The End of Abortion in America is Coming Soon

please point out any where in the constitution that the word personhood is even written

 

"Person" as in "personhood" is used many times while "human" as in when "human life" begins isn't used at all.

 

I'm worried about the women and their inability to control themselves. Stupid liberal sloganeering about letting women have control over their own bodies when they clearly don't has cost the lives of million of babies. Congrats.

 

Fine, go ahead and worry, just don't try to take away their right to their own body.

Just because you think women are stupid animals doesn't mean they really are.

They have as much control as men.....


....and "no babies" lives are lost in an abortions.

 

Once again, you try and make your case with unsubstantiated assertions coupled with your usual supposition and conjecture. In other words, SHOW THE READING AUDIENCE THE EXACT NUMBER OF DEATHS AND SUICIDES RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS PERFORMED IN AMERICA. Please use valid, objective documentation.

THEN LIST THE NUMBER OF DEATHS AND SUICIDES DUE TO STANDARD MEDICAL PROCEDURES (SURGERY) AND FDA APPROVED AND DOCTOR PRESCRIBED MEDICATIONS.

Once again, you falsely accuse those who oppose your viewpoint of something where there is no evidence to support that allegation.

AND ONCE AGAIN, YOU AVOID ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

1. Are YOU going to ban contraception for anyone 18 years and older? How will you enforce that?
2. Are YOU going to provide jobs for all the unwanted children born later in life?
3. Are YOU going to provide living wage jobs for all the teenage women to support them raising their unwanted kids?
4. Are YOU going to vote for an increase in welfare/assistance programs for all above mentioned folks?
5. Are YOU going to advocate a "property of the military" law for all these unwanted children born?
6. EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR THESE WOMEN AND TO BE BORN CHILDREN ONCE YOU TOTALLY OUTLAW ABORTIONS?
7. Are you going to legally penalize men for NOT wearing condoms when they have sex out of wedlock, or are "poor" yet married and having kids?

 

So in your mindset, it's up to YOU to "control" women that YOU deem incapable of self determination because they CHOOSE BY ALL LEGAL RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY to do something that YOU don't like BUT DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR LIFE IN THE LEAST!

No one died and left you God.

And I notice you have NOTHING to say about all they men who seem to have the inability to control themselves by impregnating these women. Hell, you have NOTHING to say about the medical community ENABLING these men to exercise their right NOT to control themselves (i.e., Viagra and other e.d. drugs).

That makes YOU a hypocrite of the highest caliber.

And when are YOU going to exercise some intellectual honesty and answer the following questions?


1. Are YOU going to ban contraception for anyone 18 years and older? How will you enforce that?
2. Are YOU going to provide jobs for all the unwanted children born later in life?
3. Are YOU going to provide living wage jobs for all the teenage women to support them raising their unwanted kids?
4. Are YOU going to vote for an increase in welfare/assistance programs for all above mentioned folks?
5. Are YOU going to advocate a "property of the military" law for all these unwanted children born?
6. EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR THESE WOMEN AND TO BE BORN CHILDREN ONCE YOU TOTALLY OUTLAW ABORTIONS?
7. Are you going to legally penalize men for NOT wearing condoms when they have sex out of wedlock, or are "poor" yet married and having kids?

 

I see that you have no concern or compassion for the lives of the unborn and that any further exchanges would be unproductive.

 

IOW, you won't answer because you know I have a point you can't refute. I understand.

 

I didn't label you as either.

Does the rapist have to give consent to be killed while raping his/her victim, because that is what you are suggesting.
Does the man/woman who kills another who is attempting to kill a third person have to get consent to do so?

The ability to feel pain has nothing to do with whether abortion should or should not be legal at any time, the ability to feel pain of the rapist has no bearing on the victims right to defend themselves against non-consented injuries, even if the person causing the pain is mentally incompetent ie does not comprehend that what they are doing is injuring another person, it does not mean they have free reign to do so, the person being injured against their consent can still defend themselves against a person who has no comprehension of (or even intent to cause) the injuries they are causing.

So the reality is that the consent of the fetus is not required to end it's life for it is the fetus that is causing the injuries to the female without her consent, even though the fetus is not aware of or can comprehend the injuries it is inflicting onto an unwilling person.

What the majority feel is moral and right has no bearing on the legal reality .. in order for the fetus to be legally allowed to continue to injure a female without her consent the courts MUST over ride one of the founding principles of the US .. the principle of equal protection.

By what right do the courts have to allow a fetus to impose injuries onto an unwilling person when it actively stops all other persons doing exactly the same thing, basically the equal protection clause means that the state CANNOT give a right to one set of people that it does not give to ALL people, if as so many pro-life people assert that the unborn are full persons then the state cannot give them any more rights than it does to any other born person, to do so would create a class of people over and above what all others are and be in direct violation of the equal protections clause.

 

You do realise that pain is as much a psychological thing as physical thing don't you, one cannot know what pain is until one has experienced it . .what pain does a fetus experience prior to an abortion that would give it the knowledge of the pain felt during an abortion?

Assuming you have never been strangled, please tell me what the pain of being strangled feels like?

One persons rights do not trump another persons rights, unless one of those persons is being violated against the consent .. which one of the female and the fetus is being violated against their consent first please?

What you are trying to do is to change the very principle of what consent it and what it means.

 

Whether the fetus is treated as a full human being with all of the rights associated with that status will not change the reality that as a person it cannot inflict injuries onto another person, whether mentally incompetent or not, without consent .. that is the fundamental principle that underpins the illegality of rape and assault each of them are acts committed without the consent of the person the act is being committed upon.

 

Sorry for any confusion I might have about the point you are making. I'm new to this forum and it's tough to keep multiple conversations going. The last forum I joined all they did was insult each other, needless to say I didn't stay there very long. I am absolutely interested in discussing issues like abortion. Though, when I take a position I am not easily swayed against it, so I defend it.

You would have to remind me of the post I didn't address.

Your position on a woman's right to end a baby's (fetus as you see it) life is a bit extreme. I have not entered the debate in this thread without thinking things through with respect to abortion. A woman is not all powerful when she gets pregnant. Her feelings are not the only determining factor. This may be an unjust price of being a woman but non the less it is a price women must face if they are sexually active. I do not take the position I have without respect for a woman's rights. Any and all kinds of human life should be subject to a reasoning process when determining a position of ending the life. My position is that of an equal rights point in the formation of a baby. Your position seems to be a denial of rights to a life form that is as I have stated aware of itself. Brain activity to the basic survival instincts of pain. Also pain for a determinable factor of an abortion creates an equal position with respect to a woman.

What is acceptable for me does matter because I am a registered voter and I will weigh my voting decision on what morals a candidate has. Also, if I choose, I can join protests to effect law change. Though, I do not wish to do so, seeing as science has not come to an unbiased conclusion of when a baby can feel pain.

 

You do realize some of those pro-choicers will choose to abort?

 

"""A woman is not all powerful when she gets pregnant. Her feelings are not the only determining factor. This may be an unjust price of being a woman but non the less it is a price women must face if they are sexually active."""



There is, sooner than later...what every Anti-Choicer always comes down to ....punishing the woman for having sex.


And just because YOU say a fetus is "aware of itself" just doesn't make it true.....and it doesn't matter anyway....it could be in there singing Ol' Man River and doing a tap dance and it still is the woman's right to kill it.


And if you want to be a One Issue Voter(total ignorance in my opinion) fine but the Anti-Choice party hasn't made abortion illegal yet and it WON'T because it gets certain people to vote for it by having an Anti-Choice platform........it's quite the gimmick for getting votes

 

No more extreme than ending the life of any other person who seriously injuries you without consent .. I take it by your stance that you do not support the right of self-defence?

Whether it is only females who can become pregnant or not is not relevant to the equal protection clause, or are you suggesting that females should be treated differently by the state due to their gender?

Every person has the right to life until in exercising that right they infringe upon another person rights to the extent they seriously injure that person .. personally I find the whole idea of the right to life a whole load of nonsense, life only has as much value as another places upon it and that is a fact true for every person .. including you.

 

Moral laws have been made with respect to abortion. I'm sure the legality of them are a bit above my head but I will give my opinion nontheless.

If a child is repeatedly striking the mother causing pain, should the mother be allowed to strike the child back? The answer is no. Why? Because the mothers forcefull strike would cause much more injury to the child than the pain caused by the child. This principal can be used with respect to being pregnant. If a baby (or fetus as you see it) is causing unwanted pain to the woman. Does the woman have the right to end the baby's life? The answer is no. Why? Because her solution is unjust. What abortion does is end a life. Unless the woman's life is in jeopardy the attack or harm caused by the baby should be weighed against all options. It seems that you are talking about much later in the pregnancy than what my position on abortion is representing. In the case of the first 8 to 28 weeks the woman wound not receive significant pain other than the discomfort of sickness. If at a later time the baby causes significant pain the woman may have medical options to elevate the pain. Let's be honest here, the woman may not consent to the baby's effects on her body, this however does not constitute a life threatening situation. If it does I would refer to a doctors decision on how to proceed.

I believe your point about the equal protection clause is a misrepresentation of rights given to a baby. Under the law one can stop aggretion or harm depending on situational principals. An example would be if someone attacked you with a knife then stopped while you had a gun. Once they have stopped you no longer have the right to shoot them. In effect you look for other options to protect yourself. Such is the same for a baby inside a woman. If the baby causes harm then stops the woman could not get an abortion later. Reasoning being her life is not at stake but the baby's is. Now, one could go to an abortion clinic and wait for pain, then say to the doctor I'm not sure if this will threaten my life. So, the doctor performs the abortion. This, I believe, would be impossible to convince a jury that it was not premeditated murder.

 

When a woman becomes pregnant her immune system is compromised, her heart rate is affected and following is a list of the damage pregnancy does or can do, some temporary and some permanent..

WHO are YOU to decide what is significant pain or call pregnancy " discomfort of sickness ""??????

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
•exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
•altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
•nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
•heartburn and indigestion
•constipation
•weight gain
•dizziness and light-headedness
•bloating, swelling, fluid retention
•hemmorhoids
•abdominal cramps
•yeast infections
•congested, bloody nose
•acne and mild skin disorders
•skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
•mild to severe backache and strain
•increased headaches
•difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
•increased urination and incontinence
•bleeding gums
•pica
•breast pain and discharge
•swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
•difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
•inability to take regular medications
•shortness of breath
•higher blood pressure
•hair loss or increased facial/body hair
•tendency to anemia
•curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
•infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
•extreme pain on delivery
•hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
•continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
•stretch marks (worse in younger women)
•loose skin
•permanent weight gain or redistribution
•abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
•pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
•changes to breasts
•increased foot size
•varicose veins
•scarring from episiotomy or c-section
•other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
•increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
•loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
•higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
•newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)

Occasional complications and side effects:
•complications of episiotomy
•spousal/partner abuse
•hyperemesis gravidarum
•temporary and permanent injury to back
•severe scarring requiring later surgery
(especially after additional pregnancies)
•dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
•pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
•eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
•gestational diabetes
•placenta previa
•anemia (which can be life-threatening)
•thrombocytopenic purpura
•severe cramping
•embolism (blood clots)
•medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
•diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
•mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
•serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
•hormonal imbalance
•ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
•broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
•hemorrhage and
•numerous other complications of delivery
•refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
•aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
•severe post-partum depression and psychosis
•research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
•research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
•research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:
•peripartum cardiomyopathy
•cardiopulmonary arrest
•magnesium toxicity
•severe hypoxemia/acidosis
•massive embolism
•increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
•molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease
(like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
•malignant arrhythmia
•circulatory collapse
•placental abruption
•obstetric fistula
More permanent side effects:
•future infertility
•permanent disability
•death.











The fetus does NOT stop causing harm.....ever....some effects of pregnancy are permanent...

You think women should be FORCED to suffer all that because they had sex !?!.........what century are you living in?

 

Actually there are no moral laws enacted with respect to abortion.

In the situation you have defined, the female has other options to stop the injuries occurring, she can, for example, restrain the child without causing the child injury .. no such option exists when she is pregnant, she cannot ask the fetus (the correct term for the unborn) to stop, she cannot remove herself from the situation, her only option is to remove the fetus from the situation and that more often than not leads to it's death. Furthermore under some states self-defence laws, called stand you ground laws, the person being attacked has no obligation to remove themselves.

It is a common misunderstanding that a person can only use deadly force in self-defence when their life is in immediate danger, that is not the case .. serious injury and loss of liberty also are justified reasons to use deadly force. Pregnancy is already deemed a serious injury in some cases even when the pregnancy is also a normal pregnancy - At least two states have pregnancy listed as a serious injury in their criminal codes.

As to using medical options to elevate the pain - if I tie you up and injure you and then treat your injuries so as you do not feel pain any more .. does that mean you cannot defend yourself? Pain relief does not stop the injuries from occurring and that is the main objective of self-defence .. to stop any further injuries as soon as possible. There are also injuries that no level of medical help can fix .. increase in hormonal levels by up to 400%, increase in blood pressure by up to 15%, suppression of the local immune system, re-routing of the circulatory system, a new organ grown in the body and the displacement of organs within the body .. the medical "cure" for those is abortion.

The individual injuries that occur during pregnancy are not by themselves justification for deadly force in self-defence, it is the accumulation of those injuries over a sustained period of time that justifies it. If I cut you once with a knife on your arm, that is not justification for you to kill me .. however if I cut you every day for a sustained period of time then you DO have justification in using deadly force to stop me.

There is no misrepresentation, the equal protection clause is very clear in that it stops the state from giving a right to a group of people that it does not give to all people .. ALL born people have the right to defend themselves, up to and including deadly force, if another person attacks them without consent so why should it be different for a fetus . .that is like saying it is ok for white people to defend themselves against black people, but black people cannot defend themselves against white people.

Your example again falls short, look up stand your ground laws. What you are advocating is the Duty to Retreat, please explain how it is possible for a pregnant woman to retreat from the fetus? Where ever she goes the fetus goes with her. The only reason a person would not be justified in killing someone who attacked and injured them with a knife is if the attacker suddenly turned tail and ran away . .even then the victim can shoot them as the run away, what they cannot do is follow them and shoot them later, that is revenge and is not justified. If the attacker just stops and stands their you are still justified in shooting them.

 

See folks, this dancing pachyderm avoids the FACT that I logically demonstrated the sheer hypocrisy of his previous statement, and then he STILL avoids 7 simple questions.

 

Your 7 questions are stupid questions. None of them are justification for abortion.

1. Are YOU going to ban contraception for anyone 18 years and older? How will you enforce that?
2. Are YOU going to provide jobs for all the unwanted children born later in life?
3. Are YOU going to provide living wage jobs for all the teenage women to support them raising their unwanted kids?
4. Are YOU going to vote for an increase in welfare/assistance programs for all above mentioned folks?
5. Are YOU going to advocate a "property of the military" law for all these unwanted children born?
6. EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR THESE WOMEN AND TO BE BORN CHILDREN ONCE YOU TOTALLY OUTLAW ABORTIONS?
7. Are you going to legally penalize men for NOT wearing condoms when they have sex out of wedlock, or are "poor" yet married and having kids?


1. Why would we ban contraceptives? Abortion is not a contraceptive.
2. This assumes that children are unwanted. That is not in my lexicon. Liberals like to say that no human is illegal. But, I guess to them they are unwanted and therefore must die.
3. These are economic questions. Yes, I will provide for every last one of them personally. See why it is a dumb question. How do I know which people are the ones that were supposed to have been aborted?
4. No. Welfare is bad. It creates dependency. What this has to do with abortion is anyone's guess.
5. Huh? WTH?
6. They will get to enjoy their lives. That is my plan.
7. Yes. It's called child support.

 

""""" Liberals like to say that no human is illegal""""""



Where DO you get this stuff?

 

Child support happens in cases of divorce or if the woman takes said father to court and wins.. As I pointed out earlier, the vast majority of welfare recipients are single, white females with a child. Many either want nothing to do with the father or vice versa. So are you going to expand the federal laws to FORCE men who impregnate but won't marry to support these children? Or are you going to financially penalize men who have impregnated multiple women because he refused to wear a condom? See, if you're going to pass invasive laws, you might as well go all the way or not at all.


After much stalling, it seems you've got nothing but rhetoric and a sheer contradiction of your ideology.

 

I'd like to reply to you but your misuse of the quotation feature makes it impossible for me to respond, and has been reported as well.

Allow me to say that the morning after pill is not a contraceptive.

 

The morning after pill (Plan B) is most definitely a contraceptive. It's emergency contraception.

 

LOL! Great sidestep!

Maybe you can sidestep the question I asked a while back....or is that too inconvenient also?