Abortionists killing babes after birth? Infanticide okay?

I can't imagine that happening as regards any woman who has had or is even considering an abortion. The consequences of inception are far more important to women than men.

After all, they must "bring-up" the child. The consequences are therefore highly financial. And, why should she be obliged to support those costs alone?

Unfortunately, not all nations maintain laws that obliges either parent to share to share the upbringing costs of a child regardless of the couple's marital status. Which is obviously unfortunate for some women. In the past, the problem was identifying the parent.

Given present state-of-the-art technology a male can no longer argue that HE was not the father of the child. Which means male financial-obligations are now correctly decided by the evidence. In most developed countries, whether the child is wanted by either party or not, the mother will be legally obliged to bring-up the child. And nowadays, so will the father be obliged financially and if necessary by means of a court of law.

Does any of the above mean there will be fewer abortions in the future?

Methinks not. But perhaps the consequences of an extra-marital birth will be more fair to females ...

 

Then she gets an abortion.

I asked : If the father has a say what if HE says, "abort" ?

Yet you and the other poster were saying the father should have a "say"


What you obviously meant was the father should be able to force the woman to gestate....

 

No, marriage has nothing to do with women's right to their own bodies...a husband can't force a woman to gestate...

 

Giftedone said: ↑
Parents of what Child - Where is this "child" in the early stages of pregnancy - and back up this highly debated claim.

This is the problem with so many anti abort posters ... they make these claims - as if they are defacto truth It is you that does not like this truth.

It may be nice for the woman to include the man in the discussion - which often happens if the woman is considering continuing the pregnancy towards the creation of a child but it is no more the man's decision than that of a sperm donor.

He didn't post that …



You missed his point and couldn't address his whole post ...

 

Why?

 

...and it only applies to born people

 

.


Here we go around again...you love repeating things.

Yes, people since forever have wanted sex without consequences....men have had that "perk" for forever and NOW women have it, too.....

Why would a woman have an abortion for no reason?

Bored that day? Needed to spend some money and couldn't think of anything else?


If you think women have abortions for "NO REASON" you sure have a ReallyLow Opinion of women which I knew from way back in this thread when you said women who had abortions are whores..

Women who have abortions are NOT BARREN.

What TF!?

And it DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU THINK OF MOTHERHOOD.....what can't you get about that ? YOU don't rule on how women have to feel??
.

Yes, death before birth is natural...miscarriages happen all the time...

 

But yet you haven't shown us anyone who has a love of abortion.

There are really decent people who adamantly believe women have the same rights as anyone else and fight against those who want to take rights away from women...

 

No, I'm not buying that. Marriage is a contractual relationship, not just a trip down the aisle and a celebratory dinner.

Both have legal responsibilities under that law - which unfortunately differs from state to state. DOMA was the only Federal law passed to protect same-sex marriage, but says nothing really about mixed-sex marriage. That leaves each state to do so, should it want to do so ...

 

I did not in the least mean to imply that it does! Which would be ridiculous to do so ...

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, marriage has nothing to do with women's right to their own bodies...a husband can't force a woman to gestate...

Sorry, you're wrong. When two people get married they get married, they do NOT buy each other.

They do not lose their rights.

Neither owns the other.

NO husband can force his wife to either gestate or abort.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, marriage has nothing to do with women's right to their own bodies...a husband can't force a woman to gestate...

You seem to do so in post 759....maybe I didn't understand...

 

There is something called bodily autonomy, you should look it up sometime.

 

Given that fully 70% of fertilised eggs pass without implantation, I would argue that death before birth is most natural.

 

Sure I get it. It's not love it's just a strong attachment to defending your "so called" truth. And that's really the key takeaway here. You are supporting the killing of innocent unborn children. You do understand that has serious ramifications and consequences that cannot simply be ignored or swept under the rug? These issues far out weigh the legitimate consequence (and it's not actually a consequence its a blessing) of pregnancy. And that is to bring the baby to full term regardless of your financial situation or social standing. The left started this insidious plan even before Roe v Wade was decided by SCOTUS. The the left protects the right to abortion but has no intention of protecting the unborn child being killed. This is called a double standard. The left advocates heavily for late term abortions as well as generating interest for abortion among the local community. You have to think about it for a second, but Planned Parenthood would absolutely go belly up if abortion was outlawed. Abortion is a profit driven business much like a car dealer and salesman. Abortion is a profit driven enterprise. There are abortion quotas. There are specific rules in place to help the ill informed mother go forward with the abortion. They only offer a ultrasound if you consent to going through with an abortion. They flat out lie to the prospective other in saying an abortion is "compassionate care". Thats a blatant untruth - just one of many Planned Parenthood (or Planned Barrenhood) lies in their deceptive scheme to destroy our unborn. Their other sectors of PP are just not nearly as lucrative (in terms of profit), and exist solely to support the abortion component of the business. That's right, everything else Planned Parenthood offers plays a supportive role in the effort to get the prospective mother to have an abortion instead. I will take it a step further. PP uses these supportive resources and additional services in order to get women to come to the clinic. So they are gaining access to a good percentage of the local women by using this method. This gives PP the ability and "reach" it needs as spreads out it's long and evil tentacles over our communities. They get the women to the clinic and then PP goes about the business of selling them an abortion. This is not health care. Health care doesnt kill people. Make no mistake this is a profit driven enterprise that has a "right" to profit off the murder of innocent unborn children. If that's not backwards, I dont know what is? Picking Margaret Sanger as a role model over Mother Teresa comes close.

It is clear that a large, growing segment of the nation is pro-life. And this change we are seeing is part of a global revival, a turning towards the truth and Trump is the captain of the ship. Trump will definitely win in 2020, and your so called abortion rights are going to disappear so fast your head will spin.

It's the national anti-abortion meme day :}

 

I will give you one chance to do this over and take a mulligan.

 

Right, but it's you who fails to comprehend that a mother opens the door to pregnancy regardless of whether she wants it or not. It's her decision to have the baby so she needs to accept the fact that her actions put her in this situation. It isnt like the government is going to invade your body, it was never like that and never will be like that. The fact remains it was the women's actions that lead to pregnancy. Or to phrase it slightly differently: A women who has sex must accept the fact that it may lead to pregnancy, however remote. So it's not like the government is invading your life without a reason -- and how do you get to a point so debilitating that you'd prefer to kill unborn babes? Remember, it was her choice to have sex with the possibility of pregnancy however remote, still exists. This is called an action. Actions have consequences. So the mother wants her sex without consequences AND they want no rights for the unborn AND they want to kill the unborn AND they treat unborn children as parasites. Yes, it is totally despicable, backwards thinking. Ever think about the future if we were to implement the extreme leftist ideals for abortion around the globe? Yay! Look at me Im a liberal democrat who figured out how the human race can collectively commit suicide together.

 

All that hysterical gibberish, denigration of women, and erroneous claptrap.....all for naught…..women will always have abortions, always have and always will.....and will not stand for others to take away their basic human right of bodily autonomy.


BTW, I think those who compare the horrible, horrendous suffering, torture and death of Jews to the quick painless death of an embryo are despicable.

 

There is no evidence that women don't know that. So what?

Consent to sex is not consent to anything else.....ask a lawyer.

You are superbly backing up my allegation that Anti-Choicers want to punish women for having sex by taking away their basic human right of bodily autonomy and giving ZEFs greater rights than anyone else.

Photos of actual true abortions do not make Pro-Choicers angry....but Anti-Choicers do not use real photos and that makes honest people angry at the deception.


BTW, you asked why women have breasts and I asked you why men do and you never answered



But there are several posts you must've found to be "inconvenient"

 

kiwimac said: ↑
Given that fully 70% of fertilised eggs pass without implantation, I would argue that death before birth is most natural.

Real women make sure they keep their rights ….


I see you could NOT refute the post you quoted bolded above

 

When you admit that an unborn baby is a blessing I will gladly answer your question. I will make it even easier === since people with stone cold hearts do not change at a fast rate. Just admit that the unborn child is NOT a parasite.

Yes, the father should advocate against the abortion in as strong a language as possible to his significant other. That's what I meant. Never would I defend a father who supports the killing of his own child.

Chose life over death every time. Life should be protected like that eagle egg. Life is so rare. One of the most endearing qualities of human nature is the desire for family and legacy. And besides, who the hell do you think you are denying these children their rightful future?

We know for a fact that our founding fathers were EXTREMELY pro-life. These people were conservative and fully intended to protect the unborn child from commencement till death.

Our forefathers were imperfect men seeking a more perfect union. While they declared these inalienable rights, it would take a civil war and then a civil rights movement to ensure our laws respected the inalienable rights of African Americans. I believe that it will be a pro abundant life movement that will finally extend legal recognition and protection to people in the womb.

The words of the Declaration specifically mention the self-evident and unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are words directly from Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. This legal treatise written in the 1760s set forth the foundation of the English Common Law and thus set forth the legal standards for the American colonies.

In Volume I of these commentaries, Blackstone specifically states that the unalienable right to life belongs to unborn children who reside in their mothers’ wombs. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, studied Blackstone for his legal education and training and thus understood that the unalienable right to life belongs to the unborn as well as the born.

Look at the bold text below. It says we are endowed by our creator. Lets look at the definition of endowed: provide with a quality, ability, or asset.

So those inalienable rights have been with us since the moment of conception Inside the womb, outside the womb, doesn't matter because we are ALL created with inalienable rights. We were infused with these rights the moment we were created! It's not like God said, okay, I think the moment of birth is going to be the moment I give it rights. They can kill the unborn babies so long as mother has not given birth yet. LOL You are so far off in the weeds it's almost comedic at this point. The founding father's wanted NOTHING to do with abortion and if the had known we were going to kill 60,000,000 lives I think they would hang their heads in sorrow for evermore. Like I said, stone cold heart

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

We should not be comfortable with laws that state the birth canal determines personhood and transforms a premature baby from a “product of conception” that can be disposed of into a NICU patient to be fought for.

We should not be comfortable with politicians that celebrate the achievements of people born with “disabilities” but then defend the rights of parents to abort a child because of a disability diagnosis.

We should not be comfortable with courts that affirm the dignity and rights of people born into poverty but then protects the rights of parents to abort their children because they are poor.

One of the most authoritative sources for learning law during the founding era was William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone, a distinguished English jurist, was so well-liked by the founding fathers that he was the second most frequently cited thinker in the American political writings of the founding era. American law students studied his work so religiously that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that “Blackstone is to us what the Koran is to the Muslims.”

Blackstone affirmed in his Commentaries that an individual’s right to life is an “immediate gift of God.” This right to life is legally binding “as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.” Per Blackstone,

“For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise kills it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dies in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.”

Interestingly, Blackstone also explains that fetuses “in the mother’s womb” are legally considered “to be born.” Thus, the law considered a fetus to be his or her own person, independent of the mother.

From these commentaries, the founding fathers learned that any abortion perpetrated after the stirring of an infant in the mother’s womb was a “heinous misdemeanor.”

American courts upheld this traditional common law approach in characterizing abortion as a misdemeanor. Founding father James Wilson, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and original U.S. Supreme Court justice, taught his law students that,

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

Similarly, St. George Tucker, a Madison judicial appointee and professor of law at the College of William and Mary, explained in his celebrated legal treatise on American law that it is “a great misprision [misdemeanor]” to “kill a child in its mother’s womb.”

Laws in American states criminalized abortion from the beginning. For example, Virginia law outlawed the practice of using “potion” to “unlawfully destroy the child within her [womb].” These laws were crafted by many of the same individuals who framed the Constitution.

It is therefore inconceivable that the framers intended constitutional protections for abortion as a “fundamental right.” Indeed, the framers believed the opposite. From their perspective, the unborn child has a fundamental right to life, a right that would be infringed by an abortion that ends his or her life.

A “fundamental right to abortion” does not exist in the Constitution or its amendments. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to argue that the authors of the Constitution and its amendments intended to protect abortion under some vague and unwritten “right to privacy.” That so many courts and judges have for so long upheld a legal doctrine antagonistic to the Constitution reveals the rogue nature of the modern judiciary. Abortion clearly violates the Declaration of Independence and the 14th amendment to our Constitution.

 

Abortion is profoundly anti women. Kill your own child? How does that help the mother? Do you honestly think she will be the same as when she left?

Police have the right to infringe upon body integrity in certain situations. The government has laws against prostitution, for example. Yes, the government will force you NOT to have sex for money. Just like sooner rather than later or government will "force you to stay pregnant" so you can be held accountable for your own actions. You get pregnant, you will be a mother not a killer.

Denigration of women? You do realize that abortion has killed about 30,000,000 unborn females since 1973? When someone says Im denigrating women you should really take a hard look at their ideology. I consider abortion to be profoundly anti women. 30 million dead, killed, aborted, dismembered, sucked out of the womb with a vacuum pump. Skull crushed with implements of death. Make the mother a killer, what a brilliant idea! Look everyone! I can kill unborn females to the magnitude of 30 million souls and the conservative who wants to defend the 30 million dead is "anti women" yeah, I dont think you fully understand your own ideology. There are those who have been "hoodwinked" by someone who shall remain nameless. Irregardless, views like this are profoundly unacceptable in modern society. What kind of civilization runs a program like that? 30 million women dead turning 30 million mothers against their own children. turning 30 million mothers into killers of their own offspring. Taking 30 million families from us. Yeah, and Im the one denigrating women, right?

 

.


No, you won't answer the question or you would have before now.

An unborn baby is a blessing IF THE WOMAN WANTS IT.
YOU do NOT decide for others what a blessing is or isn't.

YOU claimed a father should "HAVE A SAY"
I asked , and never got an answer to :I asked : If the father has a say what if HE says, "abort" ?
Because that wasn't the answer you wanted yet there are only two things to "say".

It shows clearly that it is the PREGNANT person who has the SAY.

It has a parasitic relation to the women it's in and I do NOT deny science

That is NOT what you said. You said the father should have a "say".

If the father has a say what if HE says, "abort" ?

LIFE IS RARE !!!!!....Are you joking! Have you seen the population of the earth???

What TF are you talking about????

SHOW EXACTLY WHERE I DENIED CHILDREN THEIR RIGHTS!


Like all your other claims you cannot provide proof I did that.

Enough horse manure to fill the ocean....and yet women still have the same rights everyone else has and YOU have FAILED to destroy them




BTW, I think those who compare the horrible, horrendous suffering, torture and death of Jews to the quick painless death of an embryo are despicable.

 

Think of this as another layer of quality control. Remember, a pregnancy is not established until the implantation is complete. Natural biological processes are not perfect, but I wouldn't hang your hopes of winning a debate by pinning "death" as a natural state before birth. This measure of quality control most likely enhances the chances of the pregnancy being successful in the long run. If the egg is not viable then it is merely broken down and the process repeats itself.

Fertility experts have discovered how the uterus performs quality control on a new embryo before determining whether to accept it. They hope the discovery will help develop new techniques to improve the success rate of IVF.
The team, from the UK Universities of Southampton and Warwick, and the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, found if the endometrium - the lining of the uterus - fails to sense chemical signals from the fertilized egg, it silences many of the genes involved in allowing it to embed in the uterus.
One of the chemical signals the endometrium looks for is the amount of trypsin, a common enzyme, the embryo gives off. If this is not detected, the embryo is not accepted and is left to disintegrate, resetting the cycle.

A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete.

So tell me, is abortion a natural process? Im talking about the procedure here, so lets keep it in specific terms.
Because, as you know. death by abortion before birth is not a natural, and that was my only contention from the beginning.

 

Seriously what is your point? Just state your thesis. I don't mean that Im ignoring your question, I just picked this argument up halfway through to provide my insight on the matter on one comment. So just restate the question and your thesis, etc and I will respond, I just have to know where you are going with this first.