I hate to move in this direction, but somebody has to say it. How long in America was slavery completely legal? Point being that justices of the Supreme court still can come to their senses on this life / death issue.
That is your statement. Mine differs. I never saw my children like that nor heard my wives speak that way about our children. Have any of you pro abortionists ever had a child? I would appreciate this quote as a legal ruling. Show it to us.
I’m not pro-abortion. I’m actually against abortion and I would advise against it. But my opinion has no bearing on a woman’s body autonomy. Neither I nor anyone else can force her to be an incubator for another person against her will. We give corpses more body autonomy than that.
If death is her option, suppose you explain then the woman that killed her 3 children and why that woman could be forced to take care of other persons against her will?
There is no meeting space. Abortion is cold blooded murder, and I cannot meet a cold blooded murderer half way.
Because she violated reasonable regulation of her rights. Body autonomy can be regulated but not totally abrogated (hence why limits like fetal viability or term limits with exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother/fetal deformity can exist). A mother with born children has her right to body autonomy regulated in that she cannot kill her children, but she can turn them over to an orphanage or adoption agency.
Nations including our own are steadily moving against the idea that the way to reduce abortions is to make laws against women. You have a good objective - fewer abortions. Everybody would like there to be fewer abortions. BUT, you have a CRAP approach. Other nations have been more successful than are we - without using laws against women.
Unsupported comment. What exactly is my approach? Were you to value the least able to defend itself, what is that going to say?
Look, the deal is two people. Her and her child. If she can kill it prior to birth, she has the same right to kill it up to the age of it being an adult. While you will not approve that, your solution baffles me and I am of the same opinion of your option you are of mine. If she has a right to kill her children, she has that right up to them being legal adults. And believe me, I know of a professor that made almost that same case only he allowed death of the children up to age 5 I believe.
No, I don't believe she should have to claim she was raped. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...n-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476 Let's not kid ourselves. We all want there to be fewer abortions. But, laws against women isn't the way to do it.
She has the right to remove the child from her body up to a limit set by reasonable regulation of that right. If the child is unable to survive the removal, it still has no right to use another person’s body against their will to sustain its life. We can’t even have the government take organs from corpses to save people unless the person who previously owned that body consents, but you want to have the government seize ownership of women on behalf of another person? Similarly, a mother with born children has a right to body autonomy. No one can force her to give blood or organs to her children. But if she wants to end her legal and financial obligations to them, the regulatory laws that exist spell out how.
Plenty of women self-abort. There’s lots of ways to induce a miscarriage. Fun fact: if you had your way and abortion was banned, logically every miscarriage would have to be investigated to ensure it wasn’t actually an abortion, as during the first trimester, the two produce identical results.
You are totally fixated on reducing abortion by use of laws against women. If you had anything else in mind, I'm sure you would state it.
You are spiraling out of control! Once again, all Americans would like there to be fewer abortions. It's just that your methodology isn't acceptable. Yet, you refuse to consider any other methodology!!! What is so important about your methodology?
I must apologize for refusing so submit to your authoritarian style. I do not know why you suppose others must endure it. What am i saying? You spun this into a tirade against me. And you proceed to speak for all Americans. I believe a large number of americans enjoy abortions or they would not defend them constantly. What you essentially ask me to approve is the same thing in my view as were you telling me it is fine for the woman to kill her 5, 6, 7 8 year old children. She bore them from her body. They are not adults. However if nobody will defend them, i plan to. This is my basis on resisting abortion. Though her child is not my child, her child has no way to mount self defense. The mother is not helpless. She wields enormous power over her children. Born or on the way, she has the power of life and death. I figure if she has it till she aborts them, what stops her from retaining her power until they are adults?
When i read that, it makes as much sense to me as telling me that by my supporting the law against her killing her own teen children is against the woman. When one lives and one dies, I must support the lesser of the powers.
I personally am. If asked my opinion, I would advise anyone short of a rape victim against it. But my opinion doesn’t matter to their rights.
You said man rules her. Man does not rule her for the full term. Man picked a date. If man has that authority, why not do it the way to favor the child's life? You keep making a statement and this is it: Did you you yank that from some legal quote of record or how did you come up with that? What about it makes it legal terminology?
I don't disregard your objective of lowering the number of abortions. Again, it's that your methodology has not shown any significant progress when compared to measures used by other nations. Also, you have to face the fact that not everybody sees a fertilized egg as being a person and people do see women as having rights over their own bodies. You aren't improving your progress against your goal when all you do is stubbornly insist on a methodology that is neither accepted nor most effective.
