You're squirming, you did NOT originally state "in a disaster"....and in a disaster women can take care of themselves as well as anyone else, they are NOT children. No one has a moral responsibility to protect pregnant women or anyone else. BTW, we are not animals and some animals eat their young so maybe you want to quit comparing us to animals...
Humans ARE animals in fact. Humans as a species protect the youngest of the species and the pregnant. The is one of the reasons humanity does so well compared to other animals.
Do they? rats and mice and a host of other animals seem to do quite well.... Humans allegedly can think......that makes them different from animals....they can think and choose.... Again since you didn't address it the first time: You're squirming, you did NOT originally state "in a disaster"....and in a disaster women can take care of themselves as well as anyone else, they are NOT children. No one has a moral responsibility to protect pregnant women or anyone else. BTW, we are not animals and some animals eat their young so maybe you want to quit comparing us to animals...
Yes. Dogs can think and choose, as can most animals. 1. I do not mean in a disaster only but in any situation of need. 2. Women are like kids or children who reach teenage and profess self-sufficiency and treat concern for their well-being as an insult like some here do. 3. In order to maintain my own conscience and remain a moral, dignified human; I must continue to honor the living human species. Most do not see this as a moral duty but all of these people, (including most readers of this thread), are less honorable and less intelligent humans. Animal: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation. : any living thing that is not a plant : a person who behaves in a wild, aggressive, or unpleasant way
I totally agree on the part of human being an animal. It is in fact true that we are nothing but very aggressive and intelligent apes. To think of ourselves as anything superior to animals is rather cocky and overconfident. There is absolutely no need to hide or be shy about this fact.
Let me help you take abortion, as an issue, off the table: The courts have decided that a woman has a "right" to an abortion. Okay, you're stuck with it barring a constitutional amendment and that is not going to happen. OTOH... The argument the woman has it is that is her body and her baby. Fine. Women ought to stop looking at the man to be merely a financial revenue generating resource and a sperm donor. My view is simple: Your body, your baby, your problem. If the woman has the sole burden of supplying the baby its needs, she will not engage in sex when the consequences outweigh the pleasures of sex.
Yes, women will engage in sex , just like all other humans, they always have and always will. If the woman doesn't have the means to supply the baby's needs then someone else has to unless you think babies should just be thrown out... The woman doesn't demand the father pay, the LAW does.......it helps keep costs down for taxpayer's...
This is why I no longer respond to him. I don't debate the intellectually challenged, it wouldn't be a fair fight.
Why does the government pay for the bad behavior of individuals? If the woman was facing the prospect that the baby might be taken from her and given to a family that wanted to adopt, she would think twice before engaging in such activity. Telling the man he's nothing more than the sperm donor and financial generating resource for the woman is no less than stealing from the men. Make the women accountable for "their" property and you'll see a drop in the number of abortions. Problem solved.
Your right to consent cannot be waved or denied unless you've committed a crime. If Arkansas makes it a crime for pregnant women to allow their unborn fetuses to develop heart beats, the women of Arkansas will be subject to much worse than merely being denied access to elective abortion. Police could randomly force pregnant women to get checked to determine if their fetus have heart beats. Upon detection of a fetal heart beat all pregnant women will become criminals which means they can be arrested and incarcerated until they give birth.
http://baby2see.com/development/week6.html The embryo has reached a size of about 8 mm (1/4 inch) in length. The spinal cord, which until now has been open, is beginning to close. The first blood cells and blood vessels are developing. Blood moves through these primitive vessels connected to the yolk sac. A pipe-shaped heart is formed and begins to beat. The brain begins to divide into 5 parts. Optic pits form the start of the developing eye. The cells destined to be the arms and legs are in place OMG...TheNightFly... What a warped, illogical nightmare twisted out of written law. There is no such crime in Act 301. The illogical nightmare you described is not quite an idiotic fraud but most definitely is not true and an attempt to mislead readers. Arkansas prohibits licensed doctors from professionally assisting pregnant women with ending gestation after allowing unborn fetuses to develop heart beats after 12-weeks. The "right to consent" is not a fundamental right per the Supreme Court already but is a qualified right and this is obvious to most humans. The fundamental right to "free speech" allows anyone to call autonomy a "right to consent". This "right" is like an on-ramp yield sign. Yes; You may proceed into the highway but there is no duty for the traffic flowing there already to make way for you. Failure to decide to complete gestation or end gestation is a, de facto, decision to complete gestation after 12-weeks of gestation pass. It is NEVER a crime for a doctor to assist with halting gestation! The doctor would lose their license to practice IF the Arkansas Medical Board felt this assistance violated Act 301.
No, It is against the law (Act 301) to kill a fetus at 12-weeks. This law does not make it a criminal act for doctors or pregnant women to abort gestation prior to 12-weeks but makes a regulation for doctors proscribing killing any fetus with a heartbeat after 12-weeks gestation. The regulation of doctors aborting gestation after 12-weeks is losing the State issued license to practice medicine, as required to abort gestation anytime. Women who kill a fetus by driving to another less honorable State or country and hiring a doctor to kill the fetus commit no statutory crime per Act 301. The eternal punishment for this fetal-killing is obvious and yet may still be forgiven.
Then Arkansas law is wrong for protecting the lives of unborn criminals against the rights of their maternal victims. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know. It seems obvious to me that it should be otherwise there would be no right to privacy and no protections from theft, assault, rape, or involuntary blood and organ donations. The problem is that there is no rational standard of secular ethics upon which our laws are based. State and federal laws are numerous and arbitrary and make excessive and unnecessary distinctions to suit the special interests of their authors resulting in ridiculous double standards. Lawmakers just make things up as they go- whatever sounds nice. That's why the Supreme Court is never unanimous, always divided. "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -Thomas Jefferson
Unborn criminals....? Maternal victims...? What about crop circles and aliens...? The.right to privacy is a highly qualified. Blood type or alcohol content and DNA are less qualified but even these private things are not absolute. I mostly agree but expect unanimous update to Roe within less than one year. What do the retired Chairman of the Board of DuPont Chemical Corporation, the first black assemblyman in the history of the State of California, one of the co-founders of the NAACP, the first black tenured faculty member of any college in America, the first black woman ever to graduate from Vassar College, and a judge appointed by President George Bush, all have in common? They are all direct descendants of the slave children of Thomas Jefferson. Many people have heard the story that President Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the founding fathers of the United States of America, produced children from his slaves. Is this story really true, and what happened to the children? Http://anusha.com/slaves.htm Thomas Jefferson owned 187+ human slaves for most of his life.
