Abortion- "It is her body!" But is it?

WHY do you insist that women abort for no good reason? WHY?

And you never answered why you think YOU should decide for women what is a good enough reason.


...don't you see a mental issue with thinking you should rule over the lives of women???

""Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne?"

See, how little you know about abortion, you think a fetus has been at it's mother's breast and has been born !!!


And , SHAMING women about abortion hasn't worked for about 6,000 years so good luck with that !

More astounding is that you think other's should care what your god thinks........

 

Again all I see is your illogical responses . .where is your evidence to support these plainly ignorant comments.

Show me the evidence that the "baby" is "forced to be there by the female", show me the evidence that the female has any control what so ever over the sperm, ovum and fertilized ovum .. show me the evidence that she has an obligation to support and sustain another life that is using her body without consent.

 

More strawman.

It is her obligation by willingly becoming impregnated. Which she did by having sex, with the only exception being forceful rape.

It is now objectively her obligation and objectively murder. You have 0 logic backing you, only emotion.

- - - Updated - - -

You did not at all address any argument lol. Pure emoting.

 

The personhood of the fetus is irrelevant, and please point out any 'jibberish ' on my part.

 

Hey, I tried several times to stay on topic by asking :

"If it isn't the woman's body then whose is it?" ...and NO one will answer.

 

The fetus'?

 

Perhaps you should learn what a strawman is, as it appears you don't have a clue - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html please do show where I have ignored your position?

Nope, under no circumstances does her consent to sexual intercourse mean consenting to pregnancy .. they are different acts established by different persons, you seem to be under some illusion that consent can be transferred between people, without the say so of the person who originally gave the consent .. it cannot.

Consenting to one person (a man) for one act (sexual intercourse) cannot be used as proxy consent for another person (the fetus) for another act (pregnancy), both require the separate consent of the female .. by your so called logic a woman consenting to sex with one man means she has consented to sex with another man or are you suggesting that the unborn are not persons?

That is quite simply a lie, there is nothing emotional in my responses or in the logic of my arguments. I gave you the link to the full extent of my arguments which, given how quickly you replied, you didn't even bother to read . .that tells me you are not interested in adult debate only in projecting your emotional clap-trap.

 

Under every circumstance of sex except forceful rape she is consenting to be impregnated. By consenting to impregnated it is now her obligation to have the baby. You are objectively wrong. You have 0 logic backing you. You argue for the sake of argument which is exactly what the emotional do. You are pro murder is all.

 

your argument has been fully addressed and blown apart and as it is plain to see you are not interested in actual debate but only in projecting your emotional clap-trap .. You have been requested a number of times to present your evidence in support of your position, each time you have evaded doing so .. are you scared that I will pull it to pieces, if not then lets all see this evidence please.

 

Your argument never addressed the objective truth, you try to rely on semantics which is simply a way of pretending or refusing to be wrong when reason and logic disprove your inherent position.

 

Assume a pregnant woman and a severly ill and defected newborn were stuck in a burning building and you could only save one, who would you save and why?

 

How? What Magical Mystical Law in the Sky with Diamonds gives possession of your body to something else ?

Why?


Does the woman consult with the fetus to find out what it wants for dinner? Do you actually believe that?????

How do YOU know what the fetus wants? Does it send out Morse code directly to you or do you really believe it has it's own cell phone and can just call with it's wishes which YOU will interpret for the outside world....Do you EVER think about your answers??

 

I've got no hard figures, but i know that 50+ years ago it was regarded as a heinous and shameful social crime for a woman to have a baby out of wedlock because of what the "neighbours would say", so many women ran to back street abortionists to abort it.
For example when my unmarried mother became preggers with me half a century ago, I think my dad wanted to have me aborted but my mother said no, so they had a shotgun wedding instead, otherwise I wouldn't be talking to you now..

 

Wrong, I understand by your comments that you have a very low comprehension of your own laws .. consent cannot be transferred between persons without the agreement of the person who gave the original consent.

Sexual intercourse merely consents to the risk of pregnancy (and even then it is a low risk) and no person can be forced to suffer injure simply because they took a risk and ALL pregnancies cause injuries to the female.

If you had bothered to read the link I provided you would have seen the following -

Consent means legally to "express consent," or that which is "directly given, either viva voce or in writing" - Source : Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed Page 305 - such consent "is positive, direct, unequivocal ... requiring no inference or implication to supply its meaning." - Source : Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed Page 305 - Consent is an "act of reason," which must be a "voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another." - Source : Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed Page 305 - More simply consent is the willingness that "an act or invasion of interest shall take place" based on "a choice between resistance and assent." - Source : Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed Page 305 - In the context of pregnancy, consent means a woman's explicit willingness, based on her choice between resistance and assent, for the fertilized ovum to implant itself and cause her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition.
A woman's right to consent to the physical intrusion by a fertilized ovum is based on the pro-lifer ideology of the personhood attributes of the fetus. If the fertilized ovum were merely a physiological 'mass of cells', like a force of nature, the legal meaning of consent, defined as a concurrence of wills, would become an unnecessary, and a meaningless concept. It makes no sense, for example, to say that people consent to the way in which their blood circulates or their eyes focus or that they consent to rain. If people want to re-route their blood circulation, as in bypass surgery, or to alter surgically the way their eyes focus, they are not restricted by the right of the blood to circulate in their bodies in a particular way, similarly, if physiological masses of cells are identified by people as alien to their bodies, as in the case of cancer, no one is going to restrict people's right to eradicate the presence and actions of those cells, because of the cells "right to life" or right to use people's bodies. The same applies to a fetus IF it is viewed as a natural force, natural forces cannot break laws. The law is only relevant only to people, the state, or juridical entities such as corporations, and only when entities such as these become involved in the damage ot injuries caused by natural forces as laws applicable - as Mary Anne Case notes, "Law is precisely that which fights nature, If something were all that natural, a law would not be needed to bring it about," - Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy : Page 375.
As a pro-life bumper sticker proclaims "The Natural choice is life", by which they mean that pregnancy is not only a normal but also a natural process, yet the word natural refers to processes that occur without human intervention, like hurricanes, earthquakes and death. If a person becomes involved in these processes they are no longer legally considered natural but are caused, at least in part, by human agency, for example, even if a person is insane, a fire set by that person is no longer regarded by the law as the result of natural forces; it is rather an event that obliges the involvement of the police, even if the mentally incompetent person cannot be legally held responsible for their actions.
It is ironic therefore that the pro-life forces and others that say the fetus must be considered to be a person that contradicts any depiction of pregnancy as natural. To the extent that pregnancy is initiated and maintained by an entity that is a person, it is a product of human agency, not the product of a force of nature. Similarly, although it might seem as natural for a man and a woman to have sexual intercourse, from the standpoint of law, sexual intercourse between people is the product of their human agency, not the product of natural forces, if a woman refuses to consent to sexual intercourse, it is not lawful for a man to impose himself sexually on her by claiming that he is a natural force or that he is mentally incompetent. His imposition of sexual intercourse on a woman without her consent is the crime of rape, whatever may be our cultural attitudes toward the naturalness of heterosexual relationships, much less the rights of those who are mentally incompetent. So, too, with pregnancy. The condition of pregnancy is initiated and maintained by an entity that the Court has declared to be human life under the protection of the state. Pro-life forces insist that the fertilized ovum from the moment of conception is an actual person, just like a born person. Some states such as Missouri, have declared that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception onward.
Because a fetus cannot be a person and a force of nature at the same time, to the extent that when a fetus attains human status it loses its status as a natural force. When it causes pregnancy it acts more like a mentally incompetent person than like a natural force - Tristram Engelhardt notes that modern technology transforms what we might think of as the "blind forces of nature" into processes under the human control of the medical field -Source : Engelhardt, "Concluding Remarks" in Abortion and the Status of the Fetus : Page 335
From the standpoint of law, therefore, pregnancy is not a natural process precisely because it is initiated and maintained by an entity, the fetus, that is protected by the state as human life, regardless of whether that human life has attained the status of a person. A woman's right to consent to what a fetus does to her when it makes her pregnant, therefore, derives directly from the state's designation of the fetus as protected human life, and while it makes no sense to say that you consent to a natural force, such as fire, to burn your house, it does make sense to talk about whether you consent to let a person, or some other juridical agent, burn your house. Equally important should you not consent, it is appropriate to call not only the fire department to put out the fire but also the police department to stop the person from breaking the law.
If the state were to categorize the fetus as a mass of living cells void of human identity, of course, the issue of consent disappears, but so, too, would the state's removal of abortion funding from health policies as a means to protect the fetus as human life disappears. Once the state declares the fetus to be under its protection as a form of human life, however, the issue no longer is merely the woman's right to chose what to do with her own body, but rather the woman's right to consent to what the fetus as a form of state protected human life does to her body. This is because whereas choice refers to only one individual (or entity, such as a corporation) consent necessarily refers to a relationship between two entities, both of whom have at least some attributes of a person or a juridical system. Consent is an agreement between two such entities that signifies that one agrees to let the other invade, her, his or its interests.
Not only does consent subsume choice, but it is also the basic concept underlying the USA form of government - Source : Kim Lane Scheppele & Jeremy Waldron : "Contractarian Methods in Political & Legal Evaluation"; Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities : Page 196 Modern conceptions of the state following the Enlightenment are built on the idea that the only way to make the exercise of power legitimate is to base it on the consent of the governed. "In this sense, consent is a value prior to any constitution, for ir is the value upon which the legitimacy of the state and the constitution itself rests" - Source : Daniel R. Ortiz, "Privacy, Autonomy, and Consent," : Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy : Pages 93-94 - For the laws and government of the United States to be legitimate people must consent to them, the electoral process gives people the opportunity to express their choice of whom to elect, for an election to be valid, there must be a real choice between candidates, but the rationale for elections also provides a mechanism by which those who govern by holding office do do on the basis of the consent of the governed.
Since consent legally is an agreement for a person's interests to be invaded by another, a person must have the choice of whether to consent or not. If people do not have a choice, the invasion of their interests is coercive, which is the antithesis of consent. Although there can be a choice without consent, as when people make decisions that refer only to themselves, there can be no consent without choice because consent refers to a relationship between two people one of whom invades the interest of the other. Without choice, that invasion is necessarily coercive, not consensual.

 

As I suspected this thread developed into the ordinary pro-life jibberish instead of people sticking to the topic that is the status of a fetus' personhood

 

By forcing the baby in that position it is now inherently her obligation. This is objective truth. You have yet to address this argument.

Since it's objectively her obligation it's murder to kill the baby. And objectively cannot be self defense.

Your wall of text is full of...Nothing but strawmen. Doomed to fail before they were even said.

 

I was just being ultra autistic. You asked if it is not the woman's body, then who's body is it? It can only be one of the two and if it is not x it must be y.

 

assume that a tray of 20 fertilized ova and a woman were in the burning room, you can only save one, which do you save .. the tray of 20 fertilized ovum, which under pro-life ideology are all persons or the child?

- - - Updated - - -

Never realised that pregnancy resulted in the transference of ownership of the females body to another entity ... could you point out the legal precedence for that please?

 

This is very much on topic Also it is my thread. I thought you were pro-choice! Lol ;o

The dilemma is great do refute both the pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Especially pro-lifers.

 

What that has to do with the post you quoted I don't know ...

but do you really think it's a wonderful idea for two people to marry because one is pregnant? They're called "shotgun weddings " because one or the other or both are FORCED to get married...you think that's a great start to a marriage? It isn't.

Yes, "back in the day" women were really screwed. Everyone had sex but only women paid the price in many ways , sometimes with their lives if they picked they wrong abortionist....

They don't have to do that anymore but that makes SOME nasty people so unhappy.....

 

You are waaaaaaaaaaaay too obsessed with juridics. This is a matter of biology, not law.

 

Nothing in this post you quoted indicated I was anything but Pro-Choice:

""Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

As I suspected this thread developed into the ordinary pro-life jibberish instead of people sticking to the topic that is the status of a fetus' personhood

 

You are waaaaaaaaaaaay too obsessed with juridics. This is a matter of biology, not law.

 

No, every case is different. I got no beef with abortion if-
1- continuing the pregnancy would involve serious health risks to the woman.
2- scans show the baby would be born severely physically or mentally handicapped.

 

Pure and utter BS, what semantics are you drivelling on about, and please what logic are you talking about because so far I've not seen anything that even comes close to logic from you.

There is no objective truth in your comments what so ever, all you opinions are purely based on your own individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

Please, please do put your "reason and logic" here so we may all see it.