Replace "abortion" with "slave ownership" /end argument Replace "people" with "slave owners" Murder is a crime because people are against it for moral reasons. All laws are based on morals. If 99% of the population had the same moral views as Marquis De Sade, then murder, rape, and child molestation might not be illegal either, but thankfully most of us don't. So a consistent factor in the abortion issue is the point in the pregnancy at which human life begins (which I would say is consciousness of the fetus) - since direct harm to other conscious beings is often the point at which we decide whether or not immoral behavior is harmful enough to be enforced via law. (e.x. Most people consider cheating on your spouse immoral, but not a direct enough assault against another person to merit being punished criminally, however sleeping with a 12 year old child is considered immoral enough to merit criminal punishment, etc) Don't judge Dahmer based on your morality, if he wants to kill and eat people it's his life and therefore HIS choice... etc Bad argument is bad.
If she was a psychopath that would be true, but most people aren't (thank God). Indeed it does. I'd love to see you use that as a criminal defense to infanticide, and see how it goes. Just like a 2 year old needs its mother to sustain its existence, because if left to its own devices, it will die. By the same logic a 2 year old is viable, therefore the government has no right to prevent someone from dropping it off in a dumpster, because requiring them legally to provide sustenance for it is "slavery". It has a right to, and so do we - just as welfare recipients have a right to sustain themselves, via other people using their bodies to work and earn money which sustains their existence via taxes.
Per Act 301 after found constitutional: 1. The right for women to exclusively choose is fundamental for 11-weeks. 2. Men have absolutely no weight in the decision for 11-weeks. 3. The men AND women of Arkansas or the entire public forbid doctors assisting with the pregnant woman killing a fetus at or after 12-weeks 4. Doctors who aid in killing a 12-week old fetus with a heartbeat are subject to the Arkansas Medical Board (jury of doctors) prohibiting them from being licensed as doctors. 5. Doctors who aid in killing a fetus and subjected by the Arkansas Medical Board to a prohibition from being licensed as doctors can go set up their own clinics. These clinics could not perform abortions of gestation because only licensed doctors may do this. 6. A woman who waits till after 12-weeks pass, may still abort with a heated coat-hanger or other method. These killers could then be prosecuted for murder if not also killing themselves. Abortaficients and medical assistance with aborting gestation for the first 11-weeks will become a public responsibility but is not yet per this law but this law leads to this future. There is no process for a male to force or prevent the female he impregnated for 11-weeks. After 12-weeks gestation both the male and the female have no choice except adoption. The law will eventually need to be adjusted to be more fair to men and evenly split the cost of EPTs and aborting gestation if not wanted. This law closes one door tightly and requires responsibility but opens a whole can of legal worms. http://Human-Dignity-US.org
Act 301 has been repeatedly and consistently slapped around by the courts at every level, and hasn't been implemented in the two and a half years since it passed over a veto. SCOTUS isn't going to touch this one. They already ruled on the viability issue in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which prevents states from banning abortions prior to viability. Since no one in the Arkansas AG's office has yet to be stupid enough to claim that a 12-week old embryo is viable, the Arkansas clusterfrack of indefensible hubris falls flat on its face. Wait for the ruling on Whole Woman's Health v Cole, which could possibly abort TRAP laws nationwide...
There are no unconditional human rights. Unborn babies are human beings who possess the same rights and obligations as the rest of us. That includes both a right to life as well as an obligation to obtain consent. As long as an unborn baby has it's mother's consent to impregnate her, it has a right to live. Without it's mother's consent a pregnancy is an assault against the mother and that gives the mother the right to elective abortion in self defense. It doesn't matter of the unborn baby is unaware of it's actions, that just means it isn't culpable. A non-consensual pregnancy is still an offense to the mother which she has a right to stop. If, however, the mother is committing violence against other innocent people, that gives them the right to use force in defense against her. Any harm or death to her baby that results from that would make her the murderer, not those who are defending themselves from her. As a matter of self defense, elective abortion is the only healthcare service that the government is fundamentally obligated to fund, which makes it supremely ironic that it's the one healthcare service that Congress doesn't want to fund. Abortion should be available for free anytime, anywhere without restriction and no questions asked.
TRAP statutes are regimes attempting to limit the autonomy of humans controlling personal gestation. They are (most, if not all,) already unconstitutional "laws" and are per se unjust! No zygote, blastocyst or embryo exists at 12-weeks and the AR Attorney General assistant is not incompetent and would NOT do like this. Any embryo found at 12-weeks is already dead or is dying and may ALREADY be aborted per Act 301. Casey was LONG AGO and is clearly irrelevant. WWH should be resolved almost summarily as suggested on page 14. These ARE ideal cases to update U.S. legal standings back to honorable.
That would be true IF the fetus is ever deemed a "person". Right now it isn't. However this statement is confusing: """If, however, the mother is committing violence against other innocent people, that gives them the right to use force in defense against her. Any harm or death to her baby that results from that would make her the murderer, not those who are defending themselves from her."" Could you explain it?
It's a scientific fact that any one or group of cells that contains a unique human genome and has the potential to mature into an adult is a person. That may not be the legal standard in some jurisdictions but any jurisdiction must accept that fact before they can charge a criminal with murder if they cause the death of an unborn baby while committing a crime. Well, as long as we aren't seeking to harm innocent people we have the right to defend ourselves from those who seek to harm us. Anyone would be justified in using deadly force against a pregnant woman if she were threatening to hurt or kill them or other innocent people. If that results in the death of her baby, it's her fault not the persons defending themselves from her.
It isn't, a questions n of judging the mother but rather if the fetus has a right to survive. IMO, prior to a heart beat elective abortions should be legal. After a heart beat abortions should only be legal where the woman s life is compromised or the fetus diagnosed with compromising deformity or other problems that would significantly effect its quality of life or survival once delivered. Just my opinion. It is an issue that is not political in my opinion as both democrats and republicans have varying individual views. It is only the "sheeple" who don't think for thermzselves that Re the problem
It is political when one party is determined to pass law after law restricting women's rights and continually attempts to shut down clinics where affordable accessible LEGAL medical procedures are available.
Abortion is a sensitive idea. It is attached to life, though the one killed is yet to evolve but it is nonetheless killing someone. This is what I feel but I do not want to argue for or against it since today people believe in planning their family size. Even using condoms from a religious point of view is sinful but now nobody gives it a thought. With regard to abortion what people do according to his conscience is right. Debating this is useless. If we say anything for or against it, it will be judgmental.
The unborn have a right to life but they also have an obligation to obtain consent. The way consent works is: 1. It must be explicitly given, not presumed or inferred. 2. It doesn't automatically transfer to anyone biologically related to the person you give it to. 3. It can be withdrawn at any time. Thus the consent a women gives to a man for sex only applies to him and only for sex. It is not consent to pregnancy, even if that's what she wants. It does not permit any of the man's relatives to jump in and participate. And, of course, she has the right to say no at any time and quit having sex. If the man then forces her to continue having sex, it's rape. The same rules apply to pregnancy. Without the mother's consent, the pregnancy is a violation of her person and that alone gives her the right to abort it. It doesn't matter what stage of gestation the baby is in or whether her pregnancy poses a threat to the mother's life or whether her pregnancy was an accident or her intent. The mother has the right to change her mind at any time, otherwise she becomes a reproductive slave. This means that the sole purpose of elective abortion is to end an non-consensual pregnancy, not to kill the unborn baby. The death of the fetus is unavoidable in early term abortions but doctors should be legally obligated to make every effort to save the baby's life in late term abortions, if possible, and techniques that unnecessarily injury and kill unborn babies should be banned.
Argued well but not convincingly. I always try to accept any logical argument. What you are saying is: - Without the mother's CONTINUOUS consent the pregnancy is a violation of her person and this alone gives her the right to abort..? Well; I agree for the first 11-weeks and Arkansas Act 301 does too. After the embryo becomes a fetal human with a heartbeat at 12-weeks; the rights of the whole public to respect the human dignity of the fetal heartbeat extinguish the need for the mother's CONTINUOUS consent or as the Pro-choice holds: "the mother becomes "brood stock". Yes; PLEASE GET OVER IT. The pregnant mother waives the exclusive right to CONTINUOUS consent by allowing gestation to progress to the point of a fetal heartbeat. Yes'm; GET OVER IT. 12-WEEKS IS WHERE ENDING GESTATION REQUIRES KILLING ANOTHER LIVING HUMAN. The Pro-unborn-life or Anti-choice crowd believes this happens at conception and this is morally and biologically wrong. GET OVER IT. 1. Freezing an embryo carefully does not kill the embryo. Freezing a fetus carefully is fatal. 2. CONTINUOUS consent for 11-weeks makes the mother "brood stock". Yes'm GET OVER IT. 3. Abortions of gestation are a State duty to provide in Arkansas for the first 11-weeks of gestation if this is desired. Abortion are going to be free for the public soon in Arkansas. GET OVER IT. No. #3 is a direct result of Arkansas Act 301. The Pro-life did not see this coming and will whine to no end. Accepting this duty is required immediately by the State but will be mitigated by requiring the sperm contributor to absorb these costs eventually.
Sort of, yes. Other people have the right not to be involved in any abortion unless they freely choose to do so. Your opinion doesn't matter and nor should it. Your approval isn't required. You need to get over that.
Really? When I see a pregnant woman, I have a moral obligation, as a human, to try to protect her and her child if possible. Agreed. I am trying but am still going to share my unique perspective on the near future as I feel led to do. http://human-dignity-us.org
Hardly. Women and children are the most vulnerable in a disaster. Other species of animals exhibit an enhanced protection of young or mothers.
