There is no right to have an abortion

I'm sorry but it is obvious that you have not spent a great deal of time researching abortion and the implications of assigning personhood status to the unborn.

Innocences is not a standard as to whether a person losses the right to defend themselves, a mentally incompetent person is deemed as innocent, they do not have the capability to understand right or wrong, that in no way abridges your right to defend yourself if they are injuring you, and legally the fertilized ovum is the entity that turns a non-pregnant woman into a pregnant one, in fact it is the ONLY entity that can achieve this.

The rights of the female and the fetus are equal, just as the restrictions they both have to abide by are equal. The fetus CANNOT assume permission has been given to it to maintain pregnancy in order to sustain it's own life, that permission must be freely given by the woman .. There is no other situation where the state or law can force one person to sustain the life of another without consent .. none, zero, nil.

If you want to read the whole argument concerning this and other things concerning abortion, including citations of law and court decisions then here it is - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html

a further argument can be found here - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/390819-choice-consent-cont.html

now you may not agree with me ... however I suggest you read the links offered as they would give you a far better understanding of the position I hold and as such would give you a better opportunity to dispute.

 

Again you are wrong, it is not illegal to harm a child when that child is injuring you, what is required is the proportion of harm in relation to the injure received, a woman or man can use numerous other means to stop the child injuring them, such as withdrawing from the situation, non-lethal force, or removing the child from the situation, a pregnant woman has no such options, her only recourse to stop herself being injured is by the use of deadly force, of course this only applies if the unborn have equal rights to all others, if they do not then the female has every right to do as she pleases.

This is the problem pro-lifers have, if they get their way and the unborn are declared persons under the law with all the protections associated with that status then they also MUST abide by the restrictions of that status just as all other people do .. one of those restrictions is that it cannot be assumed that consent is given based on prior actions, it could be argued that implied consent or informed consent has been given .. however, implied and/or informed consent would only exist to the point that the person, by word or action, says "no", as soon as that happens then implied and/or informed consent becomes moot. Once that implied etc consent has been removed the female is within her rights to use what ever force is necessary to stop herself being injured by a third party, and the state has a duty of care to help her achieve that result.

The innocences of the unborn is irrelevant, guilt and innocences relate to the mens rea or intent of the person, that only applies in the context of whether the law can prosecuted them and has no bearing on the right of others to defend themselves should they receive non-consented injuries. eg. If you are being injured by a mentally incompetent person they are innocent in the eyes of the law ie they cannot be prosecuted, but it does not stop you defending yourself up to and including deadly force id required.

 

Problem is you are of the assumption that deadly force can only be justified in life or death situations, that is not the case.

As far as I am aware there are few people who say the unborn have no rights, even the USA abortion laws indicate that the unborn have a certain amount of rights .. however, those rights do not include the right to use another persons body without their consent. To allow the unborn that right places them above all other people, no other person has the right to use another persons body to sustain their life without consent.

The Dred Scott ruling has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, in fact slavery has nothing to do with abortion .. the abortion issue rests on whether the state can force a person to sustain the life of another person without their consent, nothing more .. I ask you do you think the state should have that right?

So do I.

Then support her right to consent to who, what, where and when her body is used by another.

You cannot defend the liberty of one group while ignoring the liberty of another group.

Again this assertion that the use of deadly force is only justified in life or death situations, that simply is not correct.

That is a complete and utter misrepresentation, 6 of the top 10 states with the highest teenage pregnancies are state with predominately abstinence only sex education, there are reports of teenage girls who did not know they could get pregnant the first time they had sex, or could still get pregnant while menstruating.

Sex education when coupled with free at source contraceptions of all types has been proven to dramatically reduce the cases of unintended pregnancies and abortions. The biggest problem with contraception is human error, so why not provide contraception that does not require human intervention, such as IUD's for which the typical usage failure rate is 0.8% compared to the 18% typical usage failure rate of condoms.

There are certainly teenage girls who don't know they can get pregnant the first time they have sex and research has shown that teens under abstinence only sex education programs are less likely to use contraception when they do have sex for the first time.

Of course abortion kills, the question is whether that killing is justified or not, in my opinion it is.

The "problem" lasts for the whole period of the pregnancy, she is being injured throughout the whole term of the pregnancy and that is a medical and scientific fact, add to this that no person is expected to suffer injuries without their consent.

The median age of sexual initiation among Americans is 17 and the average age of marriage is 25.8 for women and 27.4 for men. This age difference clearly indicates a long time between sexual onset and marriage. In a major, nationally representative survey, 95 percent of adult respondents, ages 18 through 44, reported that they had sex before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81 percent reported having had premarital sex - Finer L. Trends in premarital sex in the United States, 1954-2003. Public Health Reports, 2007; 23: 73. - http://www.publichealthreports.org/issueopen.cfm?articleID=1784

There is only one person to blame for the increase in divorces in the USA and that is Ronald Reagan, he was the first governor to sign a no fault divorce law, coming into effect on January 1, 1970, as this chart shows divorce rates increased dramatically after 1970 (3 year prior to Roe)

I disagree, one only has to look at the countries where abortion is illegal to see that they do not value human life to the same extent as the USA and other countries.

There is no relationship between the two what so ever, your comment equates to a slippery slope fallacy.

 

Vasectomies are not required any more, there is a far less intrusive and far easier reversible method called VasGel - http://www.newmalecontraception.org/vasalgel/

 

It sounds good on paper, but how many men are going to get a shot in the groin? Men who are responsible enough to use this type contraception are probably the types who take responsibility for the children they produce--whether wanted or unwanted. It is the hundreds of millions of men who are having sex, and who do not care if the woman gets pregnant or not; and if she does get pregnant, do not take responsibility.

I am a firm believer of world-wide population control. Maybe a forced injection of that stuff when the male is 12-15 y.o. would work. Imagine the stock price of Vasgel if this were to happen.

 

OK, I started to read the arguments you posted in 2014.

Almost out of the gate, your commentary states that the unborn are persons.

My puzzle is how you conclude a natural event, to wit: child bearing, is an injury?

And since you believe a woman is injured, this by extension says every pregnant woman was injured. There is an injury when you cut a finger with a knife in the kitchen but you don't solve this by cutting off the finger nor throwing away the knife.

Since the unborn is a person, per your argument, it should get protections afforded persons.

And last, this alleged injury is self induced unless the woman is the victim of unwilling sex. For instance, I doubt we call it rape when she consented to coitus but in the middle simply changed her mind and told the male to instantly stop. She may not have considered getting pregnant when she consented then suddenly was super frightened and calls off the coitus.

So, I don't stop at simply rape, but also include changes of heart by her.

I wanted to get back before I read all the technical argument but I appreciate you showing it to me.

 

You: "" My puzzle is how you conclude a natural event, to wit: child bearing, is an injury?

Aging is also natural and has LOTS of bad side effects.



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.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

I want to deal with just those items.

This site states the ovum has a life of 24 hours. Thus a woman can get pregnant for 1 day of the month.

http://www.parents.com/getting-pregnant/ovulation/fertile-days/pregnant-period/

By sex education, I don't mean education to explain both the human body plus what it takes to get pregnant.

I am talking of the passing out of protection devices to the boys. I don't think schools yet have permission to implant an IUD in the teen girl but perhaps in the future if Democrats get their way.

Making it very easy to have sex, and as taught by Democrats, sex with no guilt, (which is how it should be for the married who made contractual commitments) is a problem.

Parents do not, for I hope, the majority of parents, don't send children to school to learn how to be engaged in sex. This for teens often leads not to committed relationships, but to promiscuity. I recall back in my teen years, prior to Roe v Wade and prior to birth control, condoms were available. Drugstores typically sold them to married men or women. I am sure teen boys would buy them as well. But the mood of the public that I experienced but it seems to me, that you never have, was that kids wait to be married first. This was the very common mood of the public of the USA.

Was Reagan at fault for divorce as you claim? I recall when No Fault began.

Prior to that, divorce had to include one of the two parties essentially being charged in a court of law for some sort of crime. Adultery was one of them.

Back prior to this, it was somewhat common to get a Quickie divorce by driving to Nevada. Reagan was the Governor who signed the law, but bear in mind it was our CA congress that created the law.

To blame just Reagan for a beneficial law strikes me as vindictive, as if your desire be that charges by one party against the other party is the correct solution to divorce. Attorneys made more money with the Fault divorces, than the no fault divorces. I imagine they objected to the more easy way out. Yet even with the change, divorce was not quick as in the Nevada Quicky divorce, but lingered for a period of 6 months or more. During that no fault divorce, one still was served with papers to show up in court. One found the court interceding with issues of child custody as to who got the kids, with the court forcing the parties to show up at a local county site to be interrogated over who best to handle the children and pay for their care.

Then a return to court to establish money damages for one of the two parties to collect.

Testimony was obtained to check the validity of things such as proof of income, proof of bank and savings accounts.

All in all it was never then nor today a form you simply checked saying you are no longer married. The process was also emotional and draining on finances.

For instance, in my first no fault divorce, obtained by my then wife, I went through hell. It did not feel as if Reagan had made it easy on me. My lawyer told me to my face to cool making money. I was on commission so could almost kill my income. He said his job was to make me seem poor or a dead beat to the Judge to save me from paying a lot more to the ex wife who by the way abandoned me with a boyfriend she located at her job. She proceeded to use our credit cards to fix up his car, including putting new tires on it and other repairs and taking a vacation at my expense as it turns out, to other states. She was then the VP of the company so she used her authority to sign checks to drain the bank accounts and convert them to her personal account. My lawyer said I could not prevent this. And she had no mercy.

You may think she had a justified reason but I assure you she was committing adultery and I had not. I was faithful to her during the marriage.

Anyway, I felt that your blaming Reagan for how my wife did me and other people's treatment of a spouse they intended to make an ex spouse did not explain the law as signed by Reagan.

 

OK, so your definition of injury stands for side effects?

Funny that I have fathered two daughters yet do not recall the doctors ever saying to me or the two wives that they got injured.

Seems they would have been treated for the injury were it there.

Actually both wives were extremely happy. The joy of having children is hard to overstate.

My girls are precious to me and real joys of my life.

Who thought I was injuring the two women.

Bad me.

By the way, mom #1 is coasting to death with alzheimers.
mom #2 was lost to the Pacific Ocean when she lived on one of the Hawaiian islands.

 

I realize laws vary from country to country.

I personally am not qualified to speak about your laws. If you have a constitution, I have yet to study it. I never lived there. I have lived in the USA for most of 77 years with time out to live in Germany while in the Army. I can't really explain German laws on this topic either.

Maybe you can explain this to me.

Being a citizen of Australia, are you automatically also a citizen of the UK?

 

Disingenuous deflection. Children cannot be "deadbeats". RO was only referring to the costs of raising them as children. Assuming that is for 18 years then the cumulative cost will be $855 billion. From there onwards it would be another $900 billion every decade.

Why should the American taxpayers be subsidizing your theist beliefs to the tune of trillions of dollars?

 

The doctor should have warned your wife of the more common of these risks when she was pregnant. I know my wife's doctor warned her. When a woman wants a child she will happily accept those risks (as your experience confirms).

If you really believe the fetus is a person with equal rights to any other person, then the law cannot allow the fetus to impose on the rights of the mother without her express permission, which she may withdraw at any time.

You must recognize at some instinctive level that it would be wrong to elevate the rights of the fetus above the rights of the people who have already be born. Would you really be comfortable if the government decided that it has the right to grab your daughter, and take her to the hospital against her will to donate a lobe of her liver to rescue a fetus in need of liver tissue?

In that scenario, your daughter (or whoever happened to be the best match) loses her rights because the government has decided that the rights of the fetus are paramount. If the government has the right to demand that the pregnant woman has to spend 9 months as an incubator for the sake of the fetus (which is not even a person yet) why would they balk at a few days of discomfort for your daughter to donate a lobe of her liver?

 

My youngest daughter is now 29. My oldest comes in at 49.

If either wife was warned, I never heard of it.

Wife #1 did have a blood Rh negative blood factor.

This explains some of that.

I must add that we were warned it posed a danger to the baby. Fortunately she is living, has 2 sons and enjoys a happy life.

 

If the human was not able to be killed, I entirely side you with what one does to their body. But the human in her is not her body. Her body is what was there prior to pregnancy and following pregnancy.

We have a child in her. A child she took part in creating. I believe in protecting children. I suggest you join me.

 

We were in the habit of having sex even more than once per day. To be frank, We got used to having sex all over the place.

She did not seem to worry.

We were together for a good number of years. The rest of the story is I then went in and got a vasectomy.

 

Translated: "I can't address the facts in this post."

"""""Every effect caused by pregnancy is enough to warrant an injury sufficient for the woman to use her right to self defense IF the fetus is ever deemed A person.



Doctors seldom tell women everything that will happen to their bodies during pregnancy...that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Just because YOU can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.




Well, you may think your two wives were the ONLY women on earth but they aren't.....many women have to be treated when the injuries are severe enough.


The rest is just irrelevant claptrap that has nothing to do with the topic or discussion... """"""

 

You totally ignored Random's post...why? The age of your daughter, how many kids she's had, etc. has NOTHING to do with his post or the topic....

 

Random Observer, by this time, I believe you know me well enough that I took your questions as rhetoric. Not that you really wanted me to answer your posits, but that you desired I understand your views.

And I of course do understand your viewpoint, even respect your viewpoint. I do not respect the hound dog fashion of posting by the guy who got his in a wad because thinks I ignored you.

Even Fugazi has the respect to post in decent fashion.

 

It's NOT her right. We can argue about whether abortion is a good thing in society, the pros and cons of criminalization, but it is not a "right". Women have no rights to it, none, nada, zip.

 

Vasgel has been used for numerous years in certain parts of India with 100% effectiveness. Whether forcing men to use it is the answer is not my decision to make . .however I would certainly advocate for it were elective abortion ever to be made illegal.

 

No worries. When a post contains more than one thought, i sometimes pick one thought and respond to it (or I get interrupted before I can move on to the other thoughts). I can always restate the individual parts. I respect your desire to protect your unborn child, but as men all we can do is try to select a compatible mate and make it clear that we will be there for her and the child. If we use the law to force a woman to carry our children through to birth we are only marginally better than Ariel Castro (the guy who held those women prisoner for years).

Getting back to my earlier "thought experiment"... Do you believe the life of every fetus is so important that the government should be able to "draft" a compatible tissue donor, by force, to save the life of a fetus that needs compatible liver tissue?