Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Pregnant Woman Is Not a ‘Mother’

FoxHastings said: ↑
Seems silly all around....what's to prevent a woman from just getting an abortion without saying why?

That's my point, a woman can get an abortion without giving a reason.

And there is no such thing as a "post birth abortion".

 

In some (blue) states no reason is needed. For the vast majority of the country there are restrictions.

Infanticide Makes a Comeback
https://spectator.org/infanticide-makes-a-comeback/

 

Restrictions are not reasons.

 

They sure are. Restrictions based on the gestational age, danger to the mother, etc.

 

Well then yes you do care who he does and does not do business with by his choice.

 

No, I only care that laws are equal.

I don’t understand why this is so difficult for some of you to understand.

 

Why aren't men given the same ability to murder unborn children that women have? Isn't that what you're really asking?

14A doesn't say any such thing, obviously.

Then one cannot help but wonder how it is that nary a trace of any such meaning found its way into the amendment as ratified.

The obvious question being what the hell any of that has to do with the Constitution.

 

not the same at all, except maybe to some republicans that have no issues killing a born child if the parents are poor

"Bush Criticized for End-of-Life Laws"

https://web.archive.org/web/20051219170102/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html

"But on March 15, a Texas law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush (search) in 1999 allowed the hospital to go ahead and take Sun off the respirator in defiance of Wanda Hudson's wishes."

why do some republicans support abortion after birth against the parents wishes?

 

Why aren't men given the same ability to murder unborn children that women have? Isn't that what you're really asking?

Not even close.... Women have control over their body that's law.. Men should have the right to a paper abortion(releasing them from all legal obligations to the potential child) during the same window. I stated just that earlier in this thread

 

the mother to be
I am pregnant, we are gonna have a baby

this has been the view of many for a long time, it's a fetus, not a baby yet, now we all have different times we think it becomes a baby, I believe that is about 26 weeks, others have their own views

http://www.slate.com/id/2120872/
"a member of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn't possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain. Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead."

 

Dunno who the hell you think you're kidding.

What you mean, obviously, is that the "law" - by which you presumably mean Roe, which is in fact not law under the Constitution - gives a woman the right to murder any unborn child who happens to reside within her womb before the third trimester. You're welcome.

 

Ya I've made my stance clear in the thread so I've fine with your personal comments about me trying to kid people..... Carry on

 

NO, a woman's REASON for having an abortion is not a restriction...WTF are you talking about???

Look up those two words and then get back to me, they have TWO different meanings!

 

How many kids have been refused seeking health care outside the country in the UK?

You want real death panels? Implement your socialist desires. It always ends the same.

The child in your article could not be saved. You should read it.

Sun Hudson (search) was born Sept. 25 with thanatophoric dysplasia (search), an incurable and fatal form of dwarfism. Doctors said his tiny lungs would never fully grow and that he would never breathe on his own.


Hudson's mother, Wanda, put up a fight when doctors advised removing Sun from a respirator. She said she did not believe in sickness or death.

 

sadly I agree with you, if healthcare is left to the states, republicans will have death panels, we saw that is AZ

he was born and alive... is that not murder?

death with dignity should be a choice of the next of kin

 

No, taking someone afflicted with an incurable disease that will never breathe on their own off artificial life support is not murder.

It does seem you think abortion is murder though.

 

if the next of kin does it, it's not, if someone else does it against the next of kins wishes it is

aborting a potential baby is not the same as aborting a born baby

 

You mean the mother of the child who said "she doesn't believe in disease"?

Riiiiight.

I mean you can keep trying to make our health care system look bad if you'd like.

Would you like me to share some stories of kids in the UK who the ****ing POPE said would help the kid, and the government blocked it?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nnot-travel-to-vatican-hospital-idUSKBN1HW1MN

Court rules gravely ill UK child cannot travel to Vatican hospital

LIVERPOOL, England (Reuters) - A British court rejected an appeal on Wednesday from parents of a gravely ill 23-month-old boy to take their son to Italy for treatment, a case that has drawn international attention, including from Pope Francis.

This kid was offered treatment by the Pope, and the socialists in the UK BLOCKED it.

Get out of here with your "muh socialist medicine is bettuh".

 

does that excuse the USA for killing born babies after birth against the mother wishes?

sounds like pro-lifers are really anti-choicers, they want the government to decide, not the women, cause in this case they appear to be pro-death

the ironic thing is, if the mother had the money but wanted to pull the plug they woudl fight her on it, look at Terri Schiavo, these choices are hard and should always be left to the next of kin

now if that was my choice, I would pull the plug too, but I am pro-choice - I believe the choice shoudl be with the next of kin though, not the government

 

Does it excuse the USA from taking a child who will never develop lungs and has an incurable disease off artificial life support?

Yeah, it does.

Sounds like you don't have an actual argument, are contradicting yourself, and flailing around a lot.

Meanwhile, you support killing perfectly viable unborn babies.

Doesn't sound like you're doing very well here.

 

Agreed.

 

Depending on the state there are restrictions, like the lack of one of the mentioned reasons.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
NO, a woman's REASON for having an abortion is not a restriction...WTF are you talking about???

Look up those two words and then get back to me, they have TWO different meanings!

WTF, that doesn't make a reason a restriction...or a restriction a reason.

 

Im sorry.

I don't think I can help you further.

 

Help me?

I know the difference between restrictions and reasons......it seems you have the problem with it and can't explain what you mean...