The significance of rights.

English comprehension lacking again, please do show me where I say anything about late term abortions, I said "they just create more later term abortions.", not LATE term abortions

 

How do you know waiting period laws don't discourage women from having abortions?

 

This has been answered and directed to you so many many many times....it is very strange that you keep repeating that statement.

Just because YOU don't have to give up 9 months of your life to discomfort, pain, medical appointments, loss of work hours, loss of study hours, medical bills, possible job loss doesn't mean anyone else should have to do it because YOU say so........
I now know why you have "EGO' in your ID... look up "EGO-CENTRIC

 

A woman's possible job loss is not as important as a fetus.

 

Ye, a job is more important than any fetus...it's how a person supports themeselves...maybe you're independently wealthy and don't need the money but NORMAL people do.


Your ego-centricity is only matched in size by the tremendous amount of ignorance concerning pregnancy.


PS: I think anything and everything is more important than a fetus and your opinion.

 

I don't want to be pregnant nor endure childbirth nor give up the time required for recovery from childbirth. I don't want to give up that year of my life that it would require.

 

As said before, and by others, you are like a child on a merry-go-round, every few revolutions you pipe up with the same questions which have been answered repeatedly.


Here is a interesting little bit of information, Republican Jessica Farrar commentated on the Texas 24 hour waiting period just after she decided to file papers to repel it stated - "“It’s just ridiculous that we do things to women to manipulate their minds instead of trusting that they already have made a very difficult decision,” state Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, the chairwoman of the caucus, said Wednesday at a news conference. “For a body that does not want to expand Medicaid today … we are doing everything we can to increase those Medicaid numbers with the policies that are in opposition to women’s health.”, - http://www.texastribune.org/2013/03/06/representative-seeks-repeal-abortion-restriction/ - she cited the following report as evidence that waiting periods DO not effect the decisions of women. - http://www.utexas.edu/cola/orgs/txpep/

 

Some male Pro-Lifer's don't take this into consideration that being the TOLL a pregnancy takes upon the female body.

Way I feel is Morning After and Plan B should be readily and easily available for all females of any age and paid for by National Healthcare.

If for some reason a female waits too long then an abortion should be done asap as having an abortion done while all that exists is a clump of cells in the uterine wall is much more preferable from a moral standpoint than to wait many weeks into a pregnancy.

AboveAlpha

 

For the most agree with you .. but there will be times when the female will be unable to get the MA or Plan B, possibly due to the 'religious' convictions of her parents who very well may be stopping her doing so.

There also needs to be a comprehensive overhaul of the sex education policies for some states, it should be a federal mandate that comprehensive sex education is part of the school curriculum .. personally that would fall under the "duty to protect and care" of the federal government.

 

Why are religious people against contraceptives (not in general, but in the situation that you are describing in the comment above.)?

 

Because they think the knowledge and availability of contraceptives encourages young people to have sex (ignoring thousands of years of human history when young people had sex despite lack of contraceptives), and they want young women to maintain purity until marriage.

 

Why do you think that Christians/pro lifers are against contraception, because they want women to suffer pregnancy as a punishment for having premarital sex?

 

Yes....as many Anti-Choicers have stated....

 

I don't necessarily oppose reasonable waiting periods (e.g. a 24 hour waiting period between a doctor confirming pregnancy and a woman actually obtaining an abortion could be reasonable even though the woman might know she was pregnant well before then). She should have time to consider her options and not be coerced into making a decision. I don't oppose a doctor providing expert medical advice related to both pregnancy and abortion either as the woman should be informed.

What I do object to are nefarious attempts to violate the Rights of the Woman by circumventing the Constitution. For example in Texas they passed an "anti-abortion" law that exclusively targeted abortion facilities designed to force their closure. The "Republicans" cited the "woman's safety" related to medical procedures but did not apply that criteria to other medical procedures that carried the identica risks. The Issue was really the dangers related to the use of anesthetics but there is no difference in most cases between the anesthetics used related to abortion and the anesthetics used by a dentist but the law only addressed abortion clinics and not the medical use of anesthetics. It also required "admitting privileges" at a local hospital but did not provide provisions where an abortion doctor could obtain those admitting priviledges nor do those admitting privileges in anyway improve the care of a woman being admittied if there is a problem. Once agian, dentists were not required to meet this requirment even though their patients experience the identical risks.

The Texas "anti-abortion" law was exclusively about closing abortion clinics to deny access to the woman and denial of access equals denial of the Right. The law is nefarious in attempting to circumvent the Constitutionally protected Right of the Woman by denying access,

We also have the "fetal homicide" laws that are nefarious. The woman is the "person" who's Rights are violated by battery or murder and not the "preborn's" which is not a person. Yes, there can and should be additional penalties for a person that commits battery or murder of a pregnant woman because she has a Right to Pregnancy that is being violated but it's the Woman's Rights that are violated because the "preborn" is not a "person" and has no Rights. Only a "person" can be murdered because "murder" is technically the violation of the Right to Life that the Person has.

So there are some reasonable and responsible limitations that can be imposed upon the Woman's Right to have an abortion. In fact Roe v Wade imposed such a limitation by highly restricting the Right of the Woman to have an abortion during the 3rd trimester when the fetus becomes viable. A requirement for objective medical consultation addressing pregnancy and abortion is reasonable (forcing a woman to see an ultrasound scan of the fetus is not) and a limited waiting period for the woman to consider her decision to ensure she is not coercied into making a decision she will ultimately regret is also reasonable,

It can be noted that most women regret becoming pregnant where then choose to have an abortion but few that have an abortion believe it wasn't the right decision for them under the circumstances. Anti-Abortionists like to point to the statistic that states they regret having had an abortion but don't point to the statistics that reflect that they believed it was the right thing to do. They regret becoming pregnant which required them to have an abortion and don't regret the abortion itself.

 

It is interesting that the major religious institution that advocates against contraception is the Catholic Church which is misogynistic in that only men are allowed to hold prositions of power in the Church and determine "Church" policy. On the opposite end I've read that 95% of all Catholic women use female contraception during their lifetime. It appears that the "opinion of the men" is contradicted by the "actions of the women" in the Catholic Church.

We can note that in the Supreme Court decision of Reynolds v United States in 1878 that Court ruled that Freedom of Religion only existed for the Person based upon their personal religious beliefs. Apparently the religious opinion of the vast majority of Catholic women is that contraception is acceptable while the "opinion of the Church" is irrelevant under the US Constitution.

The "Catholic Church" does not have a protected right of Freedom of Religion as Freedom of Religion only applies to the individual and not to religious institutions under the US Constitution.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable+rights the legal definition differs slightly form the one you highlighted. It says individual, not person. Also says the rights granted by the constitution are inalienable. I take this to mean that if the constitution does not mention them and if the state does not have laws concerning it, then it belongs to the people. The 9th and 10th amendments should actually have been one amendment as they are intertwined with each other. At least that is how I understand them. The 9th says laws can not violate other laws. the 10th states powers not granted by the federal government, that do not violate the constitution belong to the state. And those not covered by federal, or state belong to the people, if they do not violate Federal, or State law. In short I read it as this. No law can be made that violates rights given in another law and Any power not specifically mentioned in the Constitution shall be given to the State, as long as it does not violate Federal laws and rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Any right not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, or State laws is granted to the people.
Am I off my rocker in this?

 

They want pregnancy to be a punishment, they want the fear of pregnancy to be a deterrent to choosing sex, and for that to be effective, unwed pregnancy must be shameful and disgraceful. Supposedly, if unwed pregnancy is shameful and disgraceful, young people will not choose to have sex, BUT if they trust in contraceptives and contraceptives are available, they WILL choose to have sex. Therefore, if young people have no contraceptives nor abortion, they will not choose to have sex. Do you believe that?

 

Yet again you ask a question already answered, to you as well as others, tired of repeating the same things to you just to have the same questions raised again in a few weeks.

 

Yes. Contraceptives not being available discourages some people from having sex.

 

How many is "some" ?

Nevermind, you never answer questions......

 

Contraceptives have been available throughout your lifetime, so what is your answer based on? Don't say "research and common sense."

 

No it doesn't, just encourages them to have unprotected sex

 

I can tell you right now that a couple that is hot and heavy in the moment is NOT going to stop just because contraceptives are not available!! LOL!!!

Some uneducated in Human Sexuality young kids think that just pulling out before ejaculation is enough to prevent pregnancy which is totally untrue as pre-seminal fluid is loaded with Sperm Cells.

And in cases where a woman or girl is not taking birth control pills or has an IUD and even if condoms are available for some guy's...and this list includes ME....a condom is almost impossible to get on when I am hard.

The damn thing even if I get it on feels like a tourniquet and cuts blood flow to my penis...EXTREMELY uncomfortable!!

But still....Contraceptives and Contraceptive Education need to be widely available and so does education about Morning After and Plan B.

AboveAlpha

 

Maybe try a bigger size? lol

 

Then why are some Christians against contraceptives?