Surrendering Control of Wombs to Politicians is a very bad idea.

See?
An adult conversation is possible.
I happen to agree with you that until a fetus is viable, a woman is the only one to determine it's fate.
I also believe that once a fetus is viable, the woman's right is largely usurped by the rights of the fetus.

The 4th amendment does indeed protect all of us from unreasonable search and seizures.
I'm not sure how it applies to a potential abortion, since a woman isn't "searched or seized" by the state when abortion is the topic. She might be prevented from having an abortion by the state, but I don't see the connection to the 4th.

Finally, your remark that a pregnancy is a "medical condition" misses the mark. Indeed, right up to the part of a fetus being viable, pregnancy is a medical issue and something a woman can resolve in consultation with her doctor.

Once a fetus is viable, society does have a say, it is no longer just a medical issue, and the woman has no absolute right to decide the fate of the baby. Society, you see, has an obligation to protect the life of that unborn baby. Otherwise, mothers would be able to kill their children with impunity.

Can you agree?

 

Your dogma is noted.

The American People will not submit to your authoritarian politicians.

 

If they were trying to cleanse the so-called Holy land the death toll would already be closer to a million than it is a few 10's or thousands.

 

His point sir is that your views are no less totalitarian than that of those you dislike and you hypocrisy is worse.

 

I respect the right of an American to reproductive freedom within reasoned parameters, a right acknowledged in the law of the land for half-a-century.

Judging by surveys and referenda, most Americans concur. Authoritarian politicians seizing control of wombs is a foul aberration in a free society.

 

These tragedies are the result of the repeal of Roe, and, by that simple fact, that repeal is fair game in any conversation about women's reproductive issues. There are circumstances where a woman's life is on the line, and we don't need politicians putting the fear of incarceration to doctors regarding women's reproductive decisions.

Whether the aforementioned statement in not 'adult' enough for your preference is of no concern to the women whose lives are threatened by misguided right wing agendas.

 

Wanting to save human life is not totalitarian attempting to control almost every other aspect of human life is.

 

A fanatic insisting that a woman should surrender control of her womb to authoritarian politicians from the instant of conception is repugnant.

Americans reject your radical statism.

 

I should think removing a woman's reproductive right in 1/3 of the states, once a right granted by SCOTUS for over 50 years by both liberal and conservative justices, as far more authoritarian than the granting of that right.

As for hypocrisy, the right pontificates about 'freedom' except when it comes to women's wombs, there they act like dictators.

There is truth to the old adage, 'if men could give birth, abortion would be sacrosanct'.

 

The problem is your caring stops there.


Dave Barnhart wrote about the Pro-life movement
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.”
“Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”

 

Well, the only agency that can rule on personhood are nine in black robes, so that point is rather meaningless.

Government funds about 50% of university R&D in the development of new drugs, the costs of which are a veritable hand out to the corporations that benefit from them. This is a benefit, not a detriment, to society. Why? But for that 'corporate hand out', lesser drugs would not get funded and only the big diseases would be tackled by private entrepreneurs. If you had some rare disease, but for the government funding research, you'd be sh*t out of luck.

 

So is 8OK plus pages of new rules and regulations per annum. And the destruction of economic freedom that goes with it.

 

And with that funding comes a plethora of rules and regulations regarding almost everything they do and most of it has nothing to do with anything other than empowering bureaucrats at the expense of we the people.

 

I have heard that before. I don't agree. And I think this claim comes out of a misunderstanding of the pro-lifers, presuming an anti-woman motive that is not universal or even all that common. There are plenty of pro-life women.

 

You don't have to love a person to want their murder to be illegal. I don't believe many of even the most extreme pro-lifers (the life begins at conception crowd) would be ok with legalizing the killing of those others the quote in your post mentioned above.

The real questions here are at what stage should a developing person be granted personhood, and how should this person's rights be balanced against those of the person who put them in the situation where they are dependent on that person's body.

 

.

 

I want the murder of you to be illegal. Does that make me responsible for your welfare? There is a difference between not being ok with murder and providing aid.

 

I haven't been just born.

 

So?

 

Your morality is even more lacking if your answer to a child in such need is to murder her. If you found some toddlers abandoned and in need, would you say it's ok to kill them? I don't think you would.

You would probably say that's abhorrent. And you may even provide them with aid. But even if you don't, most would say that's better than you killing them....

This is primarily a question about when developing humans (the toddlers are also still developing) should be granted rights and viewed as people.

The "you hate women" accusation and "you should raise the kids then" demand are irrational distractions.

 

.

 

No its not, its about control of women's bodies.

 

It is about both questions. If the unborn is not a person and should not have any rights, then there is no debate left, and the woman should have the right to kill it.

If the unborn is a person with rights, then those rights need to be weighed against the rights of the woman. Bodily autonomy is considered an absolute right by society. We had a thread on this a while back and it was interesting to see where people fell on the different bodily autonomy cases (mandatory vaccines, military conscription, mandatory organ donation on death, abortion, blood transfusions denied by religious patents to their kids, etc).

In the case of abortion, in the absence of rape, you have one person who put another person in danger and made them dependent on her body. The person using the others body was forced into that situation by the person whose body is being used. Should that entitle the person who caused the situation to kill the other person?

If I grab you, and lift you up holding you over a cliff, am I obligated to put you down safely, or can I argue that you have no right to use my arm holding you up, and drop you to your death?

 

No they don't, are you inhabiting a woman's body?