Abortion: The Facts

That is the problem, they are just his beliefs with not a single actual verifiable fact to back it up .. therefore he will be seen, even by his own side, as irrelevant. They will cut him loose soon enough, as anyone with the mindset he has will not be allowed to raise the façade on the rest of them.

 

Atleast he's not trying to HIDE them, like so many "pro-lifers" do. Time after time, we see them trying to HIDE their real beliefs or real agenda...because they know it would hurt them in public relations or "wooing" people to their cause. Sort of like cultists do.

PP is openly saying, he'd let a woman die over delivering to term. That's beyond the usual "fetus fetish" the "pro-lifers" have....and into pure open misogyny.


Women as "baby-making machines"...easily disposed of, much less easy to treat as slaves to a zef.

 

Why is it irrelevant with the legalities of consent? It is not a burden for women to pay for their own abortions, and women should also pay for their own abortions because of the morality regarding the reasons of consent.

I disagree. There should be some exceptions. Abortion is so disgusting and barbaric and unnecessary. Why should the state pay for it? Why should the state pay for women to abort innocent children, especially considering the facts that the public shouldnt pay for an optional medical procedure like that, and the public would be offended if their tax payers were paid just because some irresponsible woman doesnt want (ie, consent) to being pregnant, because of her selfish immoral reasons?

Ever heard of exceptions to the rule? Abortion should be an exception to the rule, with regards to the state having a "duty of care" regarding non consented injuries, for so many reasons. The morality of it, the unnessecariness of it, etc.

It is not a burden for a woman to pay for a cheap medical procedure. Stop exxagarting the facts and acting like it is one.

 

Speaking of "disgusting and barbaric and unnecessary", Sam....the question is still out there-


It's 1000 BC and you're in the Israelite army and (as in 1 Sam 15:3) God orders you to kill children and babies......do you do it? Yes or No?

 

I am trying to understand why you insist that this is not a moral issue. I think it's because if you accept it as a moral issue, you then have to admit that for some, a moral decision may be counter to what you desire. I have known many women who had abortions and believe me, every single one of them considered it to be a very personal, moral and difficult decision. Morality is not a single outcome discussion, it has many nuances and places for competing moralities to exist at the very same time. In my own moral universe, the life of the fetus is secondary to the wishes, needs and desires of the mother. I have made a moral decision to not treat the fetus as a separate human being. The law backs me up on that btw but that support did not come at the expense of morality, it came about because of a different set of principals and moral decisions made by the majority. The moral debate centers around a complex yet simple question;

Is the fertilized egg a human being worthy of all the rights and protections of a human being outside of the womb?

I don't care how you answer but the process required to make that answer involves a moral component.

 

Only if the winning argument supports your view of the morality of the question. You keep harping on the term morality as if it were a disease. Laws are based upon a set of values, morals and views of right and wrong. Is that news to you? Today it is perfectly legal to marry another race, it is morally acceptable. Not that long ago, it was illegal and an immoral act. Morals shaped these debates and changing morality shifted the landscape.

 

So how much is consent worth then Sam, what coin value do you put on a person having the right to say no and having that right ignored by the state?

and still you don't get it even after all this time... it has sweet FA to do with it being an "optional medical procedure", is you getting your arm fixed after someone attacks you also a "optional medical procedure"?
Do you expect the state to protect you from injuries you do not consent to, or if they cannot do you expect to be able to protect yourself?
Whether the public is offended is irrelevant, you seem to be under the illusion that the constitution can be over ruled because people are offended .. I find it extraordinary that an American knows so little about their own laws and constitution, what part of equal protection do you fail to understand, I'll make it easy for you. IF the state gives protection to one group it MUST give the same protection to ALL groups, regardless of how the public feels about it - this is one of the reasons people like you are losing in the SSM issue, because you think that equal protection only applies to others like you.
What you want tramples all over the very things America was founded upon .. how does it feel to be part of a movement that wants to wipe their arse with the constitution?

There are NO exceptions to the rule when it comes to consent and equal protection .. none. zero. nil, regardless of your own need to undermine your constitution.

and what facts am I exaggerating, please do show them .. just because you don't have a clue about your own laws and constitution doesn't mean you get to decide what is and is not part of state protection.

I find it disgusting that a person would deny another person equal protection, to render them as lesser human beings than their peers based purely on personal need, and before you chirp in with something along the lines of that is what a woman does when she has an abortion . .a woman does not, in any way, shape or form deny a zef equal protection as far as the legal system is concerned, without a woman's consent the zef IS THE AGGRESSOR.

You may not like that or even agree .. but you will have to provide some very, very good evidence to suggest how it is not correct, I know you won't because you don't have the know-how to do it.

 

Let's cut to the chase when it comes to the only three relevant facts about abortion.

1) The US Constitution protects the Rights of the Person.
2) The woman is a person and her Rights are protected by the US Constitution.
3) The preborn are not a person, have never been persons throughout the written history of mankind, and they have no Constitutionally protected Rights.

End of the facts and the discussion. All other arguments are moot and have literally no meaning in the United States.

 

because it isn't, it was prior to pro-lifers taking it into the court rooms .. the morality of abortion has no bearing on what the legal situation is. The court could say that it is the most immoral thing that has ever existed and STILL maintain that it would be unconstitutional to make it illegal .. however they cannot make it illegal just because they and the public think it is immoral.

Pro-lifers fail to understand that IF they should ever get SCOTUS to confirm that under law and the constitution a zef is a person deemed to have all the protection of that status, it also HAS to abide by the restrictions of that status, one of those restrictions is that it cannot impose injury onto a non-consenting person, even if it has no intent to cause those injuries . .thus they themselves move the abortion issue away from choice and into consent, as it stands at the moment a zef is not considered a person and as such abortion can be seen as a choice, the state has no obligation to support a persons choices .. it does have the obligation of protecting a persons consent should it be infringed by a third party, which is what a zef would become should it be granted personhood.

Add to this the medical fact that it is not a man who turns a non-pregnant women into a pregnant one the much valued erroneous conclusion of pro-lifers that consent to sex = consent to pregnancy and there whole "golden arrow" of personhood falls to pieces.

I accept it as a moral decision as it stands now, it becomes a legal decision should a zef ever be deemed a person from conception.

The very reason it should remain legal, it has nothing to do with any other person what personal, moral and difficult decisions an individual makes, again it is the pro-lifers who want to make this a state issue.

Agreed, which is why I stand so strong against pro-lifers trying to impose THEIR morality onto others.

If you don't care why ask the question?

No it didn't, it came about because SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction over morality, it makes decisions based on the constitution, and even the decision made in Roe was wrong IMO, instead of it being a consent issue, it was made a choice issue and that is why it is still such a divisive topic now.

 

It is also morality that shaped the issue of consent, no person in their right mind would deny someone the right to defend themselves against a nonconsented attack, and many would expect the state in help protecting them against those nonconsented injuries.

So my question to you is why should a zef, considered as a person, get a free pass to impose nonconsented injuries onto someone when that is a right no other born person has and to top that as soon as the fetus is born that right is then removed, by what twisted version of law and the constitution does that happen?

Pro-lifers want to fight this in the courts, let them .. they have no idea what they are opening up.

 

Because most women dont have abortions because of the physical injuries of the pregnancy itself. They have abortions because of the economic and social implications regarding a pregnancy. That is the biggest flaw in your "consent to injury" arguement.

 

Is a sperm worthy of HALF the rights and protections of a human being outside of the womb? Is that a moral or scientific question?

 

There is no flaw in my argument, none what so ever simply because you cannot read properly.

What part of "So my question to you is why should a zef, considered as a person, get a free pass to impose nonconsented injuries onto someone when that is a right no other born person has and to top that as soon as the fetus is born that right is then removed, by what twisted version of law and the constitution does that happen?" do you fail to comprehend, I'll try to put in a more simple form of language for you.

 

If my arm if broken, the state doesnt pay for it. America doesnt have universal healthcare, unlike you Brits.

Abortion is an extreme situation. Comparing state funded abortions with SSM is like comparing gray wolves with poodles.

>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

 

Still waiting Sam, how much is consent worth?

 

Let's also keep in mind that 5 of 9 (a majority) of the US Supreme Court were nominated by "pro-life Republican" Presidents.....and yet, Roe still stands.

Naturally we know the answer to that....The GOP doesn't WANT Roe overturned...they want to keep it as an election issue so every 4 years they can say to the "pro-lifers": "Vote for a GOP President...and he'll appoint Justices to the USSC that will overturn Roe".....and yet here we are with a MAJORITY on the Court appointed by those Republican Presidents...and Roe still stands.

I'm beginning to wonder if some of the "pro-lifers" are starting to figure out....they've been conned. But then....where can they go?

 

If your arm is broken by another person, can you or can you not get compensation from the person who broke your arm to include your medical expenses, and is it not the state that extracts punishment from the person who broke your arm .. ergo the state protects you or if it cannot it prosecutes and punishes the assailant?

It is no more extreme than any other issue of self-defence, you just wish to try and make it more ie you have nothing but appeals to emotion.

>>>MOD EDIT Quoted Post Deleted and Response<<<

 

The entire constitution is a declaration of morals. My lord, you are one obtuse thinker. The law is an expression of the morals of the nation that agrees to live by it. Your equal protection argument fails to convince me. Whose equal protection under the law? The mother and the zygote? They are NOT equals under the law because we do not consider them to be legally (morally) equivalent in any way, shape or form. The essence of the decision was that up until viability, they are not two separate beings worthy of equal protection. Roe was pulled out of whole cloth to allow for abortion to be legal. Even those of us who support Roe know it is based upon some very shaky legal grounds. What sways us is that morally, we think it is the right decision. What sways the opposing side is the same moral dilemma. They just used a different set of values to come to their decision.

 

I agree ... however .. if it should ever come to pass that, somehow, pro-lifers manage to get the personhood status of the unborn recognised, it becomes a different scale of debate.

Personally I think that SCOTUS got it wrong, as did the Roe lawyers .. the issue should have been focused on consent and not privacy.

 

Not suggesting that at all, the point I am making and one you are trying to avoid is that the state does have an obligation to protect the people .. if you cannot see or understand that then please do yourself a favour and do some research.

Then don't argue what you don't understand .. leave it to those who do.

Plenty have tried, all have failed.

I am not trying to influence American laws (unlike you) merely pointing out the fallacy of the pro-life dogma of person at conception making everything in the garden rosy and an end to abortion. If you fall for that you are more deluded than I thought.

and as I said there are no exceptions to the rule .. prove otherwise.

 

Are you responding to me, if so could I ask that you quote the post you are replying to, it makes it a lot easier to keep up with who is saying what and to who .. thank you.

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying, all I am doing is showing that IF the pro-life golden arrow of achieving personhood for the unborn is achieved that it is NOT the be all and end all of the abortion issue, and agree Roe was passed on very, very shaky grounds .. shaky grounds that would not exist had the made the decision on consent ie confirming the status of a fetus as a person and applying the laws that cover that status, in this case self-defence and equal protection laws.

If you are interested I go into more detail on this in this thread - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html

 

That would be easy to answer scientifically. A sperm is not a human being just as a skin cell or liver or kidney is not a human being. If a sperm cell was every deemed to be a human being, the world would have to accept mass genocide victims being discarded on napkins, tissues, sinks and just about every conceivable surface on the planet. Hell, a wet dream would then be negligent homicide.

 

Glad you have finally given up the poison lizard to some degree and finally admit that Santorum is against contraception.

It is not humorous but kind of bizarre that you spent so much time trying to maintain your denial of this fact when it was obvious from the initial link.

So yes ... Santorum wants to force his religious beliefs on others through law. These type of people are disgusting don't you think ?

 

Yes. You understood correctly.

What did the baby do to deserve being put to death? I mean besides nothing.
and not the mother?