There is no right to have an abortion

Every time I see someone post this nonsense, I gotta laugh...but then I feel sorry for the ninny who posted it. Talk about a reach.

You must not have kids...otherwise you would realize that even live children in effect are dependent upon the parents bodies for their own survival.

 

So personal insults are the basis of your argument....no wonder you have none


No, kids do not live off their parents bodies, they are separate human beings unless you're contending the umbilical cord is never cut.

Anyone can take care of kids, they don't need their parents to survive...did you think kids who lose their parents , say in a car accident, don't survive ??


I'll try to make it simple.... there is "social dependency" (anyone can care for the kid once it's born) and "biological dependency" (the fetus is completely dependent on the person it's in) . They are two different things....



Oh, and the crap about "you don't have kids so blah blah blah"...is just crap...

 

I am still eager to see your link for one of these studies.

 

As I mentioned earlier, your response suggests that you elevate the life of the fetus above the life of the woman carrying it. The fetus is not yet "quickened" and has not the physiology to become sentient until sometime in the third trimester, so it has not yet started its "life" (as opposed to being alive like any other living organism on this planet).

I stated before (and you did not refute) that it is easy for you to demand the woman's sacrifice for the fetus when it does not cost you anything. Suppose a fetus in a nearby hospital is diagnosed with a severe problem and will not survive without new liver tissue. Let's assume you have a five-year-old daughter who is the ONLY tissue match in the database and they only need one lobe from her liver to save this fetus. Do you seriously believe the government should have the right to take your daughter to the hospital and take a lobe from her liver to rescue this fetus without your consent?

 

Apparently orphans immediately die as soon as their parents do. I guess Lil' Orphan Annie was a ghost.

 

One must assume you are talking about your own comment as it certainly is nonsense.

 

Strawman Thread Fail!

Abortions are medical procedures that fall under the Right to Privacy.

Unless the OP can prove that they have some imaginary right to stick their noses into a woman's vagina without her permission this thread is based upon a complete and utter fallacy.

Should the world be allowed to know that the OP underwent surgery for a penile prosthesis implant or is that something that would fall under the OP's Right to Privacy?

Same principle applies to women having an abortion. It is a private matter between her and her medical provider.

The Right to Privacy covers abortions and unless the OP can prove otherwise this thread is a complete and utter waste of time.

 

Elective medical procedures should require the child's consent, or if that is not possible, some form of oversight from a neutral third party.
In the vast majority of cases abortions are elective, that means not medically necessary.

 

Who? Who would YOU consider "neutral"?

 

1) No "child" is involved.

2) Children cannot give consent.

3) Elective surgery means non-emergency surgery.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=14367

4) You don't get to decide what is "medically necessary" for anyone else.

5) Nothing that you posted negates the FACT that abortions are medical procedures that fall under the Right to Privacy.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless the pregnant woman is incapable of providing informed consent herself no other party, neutral or otherwise, has any right to participate in this medical procedure.

 

The reason I asked was to "feel out" who Joakim would even accept as "neutral".

My guess is he'd ONLY accept a biased group of medical experts who believe as he does about abortion....in other words, people decidedly NOT "neutral".


Basically, he's trying to appear "moderate" and "compromising"....when he is the furtherest thing from that.

 

Agreed!

The OP's iniquitous agenda is very transparent.

 

As I've also always said...

be optimistic.


Roe is now 43 years old....and the "pro-lifers"....

despite Republican Presidents, Republican Congresses, a majority (before Scalia's death) of Republican Justices, combinations thereof....


have FAILED to get it overturned....and there is no indication of that changing in the future.

 

Yes, but that won't stop him and his ilk from continuing to try.

What concerns me is that if they reach the conclusion that they cannot do it via the Law of the Land they might step up their other activities.

 

That's not supposition......it's happened...many times-

Murder/Terrorism-

Robert Dear

Eric Rudolph

Scott Roeder

John Salvi

Michael F. Griffin

Paul Jennings Hill

James Charles Kopp

Michael Bray

Shelley Shannon

Francis Gerald Grady



Arson/Terrorism-

Matt Goldsby

Jimmy Simmons

Kathy Simmons

Kaye Wiggins

David McMenemy

Chad Altman

Sergio Baca

 

Why? You do not get a child's consent for any surgery. It is always parental consent. If you are insisting on a neutral third party then that should also apply to any child under the age of 15

 

Would you think it was ok for a parent to give their 14-year-old child breast implants despite the child not wanting them?
Consent in crucial, as is the best interests of the child.

 

What a creepy question to dream up....couldn't you think of a nonsexual example? No, guess not......

 

Until we reach a point where no woman dies of complications of child birth, there remains the possibility that any and all
abortions may have prevented a woman's death - it is simply an unknown.

Since the mother's death is always a possibility, I could not in good conscience force a woman to carry to term.

 

The mother's death is only a tiny unlikely probability if she gives birth. The fetus's death is a certainty if she gets abortion. You cannot even compare the two.

Not only that, but some studies have suggested that abortion may overall be the riskier prospect of the two when the woman's post-abortion mental health is taken into account.

 

But that is not what happens now. Consent by the child is not required. The only time it is overridden in law is in cases of child abuse or for the health of the child. Otherwise you can sign any medical form you wish if you are the parent. Same as if you have guardianship over an adult - you get to decide

But none of this applies to a foetus - how could it? Otherwise you would have the pregnancy police putting women in jail for child endangerment if they drank alcohol, did not eat a good diet, did not exercise correctly etc etc etc

 

Yes, and ???

They already do this in Tennessee. Women who use drugs get a lot more punishment if they are pregnant at the time.
Even in New York City there are over 100 pregnant women annually who get charged with child neglect every year for abusing drugs.

Tennessee allows women to be prosecuted for assault for having a crack baby.

In Arkansas it is illegal to smoke if there is a pregnant woman in the car.
In Seattle a referendum nearly passed that would have required women who were visibly pregnant to pay a fine if they were caught smoking in public areas.

 

And your "studies" are based on Finland's maternal mortality statistics which they included ALL deaths including traffic accidents, sports accidents and suicide for a year. I think the most telling of all is this



So, tell me - how does having an abortion increase your risk of accidental death? The link suggests it is because mothers are "more careful" - well if they are right we should all have continuous pregnancies and be locked in purdah.

How about this bit where they are blaming and increase in homicide post abortion on the abortion itself

The STAKES study also found that 14 (5 percent) of the 281 women were killed by another person. Most of these deaths occurred among women who had undergone an abortion. As shown in Figure 4, the risk of dying from homicide for post-abortive women was more than four times greater than the risk of homicide among the general population. This finding, especially when combined with the suicide and accident figures, once again reinforces the conclusion that women who abort are more likely to engage in risk-taking behavior.

http://afterabortion.org/2000/abortion-four-times-deadlier-than-childbirth/

Hmmm - so who did not factor in the fact that more women in abusive relationships seek abortion than those in loving relationships????

Typical "Pro-life" blog - quote mined and cherry picked to a fare thee well with added side order of "hide the truth" by deliberate misleading of the public by not being honest about the demographics associated with the statistics

 

And do you really want these women to have crack addicted babies (which are very very difficult to place in adoption) or would they be better off having an abortion?

But let us look at where this is already leading

In a growing number of US states, pregnant women who miscarry their babies are being criminalized, some charged with murder. Ultimately, the move by state prosecutors is more widely aimed at stripping women of the legal right to abortion sanctioned by the US Supreme Court in its 1971 ruling in Roe v. Wade.

In 2006 in Mississippi, Rennie Gibbs, who became pregnant at the age of 15, lost her baby in a stillbirth at 36 weeks into the pregnancy. Prosecutors charged her with the “depraved-heart murder” of her child after they discovered she had abused cocaine, although there was no evidence that the baby’s death was connected to the mother’s substance abuse. The murder charge carries a mandatory life sentence

Rennie was acquitted - and please note her age - she was just 15 when she got pregnant

But it does not stop there

Another woman, Bei Bei Shuai, has been imprisoned for the last three months without bail in Indianapolis, Indiana, charged with murdering her baby. According to police records, the 34-year-old woman attempted suicide last December 23 by ingesting rat poison after her boyfriend abandoned her when she was 33 weeks pregnant.

Shuai was rushed to the hospital and survived, giving birth to her baby the next week. The baby died four days later, and in March Shuai was charged with murder and attempted feticide.

Alabama has prosecuted at least 40 cases brought under the state’s “chemical endangerment” law, which was introduced in 2006. The law, purportedly designed to protect children from fumes inhaled from methamphetamine being cooked by their parents, is now being used to criminalize pregnant women who miscarry.

Alabama mother Amanda Kimbrough delivered her baby prematurely in April 2008, and the baby died 19 minutes after birth. Kimbrough learned during her pregnancy that her child possibly suffered from Down’s syndrome, but she chose to carry the child to term.

Six months after the birth, she was arrested and charged with “chemical endangerment” of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs while pregnant. She denies the claim.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges
Yes it is happening and already it is being abused

 

Sometimes people who are teetering on the edge of a mental breakdown and self-destructive behaviour become very reckless, to the detriment of their own personal safety, because they just don't care. In such cases, the line between accidental deaths and suicides can be somewhat of an ambiguous one.