Abortion is NOT a woman's right

The terminology does not really matter, what matters is the fact that refusing to donate a kidney is not a direct way of killing, unlike an abortion.

Besides, even if you want to discuss semantics, I believe that fetuses legally should be considered persons. Just because the current law states something, this doesn't mean that that's the way that it should be. But all semantics aside, an abortion is intentionally going out of the way to kill the fetus, while refusing to donate the kidney is just a refusal to save the child's life.

Besides, both sides of this debate are guilty of appealing to the emotions, so it's not really that big of a deal to me anymore.

 

Abortion is an ancient right that predates codified law.

Abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, but is safer now than ever before.

 

There is no need to amend the Constitution in order to criminalize abortion.

I could support a personhood amendment - depending on how it is written but a personhood amendment is not necessary.

Since the 14th amendment already affords the "equal protection" of our laws to "all persons" equally, the Supreme Court could end legalized abortions instantly by ruling that a child in the womb (sans the UVVA) is a "person" and is therefore protected by the Constitution.

 

Same with slavery. That doesn't make it right.

 

Right.

So can we at least agree that their ability to have thoughts and feelings are not required for them to have rights?

Can we agree that a person on a respirator also has a right to their life?

 

The only way abortion compares to slavery is when it is criminalized and women are forced to use their bodies against their will.

 

Their bodies contain innocent human life, which is dehumanized, which is why abortion is just like slavery. Whether or not a woman should have the right to kill her own offspring depends on whether or not the fetus is a person, or not. Better the woman be treated like a slave than the fetus.

 

Opinions noted.

Do you have anything to back them up?

The UVVA says a person can be charged with illegally murdering a child in the womb.

How does that not support my claim that they have a right to not be murdered?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you anti-abortion, Cady?

 

Cady loves abortions.

I am very anti-abortion, unlike Cady.

 

I hope you didn't take anything I've said - as way of blaming women.

I don't think blame has a place in this debate.

If Planned Parenthood would go back to the policies they held in their early beginnings, I would support them in their efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

See above.

You would have to ask them .

I'm not a republican. I'm independent.

I've had my fill with both parties - especially on this issue.

Is there anything to keep concerned parents and other organizations from providing condoms to their kids themselves?

(When I was in my teens and started dating, I and most of my friends either bought our own or got them from another friend)

 

(My bold)

Roe v. Wade is a compromise - the SC did not find that women have an unlimited right to an abortion, nor that the state is free to outlaw or permit or some other regulation of abortion as it sees fit. The US SC was unwilling to write law - they see that as the function of the Legislative.

& so the SC set up a framework within which women have a limited right to an abortion, under a timeline &/or for reasons of the health/safety of the fetus or the woman; & the state is free to regulate abortion in the third trimester (I believe it was).

Given that US citizens still favor the availability of abortion, the SC is not going to interpose its judgment between the citizens & the Legislature, nor will the SC overturn Roe v. Wade absent a vast push from the citizens or the majority of the states. As that vast push is not forthcoming, your best bet is indeed a Constitutional amendment, to set the fetus as a person.

I don't think you'll see success in that in your lifetime, but it would be something to work towards. My advice would be to put your backing into the development of artificial or donor uteri - maybe "farms" for unwanted fetuses, where women can leave their fetus & the state can raise it from birth, or the state could put the babies up for adoption. You would still have to put forward legislation to allow the use of these uteri - but that's a piece of cake compared to the calvary you face now.

There would be lots of money & scientific effort involved in the development, probably a generation of time. But if you don't like abortion & don't want to dispense birth control information freely, this is a possible avenue. On the plus side, the effort would push forward US work on biochemistry, hormonal cascades, in utero fetal development, the natural birth development/process - a lot of good outcomes could spin off of this effort.

 

Isn't it readily apparent that the only life a zef has is the one the pregnant woman gives it? Certainly if she discontinues giving it life, it doesn't have any.

It is readily apparent that the UVVA was passed in the hope of using it as you are, i.e. to attempt to pass anti-abortion laws. The stated purpose of the UVVA was to protect the pregnant woman and provide additional punishment for attacking a woman when she is especially vulnerable.

Zefs do not have rights, never have had rights, and "giving" them rights would lead to more complications than most can imagine.

Almost everyone is anti-abortion in the sense that they would rather they weren't needed. Everyone is pro-life, have you EVER heard of anyone being pro-death? That only leaves pro-choice and anti-choice when referring to abortion.

 

(My bold)

Yes, & although long practice does not guarantee that it's correct practice - as the objection to slavery notes - long practice means that society as a whole accepts the practice. In the US, for instance, despite rising opposition to slavery, it took a civil war to plus a few years to finally end the practice.

Abortion is even more intimate than slavery, as it involves impregnation & birth, which have always been considered to be women's domain. As the US population continues to grow - by immigration & birth rates to new & recent immigrants, if nothing else - we don't need to curb access to abortion because of concerns about the continued viability of the population. That allows us a freedom of action that Russia, PRC, Japan & much of Europe do not have.

It is v. difficult to take away freedoms from a population, once they've grown accustomed to having them. I think that the availability of abortion is one of those freedoms, & that any struggle to remove it will be an ardous task, & probably end any political party that seriously attempts to curtail it.

 

(My bold)

The laws that allow charging a suspect with killing a fetus are an attempt to allow punishment of what's seen as a heinous crime: murdering not only a pregnant woman, but also her fetus. As a practical matter, if the woman dies, the fetus will also die shortly thereafter (absent heroic & timely efforts by trained personnel), but these particular laws are written & legislated from a sense of outrage rather than from practicality.

In practice, feticide is always an add-on charge; that is, I've never heard of a suspect being convicted only of murdering the fetus, without being found first guilty of murdering the woman. In a convoluted way, I suppose you could call these "feel good" laws, because we're supposed to feel a glow of righteousness from simply having these laws on the books.

 

As anti-abortion proponents continue to push the issue with various State's laws, we will have to see how soon we can compel the Supreme Court to revisit Roe.

At this point, that is the path which gives us the most promise.

 

You should slow down and do a little research before posting claims that you can't support.

"Texas: Drunk Driver Faces Murder Charge for Killing Unborn Baby"

"A Texas man with a long history of drunk driving convictions is now facing a murder charge in the death of an unborn baby.

Thirty-eight-year-old Ashton Vincent Craven is facing life in prison after a car he was driving ran a stop sign and hit a Toyota Corolla driven by a pregnant woman. The woman was hospitalized and lost her unborn child as a result of the accident. Craven was intoxicated at the time of the crash."

_________________________________________


"Cleveland captor charged with murder for killing victim’s unborn babies"

_________________________________________


"John Andrew Welden Accused Of Killing Girlfriend's Fetus By Trickery "

"John Andrew Welden was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury on charges of product tampering and first-degree murder and faces up to life in prison if convicted of the murder charge."

 

I don't deny the biological fact that a woman and her male partner give their child life.

Do you deny the fact that once a child is given life - it belongs to them (the child?)

Right.

But, we never denied that we are taking an incremental approach.

If that were true, you would have no problems overturning the laws which make killing a child in the womb a crime of murder.

I wish you would try to do that.

Because doing that will certainly make its way to the SCOTUS and we have no doubt that they would rule against your claim and in favor of o

I disagree.

But I digress.

Titles and name calling are not going to get us anywhere.

 

Life belongs to a child once the child is capable of sustaining that life. Until then, it is an ongoing gift from the woman.

 

Have these people been convicted?

 

Can I get you to admit that this is only your opinion?

I have posted several links where people have been charged with murder for killing a child in the womb.

The definition of "murder" does not include the killing anything less than another "human being."

That is proof that the child's life belongs to his or her self.

 

Fair question.

I don't know (yet).

Give me some time and I'll try to find some cases where the person was convicted.

Meantime, I hope you understand that this is all part of the overall effort to get a case before the SCOTUS - to challenge Roe.

 

Just my opinion, but anyone who feels that way when the child is over 19 weeks should be sterilized. They have no right to be able to procreate, just to flush their child down the drain.

 

This is my opinion, just as all statements on the value or beginning of life are opinion, in spite of some declarations of "science says." My opinion, however, makes sense.

I believe that the zef is referred to as considered to be a child "for the purposes of this law" or some such similar wording. Unfortunately, elected officials often pass laws on things they know little about.

If that constitutes proof to you, then make your life decisions based upon that. It doesn't prove that to me. A woman should not be compelled to sustain life at the expense of her own body, and the "child" won't have a life unless she does sustain it.

 

We all know you believe that women have no rights. Women should be forcibly sterilized, have sandpaper shoved up their vaginas, be under house arrest during reproductive years, and have their diets and exercise monitored all to comply with what YOU think a woman should do. And you think women WILL do almost anything without your supervision.

 

Red herring much?