How could you kill your own baby ?

Just as pro-birth and anti-choice is the best name for "pro-lifers" .. or even better still "pro-control"

 

If I am to be called anti-choice because I oppose the choice to abuse, molest or kill a child?

So be it.

Fact is though... I think that people should be free to choices - even criminal choices.

I just think there should be legal consequences for some of the choices that people make - when they violate the rights of another.

 

So we start the circle again .. to use a legal quotation, you have still yet to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a fetus/embro/zef is a person and despite your interpretations of the constitution and other laws, in 40 years of Roe, after numerous attempts to overturn it and with a Republican SCOTUS majority all attempts have been dismissed and every SCOTUS hearing has reaffirmed the constitutional legality of Roe vs Wade.

So you agree that there should be legal consequences for those that violate the rights of the female to have life, liberty and property as laid down the the 14th amendment, or do these legal consequences only apply in the context of abortion and to the fetus.

 

" (d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. "

"(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. "

The same SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld the language of the UVVA which makes the illegal killing of a "child" in the womb of "any stage of development" a crime of murder.

True or False?

Absolutely, I support a woman's right to the equal protections of our laws as well.

Elective abortions however are not an absolute right.

 

Clearly such complicated language and notions as "in this section" present an insurmountable obstacle for you so you will attempt to create a new reality by repeating the same mantra over and over like a mindless drone.

 

True, unless the consent of the woman has been given as also included in the UVOVA, Section 2 - C - " Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child. " - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

They are in the first trimester, and could be at any time if one of the states decided so. Roe vs Wade places no restrictions on abortion at anytime for any reason . .however it does allow states to impose restrictions during the 2nd and 3rd trimester, a state can decide not to impose restrictions if they so wish and would not be breaking any laws in doing so.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

and as Roe vs Wade did not even attempt to define a "person", the UVOVA even if it does define a fetus as a "person" cannot over-rule Roe Vs Wade, the legal language allows BOTH to exist without conflict.

So unless pro-lifers can get a change in the constitution abortion will never be made illegal.

So let us examine those three words, life, liberty and property in the context of the 14th Ammendment.

Life - Pretty obvious really
Liberty - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s behaviour or political views
Property - a thing or things belonging to someone;

To impose a pregnancy on a woman would be an infringement of her liberty (free of oppressive restrictions) and would remove her property (Uterus).

 

Although an abortion should be something to avoid if possible...there are going to be times and situations where an abortion is needed and morally justified.

Since a woman who had unprotected intercourse can now simply go to a Drug Store and buy Plan B or the Morning After Pill...this will greatly reduce the number of abortions as long as these drugs are made easily and widely available for all women.

If a pregnancy is not caught early enough for these drugs to work...and if the woman does not want a child or is a victim of Rape or Incest...an Abortion should be done AS SOON AS POSSIBLE and there really is no excuse not to have an abortion if a child is not wanted within the first month of the pregnancy.

In the event a Doctor has determined a Mother to be's health or life is at risk...an abortion should be and IS allowed at any time during the pregnancy but if at all possible the abortion should be done as soon as possible.

If the fetus has been determined by a Doctor to be NON-VIABLE either due to Birth Defects, Genetic Abnormalities or other reasons the Fetus should and MUST be aborted as soon as possible at anytime during pregnancy.

As I have stated before...there are worse things than DEATH.

Any attempts by Pro-Life Groups or anyone else to interfere with a woman accessing a Planned Parenthood Clinic should be punished by arresting the person or individuals for Harassment or STALKING...and such a person or people should be ordered to stay away from both the Mother and any similar Medical Building at a distance of 1000 feet.

Since such harassment may delay a procedure such as an abortion such a delay could very well mean the difference between aborting a NON-SENTIENT DEVELOPING FETUS...thus delay now meaning...the abortion of a now JUST OBTAINING SENTIENCE FETUS.

Such a delay and result is INEXCUSABLE and if this should happen the person or persons responsible should not only be liable from a CIVIL SUIT perspective...but also be CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE for causing the death of a now SENTIENT FETUS which could have been aborted while it...the fetus was NOT SENTIENT.

AboveAlpha

 

Right.

Do you miss where I had used the word "illegal?" in my question?

The State's can also ban it entirely and several are working on language (amendments to their Constitutions) that will do so.

Thus, my comment that it is not an absolute right.

Again, there is no need to amend the Constitution. Though, that would be one way to settle the dispute.

We only need for the right case to get before the SCOTUS - in order for them to rule on the 14th Amendment rights and protections for "children in the womb" as defined by the UVVA.

 

Not at all.

No they cannot, or did you not read this "(3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term."

Though each state can impose restrictions they cannot ban abortion totally, hence why the pro-lifers have attempted (and in some cases succeeded) in introducing new laws under the falsehood of "protecting women".

It is the only way to settle the dispute, and even then I really don't think it would.

and if that happens you create a conflict of rights . .the right to life of the fetus against the right to liberty and property of the woman, one would have to give way to the other, if the decision goes against the woman then the constitution would deem a woman of lesser standings and rights than a fetus . .exactly as it was for a slave.

 

That is what the SCOTUS held under Roe.

Their previous rulings would carry a lot of weight (Stare Decisis), it does not obligate the court to rule that way in the future.

Especially when they have also held that a child in the fetal stage of their life has rights too

The personhood amendments being attempt to various State's Constitutions are going to put that claim to the test.

I believe that the SCOTUS will eventually hold that unless a woman was raped and her pregnancy is forced upon her in a criminal act?

She compromised her autonomy (and her claims to it) herself.

Time will tell.

 

I am curious, how do you think that will play out? In your mind what justification can be used for abortion then? How about if she was held captive like the woman in Cleveland? Should the born child be killed? If not what is the difference?

Yea, the slut to used Sam's terminology, she dared spread her legs.

 

and if they do then they condemn women to be second class citizens.

They certainly will, and I suspect as in Texas, some will pass .. but I also have little doubt they will fail when challenged as unconstitutional in the supreme court.

I don't

Implied consent again, something very, very difficult to prove and could be very easily remedied, as far as I am aware a verbal contract is legal, all a woman need to do is claim the implied consent is not present due to the preceding verbal contract between her and her partner that in the event of conception both agree to an abortion.

It will indeed, though after 40 years and a number of challenges pro-lifers have no even come close to getting Roe repealed.

 

As pregnancy is very easily avoidable, I disagree.

There's only one way to find that out.

We have the UVVA and laws in the majority of our States now - that make it a crime of murder to illegally kill a child in the womb.

We are closer to having the SCOTUS overturn Roe than you think.

 

not with the right-wing attack on contraception it isn't .. yeah I know you are going to say abstinence, yet it has been shown that abstinence only sex education does not work and never has worked.

True

As it should, though with the abortion exception I can't see how any of these laws are going to help overturn Roe .. has any law been passed that does not include an exclusion for abortion?

I doubt it very much. .. but as you say, we shall see.

 

I don't oppose either one (conception or sex ed) so I know you're not talking about me.

And I don't have any fears that conception will ever be banned.

So, it's not worth the time it takes to worry about it.

The more laws we have which recognizes a child in the womb as a 'person' in any way shape or form.... the more problems the SCOTUS is going to have with Roe's denial of their personhood.

 

you may not, but plenty of other pro-lifers do.

Roe doesn't even try to define personhood, it didn't agree with either the pro-life stance of person at conception or the pro-choice stance of person at birth, if anything it agreed with what the majority think and that is pro-gradualism.

 

I never claimed that it did.

I said that the Roe decision "denies" prenatal children their personhood. (and Constitutional protections)

The majority is never infallible.

 

It does not do that. On the contrary it says if there was evidence that fetuses were persons it would recognize them as such. However since there is no evidence or any legal precedent and all parties have agreed to that, the court made the right decision.

 

Yet how does the opinions of other automatically invalidate his own opinions? Stop stereotyping ALL pro lifers.

 

when you have a valid point to make that actually contributes to the debate then you will be worthy of a relevant reply.

- - - Updated - - -

something I agree with.

though the minority usually are

 

There's lots of evidence that the fetus is a person. it grows. does sperm and egg grow? Nope, that's because sperm and egg are not organisms. the fetus is an organism. Pro-choicers love to deny science.

 

If conditions are right, the fetus will grow into a person. If conditions are right a sperm and egg will grow into a person. Growth does not make something a person. My hair grows. My fingernails grow. Fungus and bacteria grow. Those things are not persons.

 

Sperm and egg do not grow. Fetuses grow.

Besides, if the fetus is not a human organism, solely because of it's geographic location, then I must tell you that a late-term fetus is pretty much at the same level of development as a newborn.

 

You're confused. Sperm and egg grow IF conditions are right, and the right conditions require that egg and sperm meet and join. Fetuses grow IF conditions are right, and the right conditions require an attachment to a female host. As I said before, growth is not the identifying characteristic of personhood.

A newborn is vastly different from a late-term fetus.

http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/7_R_Eile/Human_Metamorphosis.html

The major change is from a developing entity which is a part of a woman's body to an independent organism which is self contained. Prior to birth we have a human entity, growing and developing toward organism status, which draws its nourishment, oxygen, and has it's detoxification of blood, and homeostasis maintained by the organism it is a part of. This source before birth is the only source available. A fetus is not an air breather, the born organism is.

 

This is how the arguments from abortion supporters work:

1. First they claim the woman "has a right" to make medical decisions affecting her body
(even though they don't believe in individual rights when it comes to other decisions)

2. Then they claim that women need abortions for health reasons. When it is pointed out how rare it is for a pregnancy to pose an imminent danger to a woman's life, they than shift the argument and claim that women only get abortions in the "later stages" of pregnancy for health reasons. Just what stage these "later stages" are, pro-choicers are not specific about.

3. Next, if this argument does not work, they make the claim that the fetus cannot survive outside the woman, as if that somehow disqualified the fetus from having a right to life. Of course, they do not point out that abortion is legal after 21 weeks, when the fetus actually has a chance of survival.

4. When all else fails, they try to dehumanize the fetus, bringing up vague terms that supposedly the fetus does not possess the criteria to meet. "It is not a person", "It does not self awareness", "It is not sentient", "It is not an independent entity", etc.

Some pro-aborts even dehumanize born alive fetuses as "animals", "biological machines", even "human animatrons"
That wiggling around from a 20 week old prematurely born fetus? Just reflexes, we are told.

5. In the case of premature births, when asked why the discrepancy between killing outside the womb and killing inside, pro-choicers try to assert that the location of the fetus inside the mother's body, or rather its attachment to the mother, somehow makes a fundamental difference in whether or not it is a "person"

6. Finally (and this is when they really get desperate) pro-choicers try to minimize abortion as not that bad, and try to make the convincing argument that society needs abortion. Typically they will throw in something about taxpayer money and overpopulation, despite the fact that most of these pro-choicers hypocritically want more taxpayer money to be spent on everyone else, and want to let in as many immigrants as possible. Another variation on this theme I have heard from a pro-choicer on this forum is "Liberty is more important than Life"