First of all, calm the heck down. Secondly, stop putting words in my mouth. Well, I would definitely say that any being who does not take responsibility in general, is to be regarded as a psycho. Yes. The mother is never to be labelled as a murderer. Abortion is murder without any real, tangible murderer. Again it is the more abstract phenomena of (*)(*)(*)(*)ty norms that is to be held guilty. Humans have not always lived in the same way you know. Culture, discourses, structures and norms are not fixed. They change all the time. Well….If you wait with sex ‘til you actually do want children it can in fact be done. But, that would be rather extreme. Contraceptives are still around and should be allowed for the men and women wanting to have sex without pregnancy. Sometimes contraceptives fail, but that is exception rather than rule(duh). This is really sad. But, again; these women belong to the exceptions. If I am forced (oh my, I used your favorite word there. ) to give an answer I’ll say it is still always the best option to give birth to the child anyways. I remain rather ambiguous on the issue of “women who take their responsibility, but get pregnant anyways.” First and foremost every wealthy and fully working society should make sure that everyone could afford a child by offering the right kind of support through welfare and whatnot. Afterall, childbirth is what every single society is dependent on, so. “I really want this kid, but I cannot afford her/him” is very sad and just should not happen. If she , or he for that matter, is not ready to become a parent the absolute most rational thing he or she can do is celibate. Or if she is more extreme she can remove her ovaries or something. In general contraceptives work tough, so for the people who want to engage in one night stands, friends with benefits-relations, seek pleasure or be prostitutes(in the true sense of the word) the best advice is to use these contraceptives.
Yes. Eh. No. A discussion generally works in the way of that the involved parties share their views on the same topic. I am sharing my views without claiming I am "the ruler of the world". You are doing the "putting words in my mouth"-part again. Stop it. I just explained it 10004 times. . Ha-ha, very funny. Tell this to your feminist teammates this whenever they bring up "Patriarchy" You just contradicted yourself. If were to talk about sex percieved from the view of "human nature"- abortion is not an option. Thanks for helping me out. According to you. Stop ating like the ruler of the world. Oh mah Gaaaawd. . Clearly I touched one of your nerves. You are overreacting and acting over-emotional. Obviously you are female. Duuuuuuuuuuuh. In a debate, debating parties share their subjective views. Abortion and giving up sex is more or less the same thing if we are talking about rationality in terms of "Human nature". Calma, calma, calma! Yet again, you are being rather gynocentric and playing out the victim-card here, indirectly blaiming for being sexist or misogynistic. I am not only attacking women and asking only women to take responsibility. Each and every argument you bring up is about the women, as if am simply talking about women. I am saying both men and women need to change their attitudes. It is true only women get pregnant; but- unless they are Mother Mary- pregnancy is only possible with the help of a man. Thus, men who do not want to become fathers should either restrain from sex or use contraceptives. Women who do not want to become mothers should stick to the same principles. OK? A man who makes a woman pregnant and runs away is a coward. A man, who makes a woman pregnant and forces her to have an abortion when she wants to keep the child, is a coward. The blame here is mutual. These destructive norms affect both sexes equally.
All the pouting and attacks.......I think you may have finally realized life and humans are NOT going to behave as YOU think they should....obviously frustrating for you....
It all comes down to what degree of social freedom we liberate our selves to, and what norms we break down. Sadly, right and wrong shifts when liberalism is unleased, and so it is now fully acceptable to be (*)(*)(*)(*)ing around carelessly, making babies "by mistake". The point is that if the old norms on this topic was to be re-established once more, this would be a non-discussion. Seek love, not sex. This is the chart of abortions made by 19 year old females or younger in Sweden. It is interesting how this sexual dekadens among our young began to rise around the time when sexual education was introduced in our schools. It seems to lead to the exact opposite result of what its lobbyists proclaimed at the beginning. http://www.ladda-upp.se/bilder/jjditslkrtngs/
Oh, sorry, but humans have always had sex, wisely and unwisely, and "liberalism" had nothing to do with it....and it will never change and it has never changed... What "old norms" are you talking about? Was there a time in human history when people didn't have sex? And in this country sex education has cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies...
Abortion isn't about promiscuity. Most women who get abortions are in committed relationships and most of them already have a child. Abortion rates are primarily related to the use of reliable birth control. A fetus is not a person before the 3rd trimester because its brain is not capable of experiencing anything. Personhood lies in the brain. Many people grieve about miscarriages because they want a child and it represents, at a minimum, a delay in that dream, and after the 2nd one in a row brings up doubts of ever being able to have children. Speaking from experience, you become emotionally attached to the possibilities ahead when your partner is pregnant, and a miscarriage smashes that.
I'm a pro-choice classical liberal - I have no desire for this group to see funding, nor PP. End the government support and let women decide where to go. If anything the state should be giving the women money to manage their pregnancy as they see fit - not PP or CPC. Government always solves purely redistributive issues by erecting another sector of the bureaucracy. How unnecessary and inefficient.
It is not immoral to have sex, where did you come up with that? It is immoral to praise sex over sustainable relationships. There was a time when the social norms was about self restrainment, now the lack of it is celebrated. Of course degeneracy has always been around in every age, but it has never been allowed to rule, until our age. Isn't this obvious?
Women can decide where to go IF they have a place to go. For poor women that place is usually PP. PP helps them, it doesn't control them. Since thousands of women(and men) use PP it must be needed..
1. .. .Is it acceptable to treat the viability variable as the linchpin of the Roe v Wade decision and use this outmoded description to invalidate the protection of human dignity given for the fetus by millions of concerned Arkansas voters supporting Act 301 to preserve their conscience? 1 of 4 QUESTIONS PRESENTED. The clear answer to the question above is HELL NO. I will never have an abortion because I am male. If I were female, I would never need to abort after 11-weeks gestation because I would NOT have sex without monitoring myself for pregnancy. If I were female, I might accidentally become pregnant due to failing birth control but I would always discover this sooner than 11-weeks. If I were female, the fetus I might carry could turn out to have a fatal birth defect that was discovered after 12-weeks. I might or might not abort this pregnancy. My daughter did not abort gestation of my granddaughter though very many around her, as in most, felt this would have been best. None of my spouses aborted gestation, as far as I know. Bodily autonomy requires elective abortion of gestation for 11 weeks. The very same bodily autonomy requires balancing the dignity of the female against the dignity of the human fetus withing her at 12-weeks gestation. Arkansas voters assert human dignity begins with detectable heartbeats or the same test normally given to detect life because new fetal individuals have their own circulation system by 12-weeks. The Supreme Court attached human rights after viability, but should now recognize the Ninth Amendment right to give individual dignity to [a] new individual with their own heartbeat and bloodstream though still fed from the mother via the placenta and not able to live outside the uterus. -- 2 of 17 . . .The Court should conclude that Act 301 is a constitutional regulation of artificially terminating human gestation and more honorable than viability. The House of Representatives disregarded the viability rule for not considering the dignity of human lives before viability. 6 of 17 . . .Protecting individual dignity due to retracting statements or regretting fixing vulgar art or having a four-chamber heartbeat is missing for Americans due to a 1790 spelling error. During Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et al, (5:14-cv-5135)(14-3447), the FCC made online a common carrier as was demanded by this petitioner. 12 of 17 . . .Yes; This case could have been presented without calling the Citizens United decision dishonorable or the Apportionment Act of 1929 dishonorable. These mistakes, like copy[rite], were each made with honorable intentions. Addressing this Supreme Court about fetal human dignity, required pointing out these mistakes since these mistakes acting in concert will soon make this nation a failed experiment in human self-rule instead of an experiment still struggling to succeed. 16 of 17 . . .The difficult Roe decision took a more honorable mentality than is common in America today. Curtis J. Neeley Jr. recently saw this type mentality still existing on this Court or this Petition for Certiorari would not be done. The decision to allow Act 301 to be an enforceable regulation of professionally ending gestation at 12-weeks could be done summarily except this nation needs time to accept the need to preserve human dignity, like is described herein. The human right to dignity will soon occur and Beck v Edwards, et al, (15-44 being considered and debated will lead to the public accepting Act 301 along with human dignity despite less than two percent of United States citizens living in Arkansas where Act 301 began. . . .This Petition should be granted summarily and be made an amicus supporting the Appellants in Beck v Edwards, et al, (15-44, after granted, in order for this Supreme Court to honorably address gestation regulations since Roe, while considering Beck v Edwards, et al, (15-44 and human dignity. 17 of 17
Like I said before, you believe in your "human dignity" except for women who you want to turn into nothing but brood animals...no "human dignity" there. """""""If I were female, I would never need to abort after 11-weeks gestation because I would NOT have sex without monitoring myself for pregnancy. If I were female, I might accidentally become pregnant due to failing birth control but I would always discover this sooner than 11-weeks. If I were female, the fetus I might carry could turn out to have a fatal birth defect that was discovered after 12-weeks. I might or might not abort this pregnancy"""""" But you are not female and really have no idea what you would do........
. . . . .Arkansas voters assert human dignity begins with detectable heartbeats or the same test normally given to detect life because new fetal individuals have their own circulation system by 12-weeks. The Supreme Court attached human rights after viability, but should now recognize the Ninth Amendment right to give individual dignity to new individual with their own heartbeat and bloodstream though still fed from the mother via the placenta and not able to live outside the uterus. . . . . . America does not yet recognize the need to protect human dignity because Noah Webster created the American English dialect in 1790 by fiat. The existing British right to protect individual dignity was ignored and old British law from 1710 was copied without the 1735 and 1766 updates. These rights were later included in the UDHR. See App. UDHR. <<PDF . . . . .Human dignity is usually respected by most when humans are in comas, are on life support, are unresponsive, or are otherwise unable to exist alone. Human dignity warrants protection by honorable humans from the first individual heartbeat until the last. A fetus lacking complete viability as described by this Court should not result in the United States continuing to disrespect the dignity of individual unborn humans despite being protected for humans by the Ninth Amendment. . . . . . .The right to respect individual human dignity would have sustained the Roe v Wade ruling far better forty-plus years ago and would continue to this date without as much challenge due to solid Pro-life interests in free-will and the right to privacy. < 2 >
Not exclusively; A fetus is a whole human distinct from the woman and attached to her via a placenta and not yet able to survive without this life-support. Check out the listing per Webster. INDIVIDUAL 1. obsolete : inseparable 2. .a : of, relating to, or distinctively associated with an individual <an individual effort> . . .b : being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole . . .c : intended for one person <an individual serving> 3. : existing as a distinct entity : separate 4. : having marked individuality <an individual style> . . . in·di·vid·u·al·ly adverb See from page 14 of the Petition for Certiorari: . .Yes; the North Dakota Heartbeat Act recognizes a similar dignity of heartbeats, like Arkansas' Act 301. North Dakota fails, however, to provide ample time for exercising the fundamental human right to abort gestation like Arkansas does when no independent individual fetus is nourished by a placenta. Arkansas does this to preserve autonomy, a core component of human dignity, not addressed by North Dakota and should be resolved summarily. < 14 >
IF a fetus is a person the woman it's in has every right to stop, in any way she can, the harm the fetus is causing her. It's called self defense and being pregnant should not take that right away from a human being. Taking away women's right to defend themselves takes away all their human dignity.
Not quite. The female caused the fetus to be trapped within the female uterus. Defense of the self AGAINST the developing fetal human is an IDIOTIC contention. The attempt to use a self-defense justification for aborting a fetus after 12-weeks of gestation have passed is totally FRAUDULENT and not close to fair or logical. This fetal life within the uterus causes only self-inflicted injuries accepted after 12-weeks pass wherein aborting gestation was a human right, but only "for a time". American copy[rites] expire and are not allowed to continue indefinitely. SCOTUS is familiar with the phrase "for a time". The right to abort gestation exists for the first 11-weeks but then must be balanced against another human life by the whole public or a chosen Medical Board deciding if the doctor who conspired to kill the human fetus was justifiable or not when committing homicide as hired to do. From (1973 - 2016) conspiracy to commit murder was disguised as "supporting women's rights"; -by the end of next year, women will be responsible for choosing within 11-weeks of conception whether to abort gestation or complete gestation. Human sex-ed will just need a slight alteration. Petition for Certiorari page six follows and says the above.... . . .The Court should use this case as the ideal vehicle to update the outdated, outmoded, and arbitrary viability rule of Roe as applied in Casey. This Court should adopt a new standard that reflects and balances the States profound interest in protecting the life of an unborn child against a womans right to have some freedom to terminate her pregnancy. Artificial abortion of gestation should not allow casual killing of a fetal human. . . .Viability allows frivolous killing today and is dishonorable after 11-weeks when an independent human with a four-chamber heartbeat is killed and the fundamental human right to autonomy no longer supports aborting gestation. The State of Arkansas submits the end of the first trimester when a new individual human heartbeat and circulatory system are established and complete placenta has developed strikes a more reasonable and much more honorable balance between these competing interests. . . .The Court should conclude that Act 301 is a constitutional regulation of artificially terminating human gestation and more honorable than viability. The House of Representatives disregarded the viability rule for not considering the dignity of human lives before viability. . . .The Court should grant certiorari because safe haven statutes eliminate the burden of unwanted parenthood and child care; -or the very foundations of Roe. . . .The Court of Appeals did not analyze the balance between a womans mitigated right and the States developing interest or even acknowledge or comment on the safe haven statute presented in this case and its mitigating effect on a pregnant womans right to abort gestation under Roe and subsequent cases. All fifty States and the District of Columbia have laws authorizing women to relinquish a child after birth without consequence. Safe haven laws in effect nationwide completely relieve pregnant women of the burden of unwanted newborn children as identified and discussed in Roe. < 6 >
IF the fetus were "a whole human distinct from the woman" it WOULD be able to survive without her life support, but it is not. "Distinct" means "separate." Yes, I see from your definition that a fetus in no way meets the qualifications for an "individual." It is not separate, it is attached. A heartbeat alone does not confer dignity. That is why possessing a working brain is more nearly the point when a fetus exhibits human qualities. Possessing a working brain is close to the time of viability.
OMG! Yes it is! Sex is the action causing ALL pregnancy. One here might try to convince you/everyone else reading; SEX does not cause pregnancy but only causes the risk of pregnancy. "It's not what a fetus is but what a fetus does..." This logic is so twisted and so clearly undignified that no judge and no politician will EVER admit to have considered this type argument! Not and remain either a judge or stay elected. Pregnant women have the right to self-defense but pregnancy is a difficult natural process and the fetus is not the attacker.
Then quit trying to make the fetus into a person with super rights over the woman it's in.... BTW, not all pregnancies involve sex...you are obviously are not up to speed on these things....
Every pregnancy involves at least one sexual act or at least one orgasm. Sperm could be extracted from testicles via surgery but this is not done or even studied because of the pleasurable "sexual" alternative. A fetus is a complete human and separate from the female it is within. The fetus is connected via an umbilical cord to a placenta and not to the female it is within. The later development of the brain is immaterial.
IF the fetus is a totally separate human being from the woman then she has no reason NOT to have it removed...IF it is separate from her then it doesn't need her....it can be taken out and set on a table to grow.... BUT you are wrong, the fetus does need the woman it's in because without her it will die. IF it can live outside her then it has advanced to the stage that it is viable... IF a fetus is a person it does NOT have the right to use another's body to sustain it's life any more than you do....
For six weeks I was on a respirator and unresponsive in a coma. My ex-spouse did a DNR order and had me taken off life support (respirator). I was given a very specific message to deliver to humanity (delusion?). I do not remember most of my life because of a severe traumatic brain injury I am paralyzed and have no legs. I sued the FCC from 2009-2015 and demanded "online" be declared a common carrier. While litigating against me in United States Court, the FCC did this on February 26, 2015. The was the very day I talked to Honorable Scalia in Ft. Smith Arkansas. and told him I was coming. See this discussed on page 12 of my Petition for Certiorari as follows: =================================================== . . .The rite Britain used in 1710 to monopolize printing presses was copied verbatim in 1790 without two updates authorizing protection of individual human dignity for artists, added in 1735, but ignored despite Benjamin Franklin lobbying for creation of the transfer of human copy-right to an artist's widow in 1767. Benjamin Franklin died before the Copy[rite] Act of 1790 was passed but not before ensuring copy[rite] was not coined in the Constitution in the 1787 Copy[rite] Clause or first State of the Union when George Washington mentioned the needed law on January 8, 1790. . . .The British Parliamentary Act transferring control of original vulgar art to the artist's widow in 1767 was ignored although Benjamin Franklin was aware of this copy-right and had urged creation of this method for inheriting the human right to British Parliament in 1767 to protect Jane Thornhill Hogarth from her dead husband's marginally vulgar art after this was used in Earth's first political cartoons depicting scantily dressed prostitutes. . . .Protecting individual dignity due to retracting statements or regretting fixing vulgar art or having a four-chamber heartbeat is missing for Americans due to a 1790 spelling error. During Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et al, (5:14-cv-5135)(14-3447), the FCC made online a common carrier as was demanded by this petitioner. . . .This alleged common carrier (online) is, however, egregiously unsafe to broadcast by Wi-Fi radio into public schools. This cultural split explains the RTBF (right to be forgotten) or right to dignity online existing today in Europe and extending from France to worldwide soon. < 12 > ========================================================GOOG spent half-a-million in legal fees fighting this and MSFT spent several hundreds of thousands. I was offered five-million by GOOG to settle and did not. GOOG took a book "preview" with dishonorable art by me found in a New York library "offline" despite winning their case in New York. My petition was not exclusively about artificially aborting a fetus but was about America's failure to allow protection of dignity as follows from page 16. ========================================================. . .This petition obviates the separate need to request to file an amicus and could be summarily resolved by allowing Curtis J Neeley Jr to intervene in Beck v Edwards et. al., (15-44, as was denied, requiring this Petition for Certiorari. Service of this petition for certiorari may do the same thing if Beck v Edwards et. al., (15-44 is then granted and causes Act 301 to regulate gestation in Arkansas using a new human dignity rule to protect human fetuses and very soon nationwide. . . .This petitioner apologizes for addressing other items that are dishonorable today in America due to cultural impacts on United States from when founded. These dishonors resulted indirectly from a misspelling creating an artificial authorial monopoly for early schoolbooks in early America. . . . Noah Webster was honorable and did not realize choosing to spell copy[rite] arbitrarily, as if it were protecting dignity for creators, would create a new dialect. At the same time, this created a dishonorable new culture where lawyers, judges, and Representatives (like Benjamin Huntington in 1790) would use other torts to vicariously protect human dignity left out of the Copy[rite] Act of 1790. The Copy[rite] Act would have included the natural right to protect personal dignity from intellectual creations had Benjamin Franklin lived another year and updated United States law to protect authors or their widows like Mr. Franklin had done for Jane Thornhill Hogarth in Britain already in 1767. . . .Yes; This case could have been presented without calling the Citizens United decision dishonorable or the Apportionment Act of 1929 dishonorable. These mistakes, like copy[rite], were each made with honorable intentions. Addressing this Supreme Court about fetal human dignity, required pointing out these mistakes since these mistakes acting in concert will soon make this nation a failed experiment in human self-rule instead of an experiment still struggling to succeed. < 16 > ====================================================The self-rule experiment of America will soon begin to succeed or finally fail irredeemably.
