There is no right to have an abortion

Look.....I feel for you....I really do.

But it is not your call.

You are the man have absolutely no rights specific to a pregnancy.

It's not your body.

AA

 

Why do I have the right to decide if a fetus in a nearby hospital gets to have a lobe from my liver to survive, but a pregnant woman does not have the right to decide if the fetus inside her gets to use her womb for another 3-4 months to survive?

 

If that is true, then the woman being the biological mother does not give her any rights as well.
She would have only the right to her own body, nothing more, not the fetus.

I've covered this in other threads: Is it really so bad if a man slips a woman an abortion pill?

Women are demanding more than just rights to their own body, they want rights over their fetus as well.
Trying to have their cake and eat it too. Well you can't have both, not if you're going to be logically consistent.

 

Your post is without logic or merit.

If fact it makes no sense at all as you provide absolutely no logic to back your belief.

The human being who is pregnant has the right to either carry the fetus to birth or abort the fetus.

The human being pregnant who is a woman is the ONLY person with rights in this matter and the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with this fact.

AA

 

Roe with the restrictions it allows during later pregnancy also alludes to the person status of the unborn, as does such legislation as the unborn victims of violence acts and as such I have no issue with the unborn being seen to be persons.

The unborn cannot be both a person and natural, the two are opposites, natural means with no influence from mankind, as soon as you assign rights and personhood to the unborn then any action (intentional or not) that they undertake cannot be seen as natural, as it now has been caused, at least in part by human agency.

Correct, every pregnant woman is injured during pregnancy, what is relevant is whether the female consents to those injuries. When you cut your finger with a knife that injury is caused only by you, there is no other party cutting your finger .. if there was you would be within your rights to defend yourself, so unless you are suggesting that the unborn are not persons and as such are not "others" ie they are more like the knife then your analogy doesn't fit.

I have no problem with that .. however, with those protections also come restrictions, one of which is that the unborn cannot assume consent has been given for it to invade the autonomy of another person in order to sustain it's own life. The right to life only exists to the point where exercising that right does not infringe on another persons right to consent.

Wrong, the injuries are not and cannot be self-induced, consenting to sex is not and cannot be consenting to pregnancy. Under the person at conception ideology of pro-lifers the unborn are persons from the moment of conception and as such any consent the female has given to a separate person (the man) for one act (sexual intercourse) cannot be used as proxy consent for another person (the unborn) to perform another act (pregnancy). It is the fertilized ovum than initiates and maintains pregnancy, not the woman, it achieves this by invading the uterine wall, suppressing local immune responses and tapping into her blood supply.

It could be argued that sexually intercourse is implied or informed consent to pregnancy, however implied or informed consent only apply to the point where, by word or action, the female explicitly says "no", from the second that happens implied or informed consent become moot. In general even if a woman can be said to have assumed the risk that a fertilized ovum will harm her, since people are not bound to continue their assumption of risk, neither would she be bound ergo even if we were to apply an assumption of risk analysis to pregnancy it would not entitle a fertilized ovum to harm a woman unless she has consented to that harm.

no problem.

 

Some folks like to toss a lot of Sheis on the wall and try to bark loudly to the point they demand my time to reply to them.

I certainly do agree.

I would not force a woman. But it is possible the law may declare her duty.

I do not approve the Feds doing such a law.

 

Comprehensive sex education does not include handing out protection devices, that comes under birth control and is a separate issue . .though one I actually agree should be undertaken, not only to help decrease unintended pregnancies but also helping protect against STD's

A typical comprehensive sex education program would be as follows;

Teaches that sexuality is a natural, normal, healthy part of life

Teaches that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the most effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV

Provides values-based education and offers students the opportunity to explore and define their individual values as well as the values of their families and communities

Includes a wide variety of sexuality related topics, such as human development, relationships, interpersonal skills, sexual expression, sexual health, and society and culture

Includes accurate, factual information on abortion, masturbation, and sexual orientation

Provides positive messages about sexuality and sexual expression, including the benefits of abstinence

Teaches that proper use of latex condoms, along with water-based lubricants, can greatly reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of unintended pregnancy and of infection with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including HIV

Teaches that consistent use of modern methods of contraception can greatly reduce a couple's risk for unintended pregnancy

Includes accurate medical information about STDs, including HIV; teaches that individuals can avoid STDs

Teaches that religious values can play an important role in an individual's decisions about sexual expression; offers students the opportunity to explore their own and their family's religious values

Teaches that a woman faced with an unintended pregnancy has options: carrying the pregnancy to term and raising the baby, or carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the baby for adoption, or ending the pregnancy with an abortion

I didn't actually say that Reagan was at fault for no fault divorces, I said he was the first governor to sign no fault divorce into law and as such opened up the flood gates, and as can be seen from the graph supplied divorces rapidly increased from 1970.

 

Sexual Education for all boys and girls prior to them having the ability to reproduce is key.

AA

 

Your comments are on post 879 should you need to review.

At the moment, I don't have proper time to both analyze your comments on the fetus being human and natural or not natural. I always saw this as natural. I will put more thought prior to comments though.

Again, you call her getting pregnant an injury. I know of no woman or man that makes that comment.

Frankly both me and my past two wives did not see it like that. Is there a law that declares being pregnant is an injury that you can reference? Maybe in your papers it is there. I still have not yet read it all.

By the way, I sincerely do appreciate a well stated argument and compliment you.

The unborn is not by law capable of inflicting injury is how I believe the law reads.

I would say much of what you state is what I believe. But for the part of the unborn inflicting deliberate injury.

 

Certainly as long as it is age appropriate.

 

Oh, I misunderstood your motive for talking about Reagan.

I believe that the family unit ends up involved once the student engages in sex. Some families may not be aware, but in general there are changes in the children that, unless one is entirely blind or does not care, shows up.

In a perfect world, the girl might not get called a slut. But even today, this is still used a lot. I am sure in some parts of the world, parents lost any will to care about the kids. But this to me is not the normal. Not in this country at least.

It is my view that teens need to quit acting like they are a couple. While when I was a teen, we would see this happen from time to time, far too often she got pregnant and they had the shotgun wedding. If she got lucky the shotguns were white.

Morals are good for society. This means the people have self control.

 

How do you handle it when the teen girl asks her male teacher to go with her and demonstrate the best techniques used for sex?

If she can grant a teen boy sex, by what argument can't she grant it to her teacher?

(bear in mind, I know it is unlawful, but trying to ferret out more of your argument)

 

Well that really is the argument isn't it?

Back in the far past young children would be in a community shelter around the fire where adults would have sex and birth children in front of the whole tribe.

Such things were considered natural and every day.

Now we seem to make such things taboo and age specific.

That ideology is causing much of our problems.

AA

 

I don't need to pick on any poster but I read the above.

For teens, abstinence comes with a ton of advantages. The "clean" teen need not worry about disease. Need not worry his condom will be taken off during coitus. I believe this is fairly common believing the woman won't find out.

She won't get called a slut by her peers. The boy will be more respected for things such as intellect than having plenty of girls give him sex. He won't grow up having abused girls who thought he actually did love them.

Boys are not ready for marriage as teens. Boys are not much aware that girls reputations do matter. Boys too often get praised by somebody. If the girl brags of all the boys she beds with, even girls lose respect.

Boys as teens simply do not have jobs that can pay for the proper care of a family.

Girls end up lonely and alone. Why would I wish to make them bear that cross?

 

The problem is the human reproductive drive supersedes REASON.

You cannot contain it you can only try to direct it.

AA

 

And on that logic, kids stealing from the store is also considered natural.

Teens that have proper schooling, at home or the school, perhaps at church, are more likely than those not so schooled to lead clean living lives.

We end up with far too many citizens held behind bars. Charged for a lot of things.

But to simply tell the teen it is okay to have sex, leads the child down a path they live to regret.

How many slum teens with loads of kids can claim they are enjoying their life?

 

I never said we should tell kid's it's OK to have sex.

What I am saying is no matter how good a kid's upbringing the reproductive drive will trump reason.

So it's best to educate kid's how to prevent pregnancy.

AA

 

Ok.

They don't have to, anything that damages your body is an injury, even surgery is an injury, what is relevant is whether the person consents to that injury. If I allows you to punch me I still get injured .. but I have no legal recourse because it was done with my consent.

To injure is to "do physical harm or damage to (someone).", it only becomes unlawful if it is done without consent.

There are at least two states that deem pregnancy under certain circumstances as a serious injury, the reason you won't see it in most laws is because as it stands the unborn are not seen (fully) as persons and as such cannot injure others.

Nebraska, which defines “serious personal injury” as “great bodily injury or disfigurement, extreme mental anguish or mental trauma, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.” Nebraska’s statute can be read as stating not simply that pregnancy is like a serious personal injury, but rather that pregnancy is a serious personal injury: pregnancy is an injury. Michigan’s statute does the same work, defining “personal injury” as “bodily injury, disfigurement, mental anguish, chronic pain, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.” Case law establishes that pregnancy could be considered a “substantial bodily injury”

no problem.

No, the unborn are more than capable of inflicting injury they just cannot be prosecuted for doing so, they lack the mens rea.

I didn't say the injuries were deliberate, deliberate alludes to intent. The law recognizes that both involuntary and voluntary acts can cause harm and injury to other people and that involuntary characteristic of an action does not give its perpetrator any right to inflict harm or injury. In criminal cases the state itself initiates proceedings against perpetrators to protect the public interest, a person who causes harm through involuntary movement lack the mens rea to be held legally responsible for their behavior, furthermore an act cannot be deemed voluntary when the person is underage, for example, in common law, when children are younger than seven years of age they are presumed to be without criminal capacity, this does not mean it was not recognized that children can harm other people, it was merely that prior to the age of discretion, the law recognizes that youthful defendants did not have the ability "to distinguish between good and evil" and for this reason could not be legally held responsible for their actions, age, therefore, is also a factor much like unconsciousness, insanity, or any other involuntary act.

When people describe the fetus as innocent, therefore, they are recognizing that it is in a category with other human beings, who though they seriously effect the well-being of others, remain innocent of the criminality. The law views such people as the objective cause of their actions, even though they cannot be held legally responsible for them

The fetus's behavior nonetheless falls into that category of action in which the law assigns objective fault even without the presence of conscious intention. In this sense, people can be objectively at fault whether or not they have the mental capacity or requisite knowledge to know that their behavior is criminal - Source : LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law Page 212-213 - In the same way the fetus's behaviour is objectively at fault for causing pregnancy, even though it has no knowledge, consciousness, or intention of doing so.
The portraying of the fetus as any type of actor, even an incompetent one, may offend those who see pregnancy as merely a set of biological processes more akin to other kinds of Physiological processes, such as focusing the eye, yet this is exactly how the court has defined pregnancy. Rather than a set of biological processes involving only one individual, a woman, the court in Roe established that pregnancy is a condition in which there are two recognizable entities, the woman and the fertilized ovum throughout its developmental stages. The state protects both of them. For this reason it is insufficient to think that pregnancy is merely a set of physiological processes void of human agency, to the extent that there are two human entities in pregnancy, the state protects two human interests and therefore two human actors, even if one of them, the fetus, is an incompetent actor.

The issue is not the legitimacy of the state's interest in potential life but rather the state's justification for granting to pre-born potential life a greater right of access to another person's body than it grants born life.

 

My experience is that the majority of females do not throw themselves at the male.

Yes, I have had women toss themselves AT me. But it was my choice to engage or not. But as a teen boy, a lot of us when teens often did not really notice the more subtle signs of the girls then.

I was perhaps 21 when the first girl tossed herself my way.

I later learned a very hot girl at church wanted me to take her out. But she sure was not obvious. Another girl from church and I did date. Her problem was, and she was very pretty, was her stare. She seemed unwilling to take her eyes off me. And she would even come to where I then worked on racing cars to just stare. It unnerved me. When we had sex, she was dumb. She blurted out she wanted a child by me. I was in shock. I did not date her again.

Today I know I must have got rid of a nice person. But back then as a young dude, I just lacked the maturity to not judge her so fast.

I dated a bombshell blonde who announced to me on the phone she had plans to become a call girl. One might think this led to instant sex. But she scared the wits out of me so we had heavy make out sessions but never had coitus.

I sure missed the chance to have sex with a genuine bombshell who qualified for Playboy magazine.

We were parked in Castro Valley, CA one time when cops came to see what we were doing. I should have gone to a motel.

However one cop engages me and the other cop is trying to hit on her. She was super hot and super well built.

So hot that at the Oakland Airshow, the Blue Angels flying team heads our way and commences to try to get her into the officers club. This caused me to tell her that if she went with them, it was over for her and me. She did not go with the Blue Angels.

 

So obviously you enjoyed yourself.

AA

 

Oh and how I enjoyed myself. I was of legal age. She was a senior in high school where she was the queen of San Leandro, CA.

 

I can sympathize with what happened to you but you really must let go.

AA

 

Very very interesting. Probably is true in the two states you mentioned. I am not clear this is accepted by the US Supreme court though.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, the guilt is killing me.

 

This is exactly the kind of information young people need to learn before they are old enough to experiment on their own. In a typical school all it takes is a rumor that a cheerleader is "doing it" with one of the football players and then everybody who wants to be popular will be trying to "hook up" and they will base their judgement on bits of wisdom they pick up from their equally uneducated friends (e.g. "you can't get pregnant your first time" and "if you have an accident you can wash it out with Pepsi or Coke... but not 7-up because that's an un-cola").

 

There soon will be a huge travesty of justice as a number of states idiotically put into law that a person who murders a pregnant women commits double homicide.

Now here is the problem.

Since in U.S. Law a person cannot be tried for the same crime as that is double jeopardy...when the Supreme Court rules that the killing of a pregnant woman is a single homicide as a fetus is not yet a person......all these sick killers will be let go.

If the states had tried them with two separate homicides there would be no problem.

But instead they used this idiotic new law.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

Well....it had done something to you.

AA