Big Lies for Abortion >>MOD WARNING<<

How can that be wrong? You said yourself women who get abortions should not be executed or punished with life in prison. You are not being consistent if you complain that UVVA lets the woman get an abortion without punishment.

 

The USSC made it clear, the rights of the people could not be infringed. States and lower courts could not change that.

So far 2 for 2 constitutionally incorrectly stated by you and your buddies.

- - - Updated - - -

No, the states cannot prohibit abortion, the USSC took that away from the at the expense of the constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

Regulate yes, prohibit? no.

 

Even Congress never would have passed it.

 

It is the females duty to either use birth control herself or to insist the man does from that point on except in medical emergencies (self defense, the baby should be protected.

Your "consent" explanation makes no sense. If the act is consensual the parents have a responsible to care for the human life they created.

 

The old dehumanization routine does not make sense. A baby is a baby, a person from conception to maturity. II don't care HOW OTHERS "SEE" IT.

 

Oh? So based on your comment a state can restrict abortions? Many have tried and the USSC struck them down as soon as they were made public. R V W prohibits states from restriction the time human life appears to when the baby is born except in the case of emergency medical requirements.

- - - Updated - - -

Good for you Robert. Send me a msg about where in the forum you plan to go. The produce circular arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

Who gives a rats butt about improper laws? Our discussion is about moral propriety not stupid laws.

 

Your post did not address the post of mine you quoted

Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

Born children do not need the support of a mother, good or otherwise......children are socially dependent.....anyone can take care of them.

The FETUS does need a support host (mother)...it is biologically dependent, only the woman it's in can sustain it.

Forcing her against her will to sustain another's life is something NO other person is forced to do....."""""""""""""""""



and


NO, "we" are NOT obligated to your fictitious "baby" in the womb. There is NO law that says we have an obligation to a fetus. NONE

"We" have NO obligation to take away women's rights to their own bodies , that is a sick twisted thing to do.

YOU are NOT responsible for women's reproductive tracts .

 

So you couldn't actually address the post. Naturally



"evil" has nothing to do with abortion.

"Evil" is trying to take away women's rights to punish them for having sex............

 

Everyone please note, I was right, it's trolling:


"""Good for you Robert. Send me a msg about where in the forum you plan to go. The produce circular arguments.

 

Some people run in circles so much they can actually run into their own ass and I think that's what happened on this topic and constantly in this thread....the Big Circular Argument. They lose on one point it's on to the next...I think it's planned...

 

Why do so many men grizzle about the so called lack of choice. Simple guys if you choose not to prevent an unwanted pregnancy then you have no say in that pregnancy. You do not now or ever get to force someone else to pay for your life choices


And once again there is this rubbish about late term abortions

 

Good post ...and yes, the rubbish about late term abortions is just that, rubbish.

Anti-Choicers think women have nothing better to do than "enjoy" 8-9 months of pregnancy just to have the "fun" of an abortion.

WHY would anyone think that way ????

They deny and ignore the FACT that Canada has NO abortion laws and Canadian women are NOT flocking to their doctors for late term abortions.

They deny and ignore the fact that late term abortions are carried out because of death/deformities/illness of the fetus and/or life or health of the woman....or maybe they just don't care.

 

Today's Newsflash:


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to abortion rights advocates, striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities that its critics contended were specifically designed to shut down clinics.

The 5-3 ruling held that the Republican-backed 2013 law placed an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The normally nine-justice court was one member short after the Feb. 13 death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who consistently opposed abortion in past rulings.

 

Significant brain function is generally considered to occur roughly 22-26 weeks into the pregnancy. Prior to this, the brain activity of a fetus is less than that which a Coroner would classify as "clinically dead" .. take the (what used to be a) person off life support and bury them.

 

I suppose it depends on what you consider significant enough to justify a transition into "personhood." I used to think it would be when you could detect EEG readings, but this article in Scientific American suggests this is just the hum of functional neurons and there is still a lot of work to be done (well into the third trimester) before the brain would have enough measurable progress to process thought:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/
Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester.

This article goes on to explain that the fetus us "under sedation" while it is in the womb:
What is fascinating is the discovery that the fetus is actively sedated by the low oxygen pressure (equivalent to that at the top of Mount Everest), the warm and cushioned uterine environment and a range of neuroinhibitory and sleep-inducing substances produced by the placenta and the fetus itself: adenosine; two steroidal anesthetics, allopregnanolone and pregnanolone; one potent hormone, prostaglandin D2; and others. The role of the placenta in maintaining sedation is revealed when the umbilical cord is closed off while keeping the fetus adequately supplied with oxygen. The lamb embryo now moves and breathes continuously. From all this evidence, neonatologists conclude that the fetus is asleep while its brain matures.

That leads me to believe the removal from the womb along and the first breath of oxygen would afford the first opportunity for the fetus to begin "human life" defined as personhood. If you think about it in terms of robotics it is easier to see the distinction between the body and the mind. When "global neuronal integration" is complete (within the last few weeks of gestation) that would be like finally installing the CPU in the robot you are building. Birth is like turning on the power switch so it can begin learning from its environment, processing what it learns, and becoming a "person." When we talk about personhood, the body only matters as a container for the person. In theory we could replace any part of the body (just like we replace a faulty heart) but that would not change the person (unless you change the brain).

 

I wish abortions fans quit saying the constitution approved. Men in black robes approved it. The constitution was bypassed.

 

Good article.

The question here is really about how we define what is a human/person in my mind. The answer is that there is no good answer past a certain point. The problem is that the process towards becoming a person is a continuum. There is no one defining spot we can point to.

I think what we can do however is show that at certain points along the path (the single cell at conception for example) a human does not exist in any real sense.

As we progress along that continuum things start to get grey. If we use the biological definition of Homo sapiens (which requires membership in a bunch of other clubs Kingdom, Domain, Phylum, Family, Order, Class, Genus and so on) it is clear that in the early stages of pregnancy the entity does not even come close to fitting the bill. At 24 months - it is a much tougher call.

From a Philosophical or Bioethical perspective - where we include cognitive ability into our definition of what is a human- again it is clear that no living human exists in the early stages of pregnancy.

Again we are faced with the problem of the continuum. Thoughts , ability to feel pain - hard to say that these do not occur prior to birth.

What we can say is that prior to 24 months (and for sure 20 months) the equipment is just not in place for such things to occur. The wiring of the brain is not sufficiently complete. (any journal article on fetal pain gives a pretty good description)

Using your power switch analogy then - prior to this point if one did turn on the switch the light would not come on because the wires are not connected.

I agree that the addition of oxygen to the equation puts nitrous oxide in the fuel tank but, can we really say there is "no cognition" or are you making the argument that the level of cognition is not significant enough at say 32 weeks ?

To me ... while I grant that it is possible to make legitimate arguments against the entity being a "living human/Person" ... it is starting to get really tough to the point of splitting hairs.

This does not mean that I am necessarily for banning abortion at such a point (as there are other arguments in which the rights of the woman outweigh the rights of the fetus) but, it is getting really tough to claim that this entity has not achieved personhood IMO.

Further - I think any woman who has waited this long to get an abortion should undergo psychological analysis.

 

So who do you think should decides what and who the Constitution protects.... you?

Too bad, we just have to live with the American way of life, the American system I believe in the American system !!! I am a true patriot.

 

I believe that prior to Roe, the public was quite content with the state laws then on the books.

So, when it comes to inventing new abortion rights, I do go with the public.

 

How was the constitution bypassed. It is Scalia who is ignoring the basic principles on which this nation was founded and the constitution.

 

""""I believe that prior to Roe, the public was quite content with the state laws then on the books""""

What you believe has nothing to do with real life and facts...

 

First time I saw a dead man get the blame.

 

New York and California had already liberalized abortion laws prior to the verdict of Roe vs. Wade. The public was stirring everywhere to change the restrictive laws. A majority of the public wishes to preserve RvW, so do you still go with the public?

 

Correct!

- - - Updated - - -

There is no transition. Person hood is there at conception. Person hood is equal to human life. Brain absence or dead is not a relevant excuse.