Abortion is NOT a woman's right

You don't care if a law was based on a lie???

I don't know what you mean by that.

 

The lawmakers who wrote and passed the UVVA have so far kept their word and have no used it to ban abortion.

So, where did they lie?

The lawmakers who wrote the UVVA said that THEY would not use the language of that law to ban abortions.

They never said that future lawmakers or citizens like me couldn't use it.

 

What about a deception? The "viability point" doesn't necessarily mean the baby is not viable before then. And even the viability point is before the third trimester, by most definitions. Meanwhile, pro-choicers can giddily claim that "late-term" abortions are very rare. If this isn't deceptive, I'm not sure what is.

 

Rights are social constructs generated by institutions. They are not natural, inalienable, self-evident nor God-given.

Yet there is a huge difference between the two you've indentified and the unborn. The altzhemer's patient and the sleeping person both hold emotional capacity and are/were conscious. The unborn lacks both of these when the majority of abortions are performed. Furthermore, the two you have listed already have expressed and can express a desire to live.
Now, if you're done dodging my question, I would like for you to answer it; Beyond your own personal feelings, what difference would it make to the unborn whether they are aborted or not?

You cannot "rob" someone of something they've never had.

The unborn doesn't require such protection and why should they? It is never going to matter to a human embryo whether it is destroyed or not.

And this is what makes you dangerous; because you are willing to sacrifice human lives for what is effectively legal lip service to human zygotes. The ends, of the pro-"life" movement, never justify the means. You say you are pro-"life" but I don't see you saving any lives. What I do see is your movement ignoring the millions of illegal abortions which happen under your watch and yet you are bothered when abortions are performed legally in sterile environments which have saved lives. So when does your movement start to actually save lives?

 

If the pregnancy is near the viability point, doctors can perform tests to determine if the fetus is viable.

It is deceptive to claim they are NOT rare.

 

They are also listed and outlined in our Constitution.

Anencephalic children are born without a brain (only a brain stem) they have no thoughts, ability to feel pain or any means to express their wishes - even if they could have any.

It's still a murder to kill one.

I answered this already.

The victims right to the equal protections of our laws is not contingent on whether or not they might have thoughts and feelings of their own.

They have a life of their own and they have a right to it.

It matters to me.

Actually, I am not pro-life.

I am anti-abortion.

I wish more people would learn to appreciate the difference.

If you think you can do a better job fighting abortion?

Do it.

If you think you can discourage me from doing what I can my own way?

Think again.

 

To Siva T

You are incorrectly crediting Evelyn Beatrice Hall with a quote by Voltaire.

The exact quote is, "I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

 

It is probably not going to matter to a sleeping toddler either, if the death is quick and swift.

 

They have intact brain stem functions, though. That's why they can breathe spontaneously.

 

What about when they are born alive? Although it may not be able to survive for long, a fetus can be born alive as early as 18 weeks. It moves around similar to any other baby. Though the lungs are not developed enough to breathe and the fetus goes unconscious after a few minutes, and eventually dies.

 

Actually, they do not. Until a "fetus" can sustain its own life, it doesn't have a life of its own. The life it possesses is a gift from the pregnant woman, the fetus only has the life the woman gives it.

 

Can a little baby survive on its own without milk from a female mammal ?

 

Since you've phrased your reply "from a female mammal", I'm guessing you know that a little baby can take nourishment from a number of sources. Is that true of a fetus? Why should a woman be obligated, either morally or legally, to sustain another being? Certainly, the father of a child is not obligated, at least legally, to save the life of the child by donating a kidney.

 

Refusing to donate a kidney does not directly and intentionally kill the child.

 

But it would. A toddler already has the ability to value his or her life through emotions and has already been conscious.

 

Refusing to provide a uterus does not directly and intentionally kill a "child" anymore than refusing to provide a needed kidney. You are just trying to rationalize different requirements for men and women in saving children's lives. You're just a man worshipper.

 

Because pro-choice IS pro-life, working for a world in which abortion is not needed. Anti-abortion just means making abortion illegal.

 

No, I don't believe in different requirements in men and women. If a woman refused to donate her kidney to save her child, that's no different than a man refusing to donate a kidney to save his own child.

When the parents refuse to donate their kidneys to save their child, are they going out of their way to kill the child? Abortion directly kills the child, refusing to donate the kidney doesn't directly kill the child.

 

To be fair, In Nazi Germany, dogs weren't considered persons either. Neither were cats or flies or elephants. Obviously, this argument doesn't work.

 

I don't know that there is any problem related to women on birth control pills as they are extremely reliable. Of course a woman can't get pregnant on her own and the man might not be considerate of the fact that the woman can become pregnant on a certain day. It's amazing that as a society we always blame the woman for pregnancy. We can also note that the woman's biological clock can change quite often. It's not like a calendar on the wall.

But here is an irony that I see. States like Texas are passing laws that effectively close Planned Parenthood facilities that provide free birth control to women. Planned Parenthood is the largest individual provider of reproductive services in the nation and "anti-Abortion" Republicans are on a campaign to close Planned Parenthood facilities in several states. They're effectively blocking access to birth control for tens of millions of women by their actions. We have religious institutions like the Catholic Church that want to deny birth control for women even though its estimated that 98% of Catholic women use birth control at some point in their lives.

All of these actions are predominately being done by men that are in control of both the Republican Party and the Catholic Church which goes against the principle that the best way to avoid pregnancy is for the woman to have access to birth control especially if she's poor and can't afford it.

What the hell are men doing making these decisions when men don't get pregnant? How many pregnancies today are the result of men preventing a woman from obtaining birth control that would prevent pregnancy? Republicans don't even want condoms made available in high schools which has been shown to reduce teen pregnancy. Why is that?

We know that the "abstinence programs" that evangelical Christians advocate don't reduce pregnancy rates in teenagers but condoms do so why are "male Republican politicians" opposed to programs that actually reduce teen pregnancy and supporting those that don't?

 

The zef dies upon removal from the uterus because it cannot sustain its own life. The failure to sustain its own life is not the fault of the woman who has it removed. A woman is no more obligated to provide her uterus for sustenance, than anyone else is obligated to provide a kidney.

 

The term "child" has no legal meaning under the US Constitution as the US Constitution only refers to the Rights of People/Persons. In using the term child, lacking any qualification (e.g. "unborn), it always refers to a person after birth. The term "unborn child" is actually a reference to a "fetus" biologically speaking. Why do "anti-abortionists" use the incorrect terminology in their arguments? This is an intentional act of deception being used for emotional reasons, is it not?

When a person has a kidney removed it kills the kidney. When a person has an abortion it kills the fetus. Neither the kidney or the fetus is a "person" under the Constitution so from a Constitutional perspective there is no difference between the two actions.

BTW most abortions occur before the embryo even becomes a fetus biologically although there isn't a specific timeline for this to occur. .

 

And the Constitution was drafted by the government, and enforced by the government.

Anencephalic children cannot be murdered since they are already clinically dead since they lack a neocortex. What favor would one be doing to a anecephalic patient to sustain their life? Ultimately, you are just keeping a body a live, not a person.

You didn't answer my question. Instead, you made a poorly crafted analogy. Now try again. Beyond your own personal feelings, what difference would it make to the unborn whether they are aborted or not?

Then what are the nature of rights? Why do we have them?

Determined by whom?

Pro-"life" and anti-abortion are just two heads attached to the same beast. You are neither pro- this or anti- that. You just oppose abortion rights.

There isn't anything which you are doing that requires my intervention. It may not have occurred to you, but Roe v Wade has already been concluded. Legal abortion is now a part of our society and it is not going to be reversed any time soon.

 

No. Abortion is every woman's privilege currently allowed by law.

 

According to the US Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade the woman has a Right to an Abortion. A link to the Roe v Wade decision has been previously provided in this thread and it's highly recommended that anyone wanting to discuss this subject read it.