pro-lifers")

- - - Updated - - -

What States are part of South Central and South Atlantic?

 

you have the right to your opinion and others have the right to differ. obviously you believe that woman are harmed by having babies, so sterilize them and then there is not an issue anymore.

 

Look up which states had miscegenation laws and get back to me about your analogy.

 

If that extrapolation is unfounded, then the extrapolations we find on pro-life webpages are unfounded and that leaves them with no evidence that the soul enters at the moment of conception. The only explicit Bible passage addressing the question of when the soul enters the body is the description of the soul entering Adam. God did not breath a soul into the dust of the earth and THEN form it into Adam. He formed Adam first (which would have created a brain capable of self-aware thought) and gave him the breath of life.

In other words, there is no evidence that a soul exists, but (based on your religious beliefs) you choose to believe one exists and it inhabits the body at the moment of conception. This means you have no right to force any other person to follow that belief in a country with freedom of religion.

Self-awareness and reasoning ability are measurable when they inhabit the developed brain (which is in the last month or two of pregnancy). Ecclesiastes tells us we (our personhood) will persist after our body turns to dust. Matthew tells us our soul (our personhood) will persist even if our physical body is killed. If you believe our self-awareness will persist after death (also called our soul) then you are implicitly accepting the premise that our self-awareness (our personhood) is the same as our soul or spirit. Do you agree that our self-awareness (our personhood) will persist after death?

If we exist (with individual personhood) before conception (and the Bible seems to indicate that we do) then either (A) we are self-aware souls before being bound to a physical structure, or (B) the soul is an interchangeable part (like a battery) that powers us and has nothing to do with our personhood. If you are like most Christians, you must believe A (our soul is our self-awareness, or personhood).

As I stated earlier, I do not have to prove a soul exists because if there is no such thing as a metaphysical soul (i.e. a self-aware personhood existing outside the physical realm) then there is NO excuse to interfere with any woman's decision on abortion. Do we agree on that much?

I have stated my willingness to accept the general assertion that the self-aware mind is the same thing we also call the spirit or the soul (based on your philosophy). Instead of demanding evidence of a soul, I am willing to accept that it exists and is the same thing we describe as the self-aware mind, or spirit, or personhood. The quotes you provided from the Bible even support this concept because they indicate a belief that our sense of self will persist after the body is gone. If you are convinced that the soul is something different from the self-aware mind and it is joined to the fertilized egg at the moment of conception then you need to prove it.

 

if abortion does not affect society why are we having this discussion? why was abortion illegal until 1973, did the law change in 1973? if laws change then perhaps defining when life begins will change and be codified. perhaps that is what pro lifers want, we know today that medical science has evolved and therefore the definition of viable has changed. That knife cuts both ways.

 

There are people who put more into the system than they take out. If there were not, it wouldn't be possible to sustain those who take out more than they put in.

Many of us use parts of our body to produce the value which sustains social dependents.



​

 

So you don't believe in "choice" or "consent" or the Constitution...just forcing women to do what you approve of....you have a right to your opinion.....

If you have proof that women suffer no physical harm from pregnancy and child birth, please do provide it, no one else ever has.

 

Pretty sure "South Central" and "South Atlantic" (1st and 3rd on opposing choice) would include most of "Old Dixie" and the heart of Jim Crow'ism. From Texas and Louisiana and Oklahoma and Arkansas.....over to the Carolinas, etc.

 

Why did it take to 1954 to get the Brown v. Board of Education decision? Why did it take to 1964 to get the Civil Rights Act? Why did it take to 1967 to get the Loving v. Virginia Decision?

 

NO, you cannot be forced to say, donate your heart or your kidneys to another....that is biological dependency and no one can be forced to do that..

SOCIAL dependency is depending on others for your care . Example: A fetus is biologically dependent on the woman's it's in, it uses her body to sustain it's life.

ANYONE can care for a newborn baby or a paraplegic ....that is "social dependency".



How much someone puts, or doesn't put, into the system has nothing to do with anything.

 

I believe that women should have the right to choose but not because the alternative is oppression, I believe the constitution that can create rights can also be used to take rights away. I also believe that women are intelligent and have many options other than abortion to take charge of their destiny. You evidently do not!

 

why did it take till 1789 to ratify the constitution.

 

Most folks believe people are harmed by smoking and eating too many big-macs. Do you think we should alter people's bodies so they no longer have the choice to do so?



​

 

We have the draft. This country can and has required people to donate parts of their bodies, even their lives, to sustain others. How much our society can ask of a person, seems like exactly the question you are asking.



​

 

Exactly......so should we base our rights on what occurred BEFORE 1789?

Why is "1973" your arbitrary date for "Anything illegal before this date, should remain illegal"?

- - - Updated - - -

So why do you sound exactly like every other anti-choice "pro-lifer"?????