There is no right to have an abortion

This is what happened.

 

Clarify.

AA

 

When I look back at some of the discussions of abortion and birth control, I begin to wonder... Maybe we should start with this question. Do you agree that women have rights (independent from any man)?

 

But yet here we are with legal abortions......

 

LOL, YES, women can and DO have it both ways...all ways, any way they want it they can have it and YOU can't stop it


Women HAVE the right over the fetus.....


I like how since you think you posted about it in one of those weird scenarios that now it's true...

 

But you approve of women having to donate their entire body to someone else....

 

Too bad this thread got hijacked and turned into a soap opera /and Ann Landers all in one...

Do you actually believe what this, this .. .."person"....is posting ......?

 

A woman has the right to decide what happens in and to her body (even if includes a fetus). It is equally wrong for a man, woman, or child to drug her against her will to cause ANYTHING to happen in her body (pregnancy or abortion). I see on this, and other threads, that you presume the fetus should have the rights of a sentient human being, but I have not seen you defend the position that the fetus is equal to a post-birth human being. Where is your evidence to support that position?

 

Are you alleging that the 9th Amendment is invalid?

 

These are all good reasons to provide them with comprehensive sex education so they know the risks. They would learn, for example, that irregular periods (which are more common in younger women) mean you cannot predict exactly when the next egg will start its journey and that every form of birth control has flaws. If they learn about the risks from their peers it is more likely that they will take the risk (as we see in parts of the country where conservatives have been able to push their abstinence-only education agenda).

 

From my earlier post: "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)."
You responded:

That law would be just as bad as the laws that used to allow slavery. This is why nobody should be pushing the states to make abortions illegal. It would be tantamount to passing a law to say the government has the right to lock women in the cellar for 9 months to make sure they have that baby.

From my earlier post: "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?"
You responded:

I totally agree. But what if the compatible donor was the father? He is partly responsible for the creation of that fetus. Should the government be able to FORCE him to spend a few days in the hospital and undergo the risks of surgery to donate a lobe of his liver to save the life of that fetus?

 

Good luck getting a straight answer from that poster.

"""Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post

I do not approve the Feds doing such a law.""""""

When he posted that he forgot to complete it ...he meant , ""I do not approve the Feds doing such a law""...for MEN.


He obviously believes it shouldn't apply to women..

 

I really don't accept the government (are you speaking of in DC or at the State or city?) has the authority to cause a man to have such surgery.

In the case of the woman, this is different.

What I am telling you is that she has the child. The child exists and per some posters, including me, the child is human. The argument over persons is not relevant. It is enough that she and the male engaged directly in the creation of the human.

If we refuse to protect the least able to self protect, and we kill the child using essentially surgery techniques, we have really backed out of being civilized into a state of barbarism.

There are cases of course where the woman is with child on an entirely involuntary action by others. Rape is a crime. I would be willing to say that her taking the life of her child almost instantly post conception is understandable. I would not force her to have the abortion, but surely lacking malice on my part, gives her the full right to not carry a rapists baby to term.

But with modern pills, she should make up her mind very fast. She does not need to carry for a period of months then say ooops, I want an abortion.

Any abortion that is approved should be handled with extreme expedience.

 

Fox Hastings, before I start reporting you, since you whine about my posts, turn me in. If I am breaking rules by refusing to play your little game, snitch to the mods.

 

This may sound sad, but I did not ask the schools what they taught the kids. Maybe my former wife did. I really don't recall the oldest kids (3 by first wife) having "sex education."

I want to know.

Is the approved sex education coming from parents?

The school?

Their friends?

Is sex really that important to children?

If you think so, tell me why.

Do you want to protect girls? By showing them that sex prior to marriage is very risky?

Do you wish to educate kids to ensure they are promiscuous?

 

Look, act grown up.

I have children. I love all of them. I was part of raising 8 kids of other men because the women I married had kids.

Do not expect me to talk as if kids are a disease or a injury to the mother.

 

How did "abstinence only" sex education work out for.....Bristol Palin? Uh....twice?

 

Why can't you just address the post if you're going to respond at all ?????:


"""Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

But you approve of women having to donate their entire body to someone else....""""


Either you do or you don't but the number kids you have or are raising or their ages or whether you love them or your sex life have NOTHING to do with it.....


If you can't address the post why not just not respond??

 

First of all, you know I reject your unfounded claim that the fetus has rights of its own before it becomes sentient, but it occurs to me that your argument about licenses could justify a totally different approach. You said "There are all sorts of other things people are not allowed to do under the law: drive without a seatbelt, use drugs, fly without a license. Why would obtaining an abortion be any different?" so why not have the government regulate childbirth? Bringing a child into the world is a big responsibility. You have to get a license to own a dog in town, so perhaps (in a world where women do not have the right to decide for themselves) she must get a license to have a child. If a woman is found to be pregnant in that world, without obtaining the appropriate license, the government should terminate that pregnancy. That would satisfy your requirement for licensing but (just like making abortions illegal) it violates the right of the woman to control her own body. EITHER approach is wrong and violates her human rights (it's just easier for pro-lifers to see it when it is the abortion that is forced on her).

 

I am tired of you posting lies about me.

Then you want me to validate your lies?

Stop making stuff about me.

If you have a question and won't make it personal fine.

But so long as you operate as if this is a vendetta, forget it.