There is no right to have an abortion

Prove that Jack the Ripper really existed. He was never caught.

 

Got caught again so now you're swinging wild....that statement hasn't got anything to do with

"Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

Not elective abortions.....

YOUR link said:""Currently, there are 17 states that fund all or most medically necessary abortions.
...
In 2010, states financed 181,000 abortion procedures through Medicaid, virtually all occurring in the 17 states that use their own funds for this purpose. ""

- - - Updated - - -

Swingin' wild......

 

What Jack the Ripper did was nothing compared to what a fetus in the womb suffers during an abortion.

 

Prove it....you haven't proven any statement correct so far .......



Another desperately swinging wild with the BS............

 

The structure is there, but it is not developed enough to sustain a sentient thought. We kill animals, directly or indirectly, every day to survive and it is not considered murder because animals are not sentient. The difference is that human beings are sentient. Science tells us that sentience is not possible before the third trimester (even with the basic brain structure is present).

If a person stops thinking (i.e. suffers irreversible brain-death) we do not call it murder when the hospital terminates that life. If a fetus has not yet developed the capacity to think, we cannot not call it murder to terminate the pregnancy.

 

We were not talking about Jack the Ripper. I assume by your response that you agree the fetus is not sentient before the third trimester, and there is no reason to apply interpersonal law to a fetus. Or did you want to respond with some evidence about the fetus this time?

 

Why doesn't Farmer Brown's cow have the right to sue you for eating veal last week? Because animals are not sentient and post-birth humans are sentient.

 

Excuse???

Are you confusing early term medical abortions with late term "partial birth" abortions? (which are illegal in the USA)

Have you been looking at too many "pro-life" sites??

There is a lot of difference between destroying an non-sentient mass of half developed tissue and hacking a fully grown sentient being to death

 

Too bad you couldn't find anything by your original biased source because he can't stop lying about Obamacare.

And you still haven't provided any NONPARTISAN CREDIBLE SUBSTANTIATION for your allegation about taxpayer funding for abortions.

Therefore your own credibility has been downgraded.

Have a nice day.

- - - Updated - - -

BZZZT Wrong again!

Unless it is ALL state taxpayers that is patently bogus allegation on your part.

- - - Updated - - -

Only 17 states out of 50 provide any funding for abortions.

Your own link is destroying your credibility.

 

Every time he posts a link he destroys his own credibility because he never reads what's in them !!

I think this is the third time that he's done that !

 

Problem is, many pro-choicers don't believe it's "a fully grown sentient being" even at 20 weeks.

 

That has been explained to you numerous times. I suggest you look up the equal protection clause and what it means .. in fact I'll help you out.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

Extract - "Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right."

ergo, if the fetus is a person as pro-lifers claim it is from conception then the state CANNOT grant it the right to impose on another person without that persons consent simply because it does not allow any other individual the same right, so either the fetus is elevated to a position above all other people (again a violation of the equal protection clause) or the equal protection clause is repealed, which means that the state could discriminate against you or anyone else as they wish .. which do you want?

Secondly, Allowing the fetus to impose onto the female without consent also violates her right to defend herself against non-consented injuries which every other person has.

Thirdly, Allowing the fetus to impose onto the female is also a violation of her right to consent and the right to consent is the most fundamental right of all, it is one of the very few that over rides another persons right to life should they injure you without your consent.

 

You do realise that there is no snetient person there even though the brain partially exists, the brain is still there in a dead body .. does that then make them a person?

You really should stop linking to topics that have been blown to pieces.

 

Uh....its not. A fully grown human is an adult.

 

this is a strawman, attempting to divert attention from the question you could not answer.

- - - Updated - - -

Strawman.

 

Another zombie thread that was blown to pieces .. are you running out of sites that you don't read?

 

that would be because it isn't... A fully grown sentient being would be an adult, unless you don't know the definition of "full-grown" - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/full-grown

There is also no reliable evidence to show that a 20 weeks fetus is sentient.

 

That is because it is not a "fully grown sentient being" at 20 weeks. The brain is not capable of processing just because the shape of the organ has formed. The more plausible time frame for sentient thought processes is 30 weeks according to Susan Tawia. “When is the Capacity for Sentience Acquired During Human Fetal Development?” in Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 1992, Vol. 1, No. 3 , Pages 153-165
(link to abstract: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911)

"It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed."


If a woman has nurtured the fetus through the first 6 months (24 weeks) of pregnancy, it is reasonable to assume that she wants a baby and would only look for an abortion in extreme circumstances. Placing legal restrictions on abortion at that point puts every pregnant woman at risk of encountering a hospital or health care provider who elevates the anti-abortion concerns above the health of the pregnant woman. For example, in Ireland a couple of years ago a woman died because the hospital would not consider doing a late term abortion. If they had tested for sepsis they could have confirmed that the abortion was necessary (and legal) to save her life, but somehow they "accidentally" neglected to perform that test.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/08/abortion-refusal-death-ireland-hindu-woman

"The husband of an Indian woman who died after being denied an abortion at an Irish hospital broke down in tears on Monday as he described how they pleaded that as Hindus they were not morally opposed to a termination that could have saved her life."

"Praveen Halappanavar repeated his claim that a doctor, named at the inquest in Galway as Dr Katherine Astbury, told him that a termination could not be performed because 'this is a Catholic country'."

 

See, this is what I'm talking about.

There are some rare reports in the medical literature about babies having survived at 21 weeks.
Certainly, there have been fetuses who survived at 22 weeks, though their odds were slim. One of the past pro-life members here, Churchmouse, had a nephew born at 23½ weeks.

If these babies are not "fully grown sentient beings", then how do we know regular babies are either?
Should babies just be treated like they are not persons yet and have no right to life?

 

Joakim, care to offer an opinion on my "When will Roe be overturned" poll thread?

 

I don't think it will be "overturned" as much as it will be curtailed and "reinterpreted". I mean, the future Justices will be unlikely to outright disagree with it but the new arguments will relegate many of the provisions in the Roe opinion to the point of meaninglessness. This is probably at least 35 to 40 years out. Also the reasons at that time will likely be different than the reasons now. For example, the right to make individual decisions for oneself may likely not be as highly regarded in the future as it is now, or perhaps society will have advanced to the point where every human life is valued (unlikely).

 

After birth, the newborn can be considered an independent entity in society, and society can act on its behalf without infringing on the basic human rights of its mother. We could study newborns and take EEG measurements, but I assume that would only be necessary in cases like anencephaly where there might be a question of brain function.

In ancient times birth was the obvious point of demarcation. That is when a newborn draws its first "breath of life" and we observe that it is interacting and learning. That is the most natural point to consider it a sentient human being. Thanks to modern technology we know it is possible that the fetus MIGHT be sentient a few weeks earlier, and viable (with assistance) even earlier than that.

Before birth, the pregnant woman bears the physical cost of the pregnancy and is the only person who has earned the right to decide what happens with her pregnancy. There is no sentient entity inside her until the very end of the pregnancy, so there is no justification for society to act against her decision.

 

Yes. That was my point. Taxpayer funds go to fund abortions. You were the one claiming that there is no public funding of abortion. I said that was untrue, and cited a source. We had a small tiff evidently about the source of my cited article wearing elephant undies, or something thereabouts. However, it seems we now both agree and can move on.

 

In post #624 you spouted this whopping lie!

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=450942&page=63&p=1066113985#post1066113985

That is a blatant lie and you have not even come close to substantiating that completely BOGUS allegation.

According to your own BIASED source it is only 17 states and even those only provide very limited funding in exceptional circumstances. 13 out of 17 of those states only do so because they were ordered to do so by the courts in order to preserve the life of the women who would otherwise have died or suffered serious injuries as a result of being forced to carry the fetus to term. At most those would fall under the 2% of abortions with life threatening complications like an ectopic pregnancy. And since only 34% of that 2% might be covered by taxpayers in those 17 states the that would come to only 0.68% of abortions being taxpayer funded. However even that figure is inflated because it only applies to women who either don't have healthcare that covers abortions or who can't afford them. So the actual cost to taxpayers in those 17 states comes to less than 0.5% of all abortions.

Therefore 99.5% of all abortions are NOT taxpayer funded.

Nowhere have you offered any shred of evidence that accounts for anywhere near close to your BIZARRE 24% of all abortions.

That you lack the honesty and integrity to admit when you are proven to be lying by your own source says volumes.

 

You meanie! He actually thought he got one right....(out of all those links he provided that proved so embarrassing for him).