Early abortion can be done for any reason, no woman has to account for her reason. She does not need approval for her decision. Because of the emotional trauma to the birth mother, few women will decide for adoption. I applaud those who do, but will not encourage nor discourage that choice. Eugenics has to do with the effects of breeding on the overall quality of human life, not the decision of one family on whether or not they can deal with a special child financially, emotionally, time-wise, etc. Life is present in the egg and sperm, and no one suggests trying to save every one of them. Laws are simply not necessary for abortion, look at Canada. Regulations are needed to ensure the safety of clinics and the qualifications of personnel, that is all.
Their problem then. If women are strong enough to serve in the military, they're strong enough to adopt out a child rather than kill it. If they choose not to adopt it out then obviously they were financially capable of raising it; otherwise that would be an impossible choice. Such are the evils of moral relativism. Then by the same logic there's no reason a mother shouldn't be allowed to kill a 2 year old autistic child if she didn't have money for abortion at the time. Hence, adoption. Not to mention contraception or the "close your legs" method. Consciousness isn't - consciousness begins when brain activity does, pretty simple. Then if laws aren't necessary for it there's no specific "right" to be provided a platform for it. Even if a woman did have a "natural right" to abortion that would just mean she shouldn't be arrested if she does the coat hanger method, not that she's entitled to a platform where it is provided to her.
That's an excellent argument in favor of pro-life. Women are strong enough to serve in the military, they don't need to be protected and coddled.
How many times have you been shown that this is "FALLACY" and not an argument - never mind an excellent one ? What is your problem ? Its like a dog going back to its own vomit over and over again. You know that you can not prove the claim that a child exists at conception yet, you continue as if this has not been proven to you time and time again. Fallacy 101: Begging the Question/ Assumed Premise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_a_question The claim " Its a baby/child/living human" is assumed. You know that this is a contentious claim. You know that you can not prove this claim and yet you assume that the conclusion "Indeed it has been proven that a zygote is a child" is true. You can believe in the truth of your claim all you like. That does not mean your claim has been proven true so quit pretending it has. If you think you can prove your claim .... then go ahead. That you hide behind fallacy because you know I will squash your silly attempts to prove your silly attempts to prove your claim like a bug no excuse. Quit stating as fact that which you can not prove and which you know is hotly debated.
Except my argument isn't that life begins at conception - that's the view of some pro-lifers, but it's a fact that at some point in fetal development the brain activity and consciousness begins, and this is the overriding factor in the debate, not any other convenience related arguments.
Women are strong enough to survive all sorts of things, but the point is they shouldn't have to be. Gotta attach a label and then call it evil, huh? Staying out of a decision that doesn't involve you isn't "moral relativism", nor is it evil. What? There's no LOGIC there at all. A woman's choice is adoption or rearing the child herself. She also had the choice of abortion in case either of the alternatives of contraception or "close your legs" methods failed her. What constitutes "brain activity"? Consciousness is simply not possible until fairly late in gestation. What? Women aren't asking for a "platform" in order to exercise their rights, they just want the anti-choicers, the super-controllers, to get out of the way. Society may well decide that it is prudent to provide financial subsidies for women choosing abortion, but that has nothing to do with the basic right to avail oneself of abortion.
You both had excellent posts.... two phrases were quite apt: ""Its like a dog going back to its own vomit over and over again. """ and : """ There's no LOGIC there at all."""................... pretty much sums up their Anti-Freedom, Anti-Rights arguments.....
I agree with you ! I wish society could have a civil discussion on the issue so that we could set a reasonable boundary (time period) for when an abortion can be performed. As it sits, we can not have a reasoned discussion because how can we set the boundary at "Significant brain activity- Neurological Perspective" when people will not give up the "Its a baby at conception" ghost. Many on the choice side (such as myself) are not willing to make any compromise with the religious right because they will not give up the fight to oppress women and force their religious beliefs ( in relation to both sex and abortion) on others. As it sits, both sides have staked out irrational positions. One extreme wants to turn a single human cell, one that will never even be part of the structure of the human under creation, into a living breathing human. The other extreme wants to take fully developed fetus with 99% of the characteristics required to Scientifically claim "Homo sapiens" (everything except taking its first breath) and turn it into something that is worthy of inhumain treatment ... worse than an animal. I have almost no sympathy for a woman who is 6 months or more into a pregnancy and decides to have an abortion. What I do have is plenty of disdain and disgust ... albeit we are probably doing the prospective human a favor by not torturing it by allowing it to be raised by such a stupid woman. This type of situation is most likely a function of lack of, or misleading education (such as that coming out of the mouths of lifers).
Once it reaches the point of consciousness it is entirely relevant. Nope, right to life overrides right to convenience - there's no "right" to your own body at the expense of another life.
You are correct.....IF a fetus is ever deemed a person it will have the restrictions of other persons....it will not be able to sustain it's life at the expense of the woman it's in giving her the right to kill it.
Sure it can - the state has every right to force people to to sustain others' life at their on expense - this is what welfare, child support, etc is Nope, the only right she'll have is a right to a speedy trial and execution.
Fox Hastings is correct. No born person has the right to use another's body for life support against their will, therefore no unborn person (should society ever bestow personhood on zefs) would either. It's a moot point anyway as personhood of the unborn is not going to happen.
Sure they do - that's what welfare, child support, the draft, etc is. Life overrides convenience and the state has the right to enforce this. It does if we decide so. It already is a person at the point where consciousness begins, because biology doesn't change according to the whim of the law, just like blacks were still "people" even before the law recognized them as such.
You obviously have no idea of the difference between biological dependence and social dependence. But I see you do support welfare and child support. No one can be forced to use a part of their body, say a kidney, to sustain another person's life. That's biological dependency. No woman should be forced to use her entire body to sustain another's life. I like how you skip over HOW an abortion would be suspected, reported, investigated, proven(NO Anti-Choicer ever could)......right to a speedy trial to executing a human life because you respect life so much..... Sad for you that more and more states are eliminating the death penalty...
https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-status?id=GA131-HB-135 This Bill(HB-135) has been recommended passed by the committee 9/3. This bill will become law but will be immediately found unconstitutional because of violating the fundamental human right to abort for 12-weeks for absolutely any rational including avoiding stretch-marks or avoiding needing new jeans or just to reinforce bodily autonomy. After Arkansas Act 301 is found to be the new constitutional replacement for the Roe v Wade holding from over forty-two-plus years ago when America did not respect human dignity; AR Act 301 will allow abortion of gestation to be a fundamental human right for the first 12-weeks for any reason or no reason. After 12-weeks, new State gestation regulation laws require recognizing the dignity of the unborn human life and balancing this life's dignity with the mother's human dignity. Mothers waive the absolute right to choose aborting gestation by waiting 12-weeks after conception and not seeking to abort gestation until the fetus has a four-chamber heart and an individual circulatory system and the placenta is fully developed making the new human an individual human being sustained by a placenta. Not realizing gestation had begun does not extend the twelve-week absolute period for choosing aborting gestation but will be considered by doctors being asked to kill the unborn human with a heartbeat. This killing requires the doctor to apply an exception to the "first, do no harm" maxim. Dignity is given to individuals by the general human public, unless criminally offset, without requiring "viability", per Roe, to attach to individual humans and warrant legal respect. Unborn humans are wholly separate physically from the female caring for the placental, which then supports the new human with its own circulatory system. The operation of the placenta makes aborting gestation more dangerous both physically and mentally. The general public, within the applicable jurisdiction, is entitled to preserve a clear conscience and every post 12-week termination of gestation is therefore prohibited with respect to human dignity instead of "viability". A female may abort every 12-weeks if needed and science may learn medically aborting gestation to be more healthy and less expensive than other types of birth prevention for birth control(s). The female, by 2017, must monitor results of voluntary human sexuality or accept the fact abortions of gestation after 12-weeks have passed are prohibited with exceptions applied by other humans. North Dakota laws restricting abortions of gestation as soon as heartbeats can be heard infringes on female autonomy as is required till 12-weeks pass and a four chamber heart and placenta are both developed. See MKB Management Corp. v. Stenehjem The Texas law requiring doctors who prescribe and monitor medical abortions also have hospital admitting privileges is unconstitutional because this violates the fundamental human right to abort gestation for 12-weeks. See Whole Woman's Health v. Cole There was no guard around the tree of (knowledge of good and evil), according to the narrative in the Bible. Regardless; Humans are guaranteed the fundamental right to choose religion or change their minds per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The twenty-week ban attempting to replace one arbitrary line (viability) with another (fetal pain) will fail but will not be necessary after Act 301. See Beck v Edwards, (15-44
This is just more attempts to justify interfering with women's rights to make decisions about their own bodies. Women will only obey these laws so long as they don't countermand their own ideas of what is best. The more you attempt to regulate women, the more regulations will be disobeyed. Yes, sometimes women support this regulation against themselves for various reasons, but for the most part, these regulations are borne out of men's frustration of being unable to control women.
It will be hard for women to disobey this regulation without ruining the professional lives of doctors who do also. This might be disobeyed with coat hanger abortions of gestation but these type killings police themselves. They did in the past. I do not oppose abortions if done within 12-weeks. I actually hope and expect abortions of gestation before 12-weeks to become more safe than condoms and allow women to not bother so much with hormone pills. Medical abortions of gestation will become so easily done that these might replace hormonal BC. Yes; There will need to be hospitalizations in very rare cases. These complications will quickly disappear as they are used earlier in gestation. Medicated abortions of gestation will need no more doctor involvement than the flue and have absolutely no associated stigma within ten years. I have no desire to control women including my wife or my children. It may appear that I do by filing a companion case in this matter. If I were a casual observer to my persistence in this matter, I would also suspect some alterior motive. The motive is NOT controlling women. There is a motive but it is too complicated to explain to about 99.999999967% of humans in the U.S. adequately at this time. This motive will become more impacting to the United States as a country than artificial abortion of gestation could ever be. It will be as impacting as any Amendment yet done. The nternet could not exist today without wire communications and this is related to artificial abortions of gestation being limited to 12-weeks. Every FM radio station in the U.S. today could sell WiFi and this is related to artificial abortions of gestation being limited to 12-weeks. Google Inc could never have developed or been created from anywhere on earth besides here in the America that took over the United States from 1790-2010 after Citizens United and and this is related to artificial abortions of gestation being limited to 12-weeks. I only need to explain this well enough to convince five justices and ten-fifteen SCOTUS law clerks.
NO, despite your protestations your silly act is ALL and ONLY about controlling women. Who else gets pregnant? YOU want to control their ability to have an abortion when they choose to. It IS "controlling". You: """"I only need to explain this well enough to convince five justices and ten-fifteen SCOTUS law clerks"""""" Ya....that's all ya gotta do.....if you ever get that far.... Just mildly curious: Why do you insist on calling it "abortion of gestation" ? There's only one "abortion" we discuss in the "abortion" thread..... How , if your silly law passes, do you intend to enforce it? How do you intend to monitor every woman in the US? How do you "suspect" a woman? How do you prove when her abortion took place? How do you prove an abortion took place? IF , by some miracle, you get the joy of convicting a woman what sentence should she get? Life in prison? Death? A good beating? A scarlet letter on her chest?
I could not care about controlling women any less. If this fixation makes you feel better, please maintain it. I have about two weeks to finish after Hon Alito extended the time for filing by 60 days. I have already convinced two judges so it is only three more to be passed but this SHOULD BE 9-0. I do not like use of the modern word "abortion" developed from to abort. I feel society in America was harmed severely by the Congressional misspelling of copy[rite] in the Copy[rite] Act of 1790. Less than twenty people on earth realize fully why this mistake was intentionally done by Noah Webster to monopolize American school book printing. I know this is the future but have no idea how or why it is.
I didn't say whether you "care " it's controlling women or not, you obviously don't....but it IS controlling women no matter what you burble....
I would need to start a new thread to not hijack this one again. I will complete my petition for certiorari and file it first with the Supreme Court. Most love the United States of America and did not notice as this nation was overthrown by the corporate America regime beginning with the dictionary misspelling in 1790 described herein and made the regime selected by U.S. voters feeling too scared and too disconnected versus communications we have today to trust themselves to govern after World War I. A disconnected United States passed the Permanent Reapportionment Act of 1927 and let a smaller group of wealthier citizens compete for being called "elected rulers" in an allegedly representational government that was finally abandoned permanently in 2010 with Citizens United inappropriately calling corporate donations equal to individual free speech. There is no use crying over this permanent demolition of U.S. democracy. It is now irreversible except through Congress repealing the Permanent Reapportionment Act of 1927 and making Districts be represented based on population by county and requiring one representative for every 60,000 citizens. This would be so much simpler and much more effective than trying to pass an amendment to overrule Citizens United. See Human-Dignity-US.org/ The currently allowed reason for killing a fetus that will soon be banned in Ohio is Down Syndrome which will be banned as a reason for artificially aborting gestation https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-status?id=GA131-HB-135 This is regarding the OP. Men have absolute and irrevocable control over females beginning a period of gestation. Most abortion of gestation is artificial and the male has no rights to protect the incubation of sperm after it fertilizes an egg for 12-weeks. When the egg first splits, the results are just as much part of the male's physical contribution as the female. Perhaps a jury of females should decide if the balance of human dignity allows artificial abortion after 12-weeks? Oh wait... Females already did this by voting for Act 301 or allowing their husbands. I would ONLY support Act 301 if my spouse did too and most AR voters are similar, - I hope.
Not in anyway nothing to do with convenience, the right to defend your body against non-consented injury has always over ruled the right to life, furthermore there is no such thing as a right to life. I suggest you tell the courts this when they are trying a self-defence case.
