There is no right to have an abortion

if your never born, you can't be murdered

 

So you believe a woman has the total right to be able to have sex with an absolutely zero percent chance of having to risk any pregnancy, even if that necessarily entails killing a fetus? And regardless of whether she even took her contraceptive options seriously?

Because if she uses the proper assortment of contraceptive options (I'm talking about more than one) she can make her chances really really low, and no one has to be aborted.

I'm willing to bet the vast majority of abortions (98 or 99%) could have been prevented by a different choice of contraceptive options.

 

Why should a woman be "put on the hook" when there is no child?

BTW, I will NOT argue the right or wrong of a man being forced by law to support his kids....that has nothing to do with abortion.

 

OH THE HORROR AND PAIN! YOU had to go to McDonald's !!!!! ...why that's EXACTLY like 9 months of pain and the thrill of giving birth! You poor thing , just look what pregnancy did to YOUR body!


You:
""""...And yes the man should have a right or a say because the woman did not get pregnant by herself. No I don't think the man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion, but he should be able to prevent an abortion through the court system if he is capable of providing for the child."""


That says, you think a man should be able to force a woman to stay pregnant and give birth...that's more than a say, that's slavery. No man can own a woman....did you want to bring slavery back.


YOU mean that a man can only have a say if he says what YOU agree with.....IF a man has that kind of say he should be able to force the woman to have an abortion...that's just logic....and then the poor dear doesn't HAVE to support his kid..

 

Even condoms have a failure rate as do all other forms of birth control, and of course ,the best and safest are for the wealthy only.


AND no woman is under any obligation to use birth control.


And that has nothing to do with my post you quoted:

Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

A fetus, as you have been told many times, is not a bystander , it is the attacker. Intentions don't matter if that person is harming someone else.

The woman is protecting herself by getting an abortion. She, like you, has that right."""

 

Yes, and it very difficult for a young woman to talk a doctor into giving her a tubal especially if she hasn't had children yet. And NO woman is under any obligation to use BC.

Why you need this explained to you over and over and over again is really odd.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, ya blew him out of the water

 

Could you please show me that law that says women are obligated to use birth control?

Nevermind, I know you can't just like you couldn't produce that list of "pro-abortion groups"...

 

No I believe all men should make a sperm donation to a sperm bank and then be sterilised. That way we would have near zero unwanted pregnancies and near zero abortions. Think on it - a man would NOT be able to father a child until he had the means to support it. The woman would be able to ensure that it was a stable relationship before consenting to pregnancy

It is the ultimate way to ensure abortions no longer occur

 

It is not just a woman's right, all people have the right to defend themselves against non-consented injuries.

Mothers, doctors etc make decisions on co-joined twins all the time, another thing as well do you consider the removal of a submissive twin in chimeras murder?

You seem to be under some illusion that the person causing the non-consented injuries has equal rights to the person they are causing the injuries to . .let me educate you, they do not.

As to drugs there is no law that stops you putting drugs into your body, it is not illegal, what is illegal is possession of those drugs and the law considers the drugs in your system as you possessing those drugs ir addicts are not convicted for being addicts.

I personally think that the viability threshold of US law is wrong, it was a compromise decision that violates the equal protection clause and should be struck down.

and as usual you are wrong.

 

wear two

 

Same illusion as before, the fetus is not an "innocent bystander" it is directly involved and is the instigator of the injuries against the female. Whether there was intent by the fetus or not is irrelevant, no person whether intentionally or unintentionally may perform an action that harms others without consent. 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. As the Model Penal Code notes, "People whose involuntary movements threaten harm to others may present a public health or safety problem." - Source : Model Penal Code - Page 197

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.

Recognition of the fertilized ovum as an incompetent actor who makes a woman pregnant opens the door to a new way of evaluation the legal significance of what the fetus does when it imposes even a medically normal pregnancy on a woman, to the degree that the fetus shares the attributes of a person, its imposition of normal pregnancy against a woman's will is an invasion of her right to be let alone from other private entities. The fetus acquires no entitlement to intrude on a woman simply because it lacks the mens rea to make it criminally responsible for what it does. - Note: We must remember the condition of pregnancy serves the immediate survival needs of the fetus, not the woman. It is the fetus whose development and continued existence depends on keeping the woman pregnant. While born people may wish to exercise the option to continue their presence in the form of offspring genetically and socially connected to them, the very fact they are born signifies that their own immediate lives do not require the condition of pregnancy to sustain them. By contrast, the fetus does not merely intrude upon a woman's body as an incompetent actor but as one who directly and specifically benefits from taking her body. As Philosopher Frances M. Kamn notes, this gives the woman more rather than less justification for terminating pregnancy with an abortion. - Source : Kamn. Creation and Abortion : A Study in Moral and Legal Philosophy

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.

 

no more so than you defending themselves against another person who is attacking you.

By your logic the state should be protecting rapists and murderers as well.

Yes the fetus has rights, those rights do not extend to using another persons body to sustain their life without consent, no different to the rights you have and do not have.

There is no right to life - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/329575-abortion-violates-unalienable-right-life.html

 

If a woman (or couple) is not obligated to use birth control and do not protect themselves, or are too ignorant to protect themselves, then why should I be compelled fund the destruction (murder) of the(ir) fetus (baby, aka: infant human being) on demand?

Your mother survived your dastardly attack from within, Yes? Lucky you.

 

Again you are making the argument that a person cannot defend themselves against others who seek to injure them without consent, does the woman being raped have the right to control her body by trumping the right to life of her rapist?

You evade the glaring differences between a born child and a fetus, a born child is not injuring the woman and even if it was she has other avenues to immediately stop those injuries without the use of deadly force such as withdrawing from the situation, placing the child with others and restraining the child without the use of deadly force .. a pregnant woman has no other options to cease the injuries than by using deadly force.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is wholly irrelevant as consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy.

- - - Updated - - -

I actually don't think the biological father should be forced to pay maintenance if he is prepared to give up all rights to that child .. however I doubt any Republicans would support such a thing as it would mean they would have to reach a little deeper into their pockets.

 

and yet due to the useless sex education in the USA a large proportion of people don't know how to use contraception correctly hence why there is a 18% typical usage failure rate for condoms, where as if the most reliable methods, such as IUD's, were free at source you have a typical usage failure rate of around 0.8%

 

There you go letting your emotions into the debate, there is no murder in abortion, your usage of that word only shows you don't have the ability to argue your points without projecting emotional content. If your arguments were sound you would have no need to use words incorrectly purely to try and invoke an emorional response from others.

 

you seem to be under some illusion that a person can be forced to use contraception, or is this just another dream you have of forcing others to bend to your desires .. sorry to burst your bubble but in a free society no one can force another person to do something against their will especially if what they are doing is not illegal.

how about you advocate forcing men to undergo RISUG (Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance) as soon as they become fertile, that way there would be no pregnancies until such time the man was in a stable relationship .. strange I NEVER see pro-lifers advocating for the man to do this.

 

You don't fund elective abortion, another myth projected by pro-lifers without a shred of fact.

Yes my mother did, guess what she consented to the injuries by virtue of not having an abortion . .shame you don't understand what consent is and means.

 

You have a right to keep the government out of your personal affairs. The government should have no say in how two consenting adults engage in sex. The government should have no say in what you eat for breakfast or which bedrooms your kids sleep in.

I'm all in favor of regulating abortion as a medical procedure. But, we don't make people look at their balls before having a vasectomy, we don't force a doctor's office to have full admission privileges at a local hospital to remove a wart in the office.

The right of a woman to control her own medical care is protected under the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.

The opposition to abortion which includes the desire to punish women for having abortions, is based solely on religious belief. Using the government to impose your religion on others is clearly forbidden in the first.

 

We are bombarded with TV campaigns and taught in school that NO means NO, otherwise it is rape. So yes a woman has a right to her body, But once she spreads her legs and invites a man in, then there are consequences. Not just pregnancies, but STD's and if the couple is too stupid or lazy to take precautions, then an unwanted child should not be Murdered because it inconveniences the woman.
As for sterilizing men, most couples eventually settle on a vasectomy because it is less invasive. And let me make this clear, a fetus is not a parasite, it is a child. Nature made it this way. And as for a woman not having anything to do with the child after birth, it is called adoption.

 

The feminazi raises it's ugly head...Yes I have been through 5 pregnancies with my wife of 27 years, if you think the man doesn't go through it with the woman, then you are a m^^^^. I've changed more diapers, and fed more toddlers than you will probably ever see...Men go through the mood swings, the crying, the yelling, the blame...And we have to understand that this is nature taking its course...As well as maintain our jobs so that the bills can be paid...I have always tried to make it where my wife does not have to work if she doesn't want to...She has never worked more than a part-time job and has managed to get 2 degrees in this time...So please don't say that the man doesn't go through the pregnancy with his woman, he does...

 

So you're basically saying that the biological father is not needed when the woman can go on welfare and have Big Daddy Government take care of her and the kid...And you wonder why so many boys are f^^^^d up with the way they treat women nowadays. You reap what you sow. More children living in welfare homes that see that their Mom sits on her ass, not working and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about how messed up her life is. Yep that is a great plan.

 

So you want women punished for "spreading their legs" and have their child punished too by being born to someone who doesn't want it and may not be able to afford it.