Abortionists killing babes after birth? Infanticide okay?

A don't know if you are trolling or if this is actually what you believe.

Please explain? What is despicable here?

 

Oh, really? No! Really!

In some parts of the US men weigh far too heavy in the passage of laws - and particularly abortion-laws. In these states, they do not recognize that gestation creates a "fetus" and not a human-being. And during this short period of time, the object cannot be considered yet a human-being with the right-of-life.

Of course, some ignorant people refuse to understand this gestational fact. So, for them, abortion is an act of murder regardless of when undertaken by a woman..

And, of course they are wrong. But the Replicant Supreme Court refuses to consider the matter. See here:
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Review One of the Most Extreme Abortion Bans in the Nation*

See also here, BBC NEWS: Alabama abortion ban: Should men have a say in the debate?

From the above, I would say the matter of abortion legality has not yet been settled in the minds of many if not most Americans.

IF NECESSARY, LADIES, GO TO CANADA? (But you will likely have to pay for the surgery.) From here:

Just as it is for men, women should be the mistresses of their own body, within limits as regards abortion, but without the unjust interference of males ... !

*That's what happens when an illegitimately elected PotUS illegitimately assigns nutheads to the Supreme Court.

 

As I never tire of saying: Let's look-up the meaning of words! Meanings are defined by usage, meaning they not as easy to understand as one might think.

From a search on the Internet here:

Care to chose which of the above you prefer? Shall we put it to a vote here? Which really would not matter.

Because today, regardless of where you live in America, a group of people (called a Supreme Court) have the diresome responsibility for defining it!

And one day they must decide, either they do or abortion will be decided by a quiltwork of states across America ...

 

We who?

Meaning of eugenics: "the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics"

And, pray tell, who decided YOUR EUGENIC CIRCUMSTANCE AT BIRTH? Your mother? Your father? Or the state in which you lived?

I ask, again, we who? Shall we debate how many of those black-lives were cut short by black doctors? Or shall we let some cranks do it by pushing their legal-notions though America's civil-courts in the matter of abortion?

And for those who really like to get into the nitty-gritty of such an immensely complex legal subject, here is my contribution: The Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund titled, a court case titled Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists

Enjoy ... !?!

 

Did you think this photo was fake?

I cannot spend every waking hour on the forum like some people. As I have said before, If I dont get to something please just ask again until I respond to it.

Men have nipples because nipples develop in the womb before embryos become distinctly male or female.
So by the time a Y chromosome kicks in to distinguish a fetus as male, the nipples have already secured their place.
It's mothers milk....

 

Im sorry I have no idea where you are going with this.

We who? Why the abortion industry of course!

 

What "industry"? Abortion is a service not an industry. And unlike most "industries" it is not permitted without government approval. For the moment, at the state level, of which many are actively attempting to change a Supreme Court ruling already having been made law and implemented.

As regards the matter of legality/illegality, here is a map showing geographic orientations in the matter of legality regarding abortions:

Now, respond to the above map. Do you think it fair and acceptable that state-laws interfere with the individual's right to an abortion** as previously established by a Supreme Court ruling!?!

AND THAT she should have every possibility to undertake that abortion*** of her own Free-Will and not that of others?!?

*Do you understand what it means for the Supreme Court to overturn its own previous ruling in a matter? Methinks not.
**Which means effectively a woman (upon aborting) could be tried for murder, and a jury would decided (depending upon the circumstance) whether she is guilty or not. And who would guarantee that the jury would be perfectly neutral by insisting upon at least half of the jurors be female?
***Definition of abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. (Whilst the subject is a human "fetus" but not yet a "child".)

 

CHEAP-SHOT!

The above - whether exact or not (meaning it is a "fetus") - is irrelevant. What is relevant is the law.

Which depending upon the moment it was deactivated and withdrawn from the womb the photo may or may not have been legal. It would therefore require the permission of the "mother".

You are NOT BEING FACTUAL by simply showing a photo without proving its legal origin.

So, let's see it legal-origin please and if it is within the prescribed waiting-period, then SO WHAT!?!

So this: Cheap-shot devoid of any verification of origin !!!

 

WHY NOT A MARRIAGE CONTRACT?

Oh, but it does. Which is why we have lawyers who make/authentify prenuptial marriage-contracts. (Mostly for the rich who can afford it! But the poorer elements of our society - MUCH GREATER IN NUMBER - should have the same self-protection.)

If a man or a woman wants to identify special-rights pertaining to the marriage before the act, then they need to a formulate a contract (meaning the necessity of a professional third pair-of-eyes upon it).

And frankly, given the significant difference of opinion in this forum - which I find both perfectly warranted but also predictive - both parties should put-aside their fervent-love and concentrate on truly important matters. Like whether or not a woman wants children and specify a maximum number - to which she is not contractually bound, but can exact upon simply wanting to do so.

A man has the right to know specifically to what extent he must help support not only a pregnancy but the timespan during which any child reaches "adulthood". And, of course, a woman has the right to be known for how she feels similarly. Why should not the number of children (as well as other matters) not be (double-negative!) a subject of a Marriage Contractual Relationship. Duly signed and filed with the stamp of a third-party, namely a governmental (state/city) entity?

That would help greatly in case of any future "difference of opinion", which often leads to marital disputes - the monetary benefit of which is mostly for law-offices ... !

Well-worth a read, from CNN: Should parents be allowed to choose the sex of their baby?

PS: So, LafayetteBis thinks that marriage is a matter for serious prenuptial consideration by both parties with legal-consultants in the matter? Yes, I do! And those consultants should be available free-gratis-and-for-nothing as a state-provided services function.

 

I have posted this more than once and you still insist on getting the basics wrong

 

Posting pictures of plastic models again???

 

Spot on, Bb!

I have posted this more than once and often abstain from "religious arguments" in the debate. Religion is an entirely different subject and all it should expect from the state is to be Left Alone! With the obvious thought that the "rule was mutual"!

Like it or not, if the Founding Fathers had wanted to make the bible the base for the US Constitution, then they would have done so by making laws based upon it!

Fortunately, they did not - but neither did they "outlaw the bible" - which is what the French did, and that was a very stoopid mistake.

Whyzzat? Because the very "thing" they were against (both in France and the US, at the very beginning) was the fact that the church had (over a great many centuries) usurped power from the Royal Authority. (The "church" being either the Rome or the initial versions of Protestantism.) The US simply put the church in its proper place. Religious Beliefs were of free-expression and governments should not interfere; but neither should religious rules obstruct lawmaking!

That is, one could argue religious convictions but ONLY in a context of law-making with reasons wholly without any reference to a "super-law" somewhere stated in a bible. Which would have been a super-enticement for yet another revolution between "believers" and "non-believers". (As happened in France, I hasten to add, with calamitous consequences.)

And, as I see the situation stateside - albeit from an "external" view - what is happening is that certain Religious Factions are trying to impose their notions based upon religious thinking where such imposed-thought should never ever be allowed.

Faith and Law are two different subjects altogether different. Faith is belief based upon hand-me-down invariable religious principles decided by religious groupings centuries-ago.

Whilst the law-of-the-land is actual and like actuality it is variable. It is not written in stone!

Voted laws are the expression of a present common Will-Of-The-People enacted by elected representatives in the place of themselves!

Which is why - since the very earliest times it was called "Common Law", that is (from WikiPedia):

 

but I bet you don’t think you are a prejudiced person. Liberal people fought for human rights and still do. .i don’t need an invisible man in the sky to tell me the god believing neo nazis and white suoremacists are not good people.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
If the father has a say what if HE says, "abort" ?

LOL Uh DUH, YOU just quoted the OFT ASKED question and now you are acting like you have never seen it before and asking me to restate it !!! ! Hilarious...

 

It's ridiculous....untrue, misleading, typical fake AntiChoice crap.....but I can understand your defensiveness...


FoxHastings said: ↑
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.

 

Men have "mother's milk " !!! What ??!!

No, to be fair , if men have nipples why aren't they "doing their duty" and nursing babies.

You said women have breasts so they HAVE to feed babies...( and you didn't seem to know that breasts had other purposes LOLOLOL...



Guess what? Even with all your misinformation and ridiculous pictures and misogyny, and ranting about the Big Red Devil... …women still do exactly what they please.

Did you read that? Women do exactly as they please no matter what YOU think or feel....and they always will .






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.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
There is something called bodily autonomy, you should look it up sometime.


You didn't look it up...YOU gave definitions of "life"....

 

Uh, fine post but what has it got to do with the post of mine you quoted :

FoxHastings said: ↑
NO husband can force his wife to either gestate or abort."""""


????

 

That does not refute one word of my post:

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.""""


No matter what the pre-nupt says, NO one can take away a person's right to bodily autonomy.

A woman can "contract" to have a baby but can break the contract.

Even if she "contracts' for having a baby NO one can force her to gestate...that would involve kidnapping and illegal confinement and I bet a whole slew of other crimes..

…….and if she contracts to have no children NO one can force her to abort if she gets pregnant.

What if a woman contracts to have a baby and then her life is in jeopardy if she gestates and delivers? Do you think the "father" can say, " go ahead, I don't care if she dies""? NO, he can't, he doesn't own her.


Married people are NOT owned, they are only married.

 

What you evidently do not understand is that this is a Public Debate forum in which I am not particularly constrained to answer directly to YOUR QUESTIONS or notions! I happen to agree with the one you posted above.

If I pick-up on one of your remarks I find that it may be relevant to what I have in mind to relate. But I am not obliged by any rule to respond to that which YOU expect me to respond.

Back to topic. Yes of course, no husband can force his wife to either gestate of abort?

Wow! What a PROFOUND ERROR have I made to presume otherwise?

M r a ...

 

Then if you have "thoughts" on the topic , post them....you shouldn't need my posts to do that....or be clearer in what you are addressing in any post....

 

It's my fault that you do not know how to read a Debate Thread?

Wow! What next ... ?

 

OK, explain how a couple KNOWS how many kids they will have.....HINT: They can't know....it's a crap shoot.

So the husband finds he can't father children and so breaks his contract....is he thrown in jail?

The mother finds a pregnancy may kill her and breaks the contract...is she thrown in jail?

 

It’s really kinda easy. Sperm banks make it easy.

 

You’re right. He wants the child and she doesn’t. Who makes the final decision? He doesn’t want to child and she does. Who makes the final decision? They can both discuss it all they want but the final decision is hers