How To Finally Resolve the Abortion Debate

Of course, but why are you telling me that?

I didn't say that I AM free to impose my beliefs on all others!

So do you wish to deny others the freedom/liberty/right to make their own choice?

 

Because "No, I don't have a choice to believe whether or not abortion is illegal in the US, as it is not illegal."
There is nothing keeping you from believing whatever you wish. Beliefs don't necessarily have to be based on truth, and that only makes it difficult for you to get others to share your beliefs.

Wouldn't making abortions illegal for those who believe they should be legal be doing exactly that?

Not at all. Everyone should be free to make their own choices, recognizing that some choices might result in undesirable consequences.

 

This link mentions nothing about lies or perjury. This isn't what has been referred to the 10th Circuit.

 

Roberts CJ has referred to the 10th Circuit a 'review' of Bart's conduct before the Committee. That is a very broad brush.

 

Did you read or hear somewhere that lies are part of it?

 

The subject matter experts.

 

No-one knows the specifics. I assume his 'conduct' (broad brush) is to be reviewed.

 

I still don't get why you're telling me all of this. Believing that abortion is not legal in the USA is like believing that the sky is not blue. I'm not an idiot.

What beliefs of mine are you talking about?

I agree, but I've never said that a woman shouldn't be able to choose what to do about their pregnancy. The problem is, if she wants an abortion, her choice is not sufficient as it does not result in abortion without the actions of others within the health system. And when abortion IS carried out, this is an "undesirable consequence" for pro-life people.

 

I didn't ask you if there is some human rights law that says that there is a "right to bodily autonomy." I asked you, "is there some human rights law that says that banning abortion takes away a women's right to her own body?"

If I believed that abortion is a bodily autonomy matter, then I would agree with you that banning abortion would be taking away a woman's right to her own body.

Yes, people are allowed to refuse treatment. What does that have to do with abortion?

"It IS just her body" is YOUR opinion! Again, many people believe that there is another human's body inside her body, meaning that it isn't just her body that is involved!

 

Is there any value of coins which would be of more value than a human life?

It doesn't NEED to be inside him in order for it to be equally his! How do you think that the thing got inside the woman in the first place? Magic? Again, this is VERY BASIC biology!

 

Surely you can't be serious. Why do you suppose murder is illegal?

The difference between abortion and other medical procedures is that in most cases the only reason that it is required is because the woman has decided to do something that risks resulting in pregnancy. Now that's fine that she has decided to take the risk, but she shouldn't expect the government to clean up their mess. It just so happens that in certain parts of the world, the government agree to clean up their mess, but women should never believe that it is the governments job to clean up their mess by granting them an abortion. Again, if the government stopped making the procedure available tomorrow because it decided that it no longer wants to be involved in the killing of fetuses, how can women complain about that? Wouldn't they be forced to live a different lifestyle? And would they really be incapable of changing?

Nope, I did not ask that.

Incorrect. We kill when someone else is intent on killing us! NOT the same as abortion!

Well you were talking about soldiers in a war when you said that "ALL have the right to self defense and fighting back to protect what's their's." before asking "why shouldn't pregnant women have those same rights?" So I was just responding in context, but you're correct, women DON'T need to be in a war to use self defense, even to the point of killing someone, but they can only kill if they believe that someone is intent on killing them. What does this have to do with abortion?

 

Then simply accept the fact that legal or not, government does not force anyone to have an abortion, which allows you freedom to make that choice for yourself, but not for others.
And where I am the sky is, and has been for several days, quite grey not blue, and only an idiot would look at it and say it's blue.

Do you not believe abortions should be illegal?

As long as those having and those providing the abortion procedure are willing, it's no business of the pro-life people. And there are no 'consequences' applied to the pro-life people resulting from someone having an abortion.

 

No, but it's fact and logic. When you ban abortion and force women to gestate you are taking away their right to their own body, which is slavery which is against the law.

It can't be anything else.

If the government takes over her body by forbidding her to have an abortion it IS owning her, it rakes away her right to her own body and makes the government her owner.

Then the body inside her should be able to be taken out, set on a shelf , and grow and develop on it's own...

NO one is obligated to use their body to sustain the life of another.

 

Then we should be able to take it out of the woman and place it in the man, the other owner, and have him develop HIS fetus...


No, it is NOT inside his body, it is hers...


Men do NOT own women because they had sex with them and made them pregnant.

 

Because murder infringes on another's rights and because murder causes chaos in society if left unchecked. Abortion doesn't and doesn't affect any person but the woman.

Yes, citizens should expect the government allow them to have health care.

The government does not "grant" women abortion. Women already have the right to their own bodies.

WTF! HOW can women complain about losing the right to their own bodies?!!!! EASY!

WTF should they be forced to do anything???

WTF should they change?

Women have had abortions for thousands of years whether legal or not.....you really think making it illegal will change women to obey your rules?

You ask Why should women complain about not having the same rights as everyone else ? Ya, I believe you did....in this post

Baloney! The POINT was that we kill all the time when someone else is INCONVENIENT....as in wars....all wars were not fought because someone was trying to kill us....(they're mostly fought for money and power.)


Besides pregnant women do NOT lose the right to self defense...or is that another right you want taken away from them?



Well you were talking about soldiers in a war when you said that "ALL have the right to self defense and fighting back to protect what's their's." before asking "why shouldn't pregnant women have those same rights?" So I was just responding in context, but you're correct, women DON'T need to be in a war to use self defense, even to the point of killing someone, but they can only kill if they believe that someone is intent on killing them. What does this have to do with abortion?

 

Good post.

 

What makes you think that I don't already accept that?

Oh come on! The sky being blue is a highly accepted generalisation!

I don't believe that there is a right to get an abortion under the health system and therefore I do not believe that it is a governments duty to provide them. However, I do not believe that getting an abortion should be illegal if a woman decided to abort her child by some means, as doing so would be interfering with bodily rights, even though it doesn't just involve her body.

Of course it isn't their business, but it doesn't mean that they can't have an opinion on it.

When you hear stories of people being killed, do you not consider that to be an undesirable consequence of the actions of others?

 

What then is the point of further discussion?

And sometimes it can be other colours.

Like I've repeatedly said, you are free to believe what you want. Those who work in the health system provide the abortions, NOT government. I think what you might be complaining about is who is paying for the abortions, correct?

In the end we are bound by the laws our elected/appointed members of government create for us, regardless of our opinions.

When I've been forced to respond in kind resulting in the death of another I considered it to be a desirable consequence resulting from their actions upon me. The stories of people being killed where I lack full knowledge of what transpired, I leave for the courts. When I hear of someone being killed while committing a criminal act, I might consider it to have been a desirable consequence.
But sticking with the issue of abortion, I can accept government involvement to begin at the moment the labour begins. Prior to that I leave it to the woman to govern the prospective life of her making.

 

What about if government stopped making abortions available under the health system but didn't make it a criminal offense for women to abort their fetus in whatever way that they wanted? Would that be taking away their right to their own body?

 

Why do you suppose that it is illegal to infringe on another's rights?

Sure, but some governments might not think of abortion in the same way as treating a disease.

Sure, but what good is the right to their own bodies if abortions are not made available? When abortion was illegal, women did NOT have the right to it!

Well if abortions were not made available, then women could decide to live their lives in whatever way they want, but it seems that the only sensible way that they could live is if they live a lifestyle which doesn't include having sex without intent on getting pregnant!

Are you saying that they would start performing self-induced abortions

Money and power is what they were based on, but in the battlefield, it was kill or be killed. Inconvenience doesn't come into it, unless you consider someone "inconvenient" because they want to kill you. You are trying to link the threat of an enemy combatant to the inconvenience of pregnancy, but that is absurd! Nice try though.

Of course they don't. What does this have to do with abortion?

 

Does the fetus not have his DNA?

Like I've said before, you are correct.

 

YUP. Not to mention unconstitutional...and stupid...


How about fat men aren't allowed heart surgery....

How about people I don't like are denied health care?


How about the government only allows a certain race health care?






WHERE did you want to go with this???

 

Because it's wrong and causes chaos in society.
Because murder infringes on another's rights and because murder causes chaos in society if left unchecked. Abortion doesn't and doesn't affect any person but the woman.

"Government" shouldn't decide what a disease or health care are.

Women ALWAYS had the right to their own bodies...but the government wrongly restricted those rights.

The government does not "grant" women abortion. Women already have the right to their own bodies.

That's a pretty garbled sentence but this still stands: ""Why should they be forced to do anything?"

That is in response to : Women have had abortions for thousands of years whether legal or not.....you really think making it illegal will change women to obey your rules?

Not sure what your question has to do with that statement but women have done self induced abortions and had others give them abortions......throughout history.

No, I am saying that humans have always decided that if someone is INCONVENIENT they can be killed.

Yesterday I saw an interview of that old religious freak, Pat Robertson.
He said there is nothing wrong with the Saudis killing that reporter and we have to just shut up about it because business with the Saud's is more important.
Lots of people think that way...the reporter was INCONVENIENT and killed.

The fetus harms the woman physically....so IF it's a legal person she has every right to claim self defense and kill it. She has NO other way to stop the harm.

See above.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Then we should be able to take it out of the woman and place it in the man, the other owner, and have him develop HIS fetus...

No, it is NOT inside his body, it is hers...

No, it has it's own DNA and that has NOTHING to do with the post of mine you quoted.

Keep saying it, it's true ...

 

What IS this "undesirable consequence" for Pro-"Life" people?