One basic fact is undeniable by the "pro-lifers"....if they got their wish and

Why? Do you REALLY WiSH for more women to die while "waiting" for the abortion of a NON VIABLE fetus?

Is that what you want for the women in your life?

 

You are trolling again!

You make no sense and you don't even use logic while posting. All you are interested in is baiting people and making a fool of yourself.

I'm done with you!

 

They missed some

Increased difficulty with intubation ergo greater anaesthetic risk (fat deposition around upper airway and increased friability of upper airway)
Placenta percreta and accreta
post partum haemorrhage
greater risk of hyper immune response etc etc etc

 

I'm very curious as to how you think law enforcement can catch a woman who has had an abortion and provide proof? You do know that major penalties don't mean diddly squat if you can't catch a perpetrator and prove the crime?

 

good try but not equivalent to death by a long shot

 

He lives in a magical world where all wrongs stop as soon as they are made illegal.

 

the other aspect of abortion that makes it very difficult to stop is that it's actually quite simple to do a home version of it and call it a miscarriage or an accident. the doctors are just much safer. if somebody wants an abortion badly enough, they'll take a quick fall down some stairs or grab the nearest wire clotheshanger, or stand in a freezer, or try to soak the child in coca cola (strangely this was quite "popular" in the sixties) so are you going to lock every pregnant woman up for their nine months to insure that they don't try this? because i don't think you can.

 

A baby is a person establsihed by birth but a baby is not a zygote, embryo, or fetus (i.e. the preborn) which is what abortion addresses. Murder of a baby is prohibited under the law currently and is completely unrelated to abortion. I know that many would like for the preborn to be referred to as babies but that is an incorrect use of the word that is dishonest in it's usage.

Just a note pregnancy is more often than not an accident related to having sexual relations as most pregnancies are unplanned. It is extremely doubthful that a woman wanting to become pregnant will have an abortion although this does occur rarely when the woman's life or health are endangered.

The key part of my post was also ignored. If we want to establish personhood for the preborn, which has never existed historically, then it requires a Constitutional Amendment in the United States to establish that legal precedent. The original point I addressed was that without "religious" opinion this comes down to an issue of inalienable Rights and inalienable Rights only exist for persons. Lacking personhood the preborn have no inalienable Rights so the legal precedent of "personhood" had to be established before addressing inanlienable Rights for the "preborn" (i.e. zygote, embryo, or fetus).

As I also noted even with "personhood" established then the issue of inalienable Rights still needs to be pragmatically resolved because both the woman and the preborn would have inalienable Rights and there cannot be conflict between those Rights. A line has to be drawn between where the Rights of the Woman end and the Rights of the Preborn begin. There is also the consideration that an inalienable Right cannot impose an obligation upon another person as all inalienable Rigths relate to what the individual can do for themself.

A person cannot say that they oppose abortion based upon "protecting the inalienable Rights of the preborn" if they refuse to consider the legal and philisophical foundation for inalienable Rights and how they would be applicable to the preborn. Remember that the woman has inalienable Rights established by birth because the woman is a person. Currently the preborn are not persons under the laws or Constitution of the United States and there are pragmatic legal and Constitutional considerations even if personhood is established by a Constitutional amendment.

 

so.... your whole argument is equivalent to "theyre not human" same thing the south said about africans in the past. that argument simply wont hold. conception is the start of human life, period. undisputed scientific fact. nothing to do with religion, please give that a break.

 

Hey! I am happy to confer personhood - soon as you come up with a "when" that is acceptable to everyone!! And practical of course - you could suggest conception but since we have few ways of knowing exactly when that might occur that leaves you with treating virtually every post coital of child bearing age woman as it she is carrying a "person"

 

oh so the science behind it doesnt matter at all? thats like saying everyone has to vote on weather a slave is a person or not. we all know theyre a person, but some people try to deny that because it might disadvantage them or in some way inconvenience them.

 

Sure RTL....and nobody but a legal distributor of alcohol would sell booze under Prohibition.

 

So again, if I have 40 fertilized human ova on ice...(products of my and my spouses genetic material)....

can I count them as 40 "dependents" on my income taxes if a "Personhood Amendment" is passed?

 

making booze is nothing like performing a surgery lol... nice try though

 

thats not possible.

if i have 100 nukes at my house will i be considered a terrorist?

 

We have a legal foundation for the laws in the United States and remember that it required the 13th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution to establish that African-Americans were identical in all respects to every other American.

There are those that believe that life begins at conception (about 15% of Americans believe this as I recall) and they are entitled to their personal beliefs and opinions. That does not address the legal or Constitutional issue though which is why I've addressed that. If "personhood" is to be established for the preborn then it needs to be accomplished in the same manner as equality was established for African-Americans which is by Constitutional Amendment.

If "pro-life" individuals want to discuss the law then they have to discuss the law and not their opinions which have no meaning under the law.

 

So what if they would travel? That does not mean that every woman would do this. Before Roe Planned Parenthood stated that the majority of illegal abortions were done in doctors offices. That would always go on....there are doctors that don't care. Most today don't go into medicine to perform abortions. In fact most today won't do them. Abortion clinics are shutting down all over the country....for various reasons...this is just one of them.

If abortion were illegal....millions of children would be saved. And that is a good thing.

 

FFbat said,

Not so fast.

"There is a growing body of scientific evidence that alcoholism has a genetic component, but the actual gene that may cause it has yet to be identified."

Not so....there are millions of abortions every year. Making abortion illegal would save most of them that would be aborted. If this was not so...then why did we need to make it legal? You are wrong...ridiculously wrong. Idiotically wrong.. LOL

Lets make rape legal...its going to happen anyway...and lets teach our children that its just wrong, we don't need a law. Our courts are full of cases....and making it legal will stop rape. In fact lets legalize all drug use....cause kids will do it anyway.

Bull crap....if you want it legal, you champion it and you stand in line with all those who love it and want it around on demand for any woman to use.

Your solution...is abortion is ok....it should be legal. If you don't want it to happen....then you are saying your for something that is wrong. And that speaks to your morality...or should i say the lack of morality.

 

I never said it was equivalent to death, I said that these are the risks a pregnant woman may face INCLUDING DEATH.

With risks this high and great going through pregnancy and childbirth should always be a choice. No human being should be forced to endure this many risks against their will.

 

Abortions happened without doctors throughout history. It doesn't take a surgeon to poke with a coat hanger. Your argument is invalid because his argument stands. You didn't need to be a professional booze maker to make booze during prohibition. People rose to the occasion because there was opportunities there.

History shows that if you do not change the culture that allows for a demand of product or service, then regardless of legal measures, it will exist. You favor slavery as an example, so I'll use it as well. Slavery was an extreme version of prejudice. We didn't enslave EVERYBODY, only people of a specific racial background. And when the law changed to make Slavery illegal, did everybody just decide to get along? Nope. And just because You can't own black people as slaves, does that mean that Slavery doesn't exist in the US? Human trafficing happens all the time. People get brought into the US as illegal immigrants and sold as sex slaves. These people cannot escape from their environment, because if they go to the authorities, they know they'll be deported. And for a lot of them, going back to their home country is a death sentence. So in the end, we're still hanging runaway slaves.

 

Is it? What are you going to have? A bunch of "Eliot Nesses" running around to every private clinic, making "snap inspections" of every woman with her legs up in a stirrup?

And what about RU-486.....going to be as good as keeping it out of the country....as we are at keeping pot and cocaine out?

 

Really? So women who think they need to have an abortion would just ....carry to term....if it was only illegal? That's the ONLY consideration they have... that it's legal?

"Millions of children" would NOT be saved. Several might be born to POOR women. But even among the poor, "methods" would be found...if more dangerous ones. Middle class and rich women would go to Canada or to private clinics called "spas". And unless, as I asked RTL, you're going to create a "Womb Police" to ultrasound every woman at every border crossing.....and "drop in" on every OB-GYN....

it's nothing but making yourselves "feel good" or "more moral".

You want fewer abortions....seriously?.....support more and easy and yes free access to contraception.

Anything else is as foolish as those idiots who thought they could "get rid of drunkeness" by passing the 18th Amendment.

 

Making abortion illegal has never worked before in any place or any time. Other countries where abortion is criminalized have more abortions than we do. The numbers of abortion were about the same in this country before legalization as afterwards. Please tell what is different now and why and how criminalization would/could stop abortions.

If any law on the books is ineffective, we should pursue other remedies. Generally, laws against rape, murder, robbery, etc., work because of apprehension of the wrongdoer and certain punishment. Abortion is different from those crimes in that it would be impossible to apprehend an aborting woman, and women know this and as a result do not fear punishment.

Not so! Many recognize the impossibility of apprehension and prosecution of anti-abortion laws, and as a pragmatic matter, do not support having unenforceable laws on the books.

Once again, laws are not based on right or wrong. Laws are passed to affect behavior in society, in order to maintain an orderly society. It is my opinion that it is wrong to lie, but there are no laws forbidding lying except in the instance of perjury, when lying DOES affect order in society.

 

except they got pregnant in the first place. so its not against their will they performed pro creating acts, obviously the end result is going to be pro creation.

like i said before if you run across the street without looking your bound to get hit by a car one of these days. and the only person you can blame is yourself

 

yada yada yada. nice fail btw. if you were actually paying attention you would have realized that he was comparing people making their own beer, with people doing their own invetro fertilization at home (not talking about abortion)... LOL. incomparable. so my argument still stands strong, unless you can perform an invetro fertilization at home?

thats what i though