High court strikes Massachusetts abortion 'buffer zone'

Soooo....what? You want to force vaginal ultra sounds on every single woman of reproductive age just to prove whether or not she has a person inside of her or not? That sounds like rape to me.

- - - Updated - - -

No human being is required by law to give up parts of their body to keep other people alive, even if those other people are their relatives or their own children. This should always be something to be done by willing particpants, never forced on anyone against their wills.

 

No you didn't.

Here is a question. Does it MATTER at all in any way shape or form whether he thinks blacks should have personhood or not in regards to the abortion debate?

How is it relevant to the discussion other than to try and smear your opponent as some racist, black hating supporter of slavery? If he answered yes what would it prove? If he answered no what would it prove? How is this related to the discussion of pregnant women and abortion?

It's amazing how people will just lie through their teeth and pretend we can't just so easily scroll back several pages to find the original posts.

 

What's the purpose of that?

I agree with you, but abortion directly kills the fetus. A person refusing to donate an organ to their relative does not.

 

No need to worry about that comment, it was for someone else, not you.

A woman is refusing to loan her uterus to the fetus or give it her nutrients and so has it removed from her body.

 

No, they don't as you have had it explained to you...


Why can't you answer the question in post 341 ???

 

Refusing to give a fetus the continuous use of your uterus for nine months compares to refusing to give up an extra kidney or blood or bone marrow. Not meeting the needs of a fetus or donor-requirer both allow a potential or real human to die. Certainly sustaining a fetus for nine months and then recovery from birth takes more from a woman's life than donating a kidney.

 

Yes, make it mandatory for any woman seeking an abortion must
have an ultra sound so she can know there is an innocent child in
her womb that's done nothing deserving of being put to death.
Pro abortionist and planned parenthood aren't in favor of this.
It stands to reason that once a woman sees it's a baby she is
less likely to have it murdered.

You don't know how an ultra sound works. Nothing enters the body,
ergo, rape doesn't occur.

 

You truly believe that women are so stupid they don't know what "pregnant" means?

You believe that EVERY American should be subject to forced medical procedures based on somebody else's morals.


AND, in the early stages of pregnancy there is NO "BABY" to see.

 

I asked, why do you think slander is against the law.........having a problem answering ?

 

They already do routine ultra sounds before abortion. How else are they going to see what they're doing?

And it seems you have never heard of vaginal ultrasounds. In order to find out a woman is pregnant in very early pregnancy a regular stomach ultrasound does not work, a vaginal ultrasound must be done and it is a large probe that is inserted into the vaginal canal and pressed against the cervix. It can be pretty painful for women.

 

Maybe, but it would reduce abortion rates if they were legally required.

- - - Updated - - -

Take their "slander" into context. i dont think you even understand my arguements.

 

They are already required for surgical abortions and to determine if a woman is pregnant anyways. We don't need pointless laws to 'require' they be done and waste more taxpayer money on something that is routinely done anyways!

 

Ultrasounds that show the fetus in earlier stages of pregnancy aren't always done.

 

Not sure how you came up with that question. But the answer is no.

No, only women.

You need to do some homework. Ultrasounds can detect a baby
as early as 2 weeks. That's certainly within the early stages of
pregnancy.

 

You brought up needing evidence, you said proof, as to whether
or not there was a baby in the womb. I simply provided you with an
answer.

There do need to be laws that help protect innocent children from being
murdered before they are born. A mandatory ultra sound is very
reasonable since it provides information that allows the woman to
know that an abortion will kill an innocent life.

 

No, I was explaining to you the logical reasons behind why personhood is not conferred before birth, because you cannot prove a fetus exists inside a woman's body without violating her rights first; i.e. forced vaginal ultrasounds.

What part of they already do ultrasounds do you not understand? Seriously. Why would you put taxpayer money toward a redundant law?

Oh and what evidence do you have that seeing ultrasounds changes women's minds anyways? I have evidence that is does not the absolute vast majority of the time.

http://journals.lww.com/greenjourna...onship_Between_Ultrasound_Viewing_and.13.aspx

 

Forced vaginal ultra sounds aren't necessary. That's a strawman
you've concocted and not by using logic.

I'm for as many laws as is necessary to restrict abortion for any reason.
What part of that do you not understand?

Doesn't matter. If only one baby is save from being murdered then it's
worth every penny.

I'm sorry you place such a low value on human life.

 

You need an education (not only in science and biology but equal rights, too).

At two weeks there is no "baby", there is a fetus...

Why do you think YOU know what will be seen with an ultra sound but think women are so stupid they don't know what they'd see in an ultra sound.

You certainly don't know many women.......

 

The discussion was about fetal personhood. I redirect you to my original post on the subject and the reasons behind why most societies do not treat zygote/embryos/fetuses as persons.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362746&page=35&p=1064048754#post1064048754

And I am for as many laws as necessary to maintain mine and all women's rights to maintain full medical authority over our own autonomy. What part of that do you not understand?

Babies are very well protected in many countries. That's rather off-topic though.

I'm sorry you place such a low value on women.

 

Which is totally irrelevant, and you know that.

Which means you're fine with murdering innocent
children. What part of murdering children do you not
understand?

No, it's very much on topic. You are definitely fine with
murdering innocent children who have done nothing
deserving of being put to death on a whim.

LOL. I don't place a low value on women but you
definitely put a low value on babies, ergo, you love of
putting innocent children to death on a whim.

 

Why bring it up if you think it's irrelevant?

What part of there are no children in abortion do you not understand? I mean you can sit here and infantilize zygotes/embryos/fetuses all night long but that won't change the fact that zygotes/embryos/fetuses are not neonates.

By the way, I don't know if you've heard or not, but abortion is not murder.

Drama, drama, drama. Come back when you can actually have a discussion without feeling the need to inject ad hom into everything you type.

 

I've already done that on a previous post, if you cannot be bothered to read them then I am certainly not going to repeat myself.

Got nothing to do with her hurt feelings, it has everything to do with how other people perceive her and how that can effect her .. suggest you go and do some research on slander before making such ignorant responses.

Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation.

So regardless of how little YOU feel about her "little feelings" the law takes a very different view.

Couldn't give a flying (*)(*)(*)(*) what pro-lifers "really mean" the fact remains they are accusing someone of a crime that is seen as one of the most hideous crimes a person can commit and they are doing this despite the fact that they have no factual evidence to support it AND there is in fact no crime being committed .. It would be no different to a group protesting outside a church and calling all who used it pedophiles.

If you were intelligent enough you would realize that what these pro-lifers think or feel IS irrelevant, they are the ones committing the act of slander not the ones receiving it.

You again seem to be under the impression that just because something may not have happened means it hasn't happened .. that is an infantile perspective.

 

I have answered everything you have asked, the fact that you willfully ignore it tells me only that you are a 100% dishonest poster with no real intention of bothering with what people say, all you are interested in is misrepresentation, flame baiting and cherry picking comments to suit your own ends.

You have misrepresented nearly every response I have given.

Given that I have a;ready responded to this accusation in post #321 as follows;

So in fact your assumption is a big fat failure, one you willfully ignore and continue with your false accusation, add to that you then cherry picked my response in order to continue indulging in your misrepresentation and lies about me and it boils down to you being a dishonest poster.

Assuming the premise fallacy and basically a lie, I have already answered your question about whether the courts should grant personhood to a fetus .. I am 100% for it, so it follows suit that your lying assumption that I would be ok saying blacks don't deserve personhood is something that spung from your deluded mind.

That is your assumption based on your own delusion and not my position in the slightest.

I have quoted and responded to EVERY comment you have made to me, yet another misrepresentation on your part.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet another cherry picked post from my response, it is all you have.

 

There is a vast difference between having a personal opinion on a color or whether a person has a super hot body, for one neither of those are accusing a person of committing a crime.

You are wrong, the legal definition of slander in the USA is as follows

"Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation ... Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation ... Slander is primarily covered under state law, but is subject to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion. If the slander unjustly accused you of a crime or reflected on your profession, the court or jury can assess the damages."

Claiming someone is a murderer is unjustly accusing someone of a crime.

There are plenty of videos on line of pro-life protesters harassing women who have told them to stop, they ignore them and continue to harass them.

If you don't know what the person has done or is going to do then IMO you have no right to accuse them of ANYTHING, 3 out of every 100 women (on average) who use a PP clinic are there for an abortion, for every 100 women pro-lifers call murderers they are right (in their opinion) 3 times and yet you feel this is justification to slander 97 other women . .This makes a mockery of innocent until proven guilty.

Protest the clinic, pro-lifers have evidence to support the fact that abortions are carried out their and as such their opinion that-that is murder justifies the protest .. protesting individuals who use PP clinics has absolutely no justification, there is not one single shred of evidence to support the lying claim that-that person is a murderer, and even if there was abortion is not a crime, murder is, and to call someone a murderer IMO is slander.

 

Then you do support the supreme court ruling that blacks weren't
persons.

I'm good with it since you are. Personally I found it abhorrent.