Abortion is about the most fundamental human right: self-ownership

It's not my goal to be a ladies favorite. I speak my mind and don't adhere to political correctness.

Women tend to favor totalitarianism, just look at the voting trends. Abortion will likely become a mandate (as will euthanasia, I expect), eugenics never died out, it just became Planned Parenthood.

 

It would seem you are responding to my comment, though not to quote me directly using the quote function seems a little childish, are you hoping I won't see the response ... I have and will respond.

 

LOL!!!! Really now?

So since at this point in time it is possible for us to take any Human cell in the body and from it create the necessary Stem Cells which we can genetically assign as being a Human Egg and Sperm Cell and then fertilize such a egg cell does that mean you are against donating blood of which a great amount of these blood cells die after becoming too old for use because we can easily turn such cells into a Fertilized Human Egg Cell.

A clump of cells implanted into the uterine wall is no more a Human at this point that a Wart on your skin.

AboveAlpha

 

No it does not and you clearly do not understand what you are talking about.

 

BY that brilliant line of reasoning if one shoots another and misses a bone it will not be considered a gunshot. So much for your ability to reason and intelligently argue a point.

 

Why was Scott Peterson charged with double murder, if fetuses aren't persons?

Also, if the UVVA law was just meant to "protect a woman's right to choose", and it really wasn't about giving rights to the unborn, then why did President Bush say this?

 

Proclamations of self praise are the exact indicator of the opposite and your posts also confirm that.

 

On (3), you need to peruse more studies.

When claims are made that women who have abortions have more mental health problems than those who give birth, it is crucial to consider just exactly what women are being compared.

Many women who give birth have wanted pregnancies, but almost all women who have abortions have unwanted pregnancies. Studies that have unconfounded the variables by comparing only women who had unwanted pregnancies find that the mental health problems are just about the same for those who chose abortion and those who chose to give birth.

That is, the real problem is not abortion, but unwanted pregnancy, which frequently results in serious depression and other problems no matter what choice a woman makes.

Unwanted pregnancy is in fact more commonly found among those who already have mental health problems and those who are in poverty. While keeping the child will not impoverish them, since Medicaid routinely finances poor single mothers and their children. Hence, those women who want to keep their child will find the government support for their pregnancies and their maternal projects afterward useful. Meanwhile, a woman has to finance an abortion herself, and if she's already in poverty, this just makes her life even more precarious.

The production of new people can result from 1) an act of voluntary mutual love of people who have long planned and voluntarily continued pregnancy, on one hand, and 2) from rape, a violent materialistic act of hateful coercion against another and involuntarily continued pregnancy, on the other. Hence, there is nothing inherently good about this production.

No matter how many laws society makes against abortion, it will always be possible for a woman to end a pregnancy legally. Suicide is legal in all fifty US states and no embryo or non-viable fetus can survive the death of the woman carrying it if she is intelligent enough to insure that her circulation stops. I still remember the suicide I carefully planned over 40 years ago after being raped just in case the worst happened and I was pregnant by that rape.

I'm not at all against the idea of women deciding, when they don't want to get pregnant, that they will abstain from all sex with heterosexual men on the grounds that they constitute a real threat to the women's liberty, health, happiness, and fulfillment of individual potential. I've done that for over 35 years, and I'm not gay. Sexual intercourse is a commodity and it has been highly overvalued.

 

Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212)

 

Like I said you do not understand what you are talking about. Just because you refer to it, it does not mean you understand it.

 

California law:

(a)Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/8/1/s187#sthash.cVFtp6O2.dpuf

Because he shamelessly pandered to his base.

 

That is a good question. How is it that other people can cause the death of a woman and her fetus and be charged with double murders but women can still have abortions and not be charged with murder?

Hmm, it's such a conundrum! Hmm...Think it maybe has something to do with the fact that only the pregnant woman gets to decide if she remains pregnant or not?

 

Violence is not required for a pregnancy to be deemed a literal injury, it is also deemed such in compensation claims for failed sterilization procedures, and also in consensual statutory rape.

People vs Cross On Appeal -

(1) Can a pregnancy without medical complications that results from unlawful but nonforcible sexual conduct with a minor support a finding of great bodily injury?

Holding(s):
(1) Yes, it can, and here evidence of the pregnancy was sufficient to support such a finding.

Issue 1:
Great bodily injury “means a significant or substantial physical injury.” This is a question of fact to be decided by the jury. In Sargent, the court found that the pregnancy itself that followed a rape, constituted a great bodily injury based on the severe intrusion into a woman’s body. In fact, none of the cases cited by the defendant suggested that medical complications or the use of force is required to support a finding of great bodily injury. Each of the cases instead acknowledges that a great bodily injury determination is to be made by the jury based on the facts as presented at trial in the context of the particular crime and the particular injuries suffered by the victim. Furthermore, Section 12022.7 does not make any such limitation. Therefore, the court rejects defendant’s argument here that a pregnancy without medical complications that results from nonforcible but unlawful intercourse can never support a finding of great bodily injury. Proof that a victim’s bodily injury is “great,” that is, significant or substantial within the meaning of section 12022.7, is commonly established by evidence of the severity of the victim’s physical injury, the resulting pain, or the medical care required to treat or repair the injury.

This was an assumption made with little to no evidence to support it and was based more on cultural acceptance of pregnancy normally being a 'good' thing.

The revue I assume you are using is one that has been severely criticized by numerous subject specialists in a number of ways, from the non-disclosure of the author and the affiliation with pro-life groups to the suspect methodology used. Other studies have shown that the majority of women who suffer any form of psychiatric problems after an abortion also suffered with psychiatric problems prior, the same correlation can also be found in women who undertook the full pregnancy and also suffered psychiatric problems.

Since this is an argument rarely if ever made concerning the reasons for abortion it really has little relevance. To address the issue correctly one has to account for the medical fact that ALL pregnancies, wanted or not, cause physical injuries to the woman. In the case of a continued pregnancy the woman consents to these injuries taking place, in the case of abortion the woman does not.

Individual consent in most societies and most legal system is of primary importance. Bearing that in mind, if a woman does not agree to the ways a fetus affects her body and liberty, then, by definition, the fetus is legally harming her. To say that a medically normal pregnancy is a serious bodily injury is already established in the law in contexts other than abortion. It is termed "wrongful pregnancy." When a fetus affects a woman's body and liberty in pregnancy without consent, the changes are so massive, they meet the standards currently set in law for the use of deadly force in selfdefense.

most people do not conform to the slippery slope fallacy - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html and you are missing the very large elephant in the room. Pregnancy and abortion is about choice and consent, should the government be compelled to legally force a person against their choice and consent to allow injuries to occur to their body.

 

I accept that explanantion. Thx

 

Sorry. I actually typed out a lengthy response but apparently I was logged out when typing it so when I submitted the post I lost everything. I've been busy with Xmas stuff so I haven't gotten around to replying to it again yet. And no, nothing you said was unpleasant, just incorrect haha.

 

Originally I replied to every section, but I lost my response and I don't have the will to do it again. You said at the end I could reply to your last key points, which I will do. The key part of my post is also the last section, so it may be best to focus on that. The reason is because I think it gets to the crux of our disagreement.

1. Do you support abortion in early stages of development?

Earlier you mentioned talk of DNA and the father etc. If those arguments were truly at issue, they would apply equally to early stages of development. So my question is: what about the fetus makes it an individual human being that it was not before? At this point I am still clarifying where you are coming from, as I have found anti-abortionists/pro-lifers to vary widely on their reasoning. I don't want to assume what you believe.

2. How is individual autonomy different than self-ownership?

I am most regretful that I lost my post because I had a much better response to the topic of individual autonomy than what will follow, but I will try to get the same point across. It seems to me your idea of individual autonomy is virtually identical to self-ownership. You simply replace the term "ownership" with "control." Where I say the woman owns her body, you would say the woman controls her body. I do not see that as a relevant distinction to our purposes. If the woman controls her own body, she thus controls everything it it--otherwise she cannot be said to truly have individual autonomy. A man does not own a woman's body, thus he of course does not have equal rights to the fetus which is part of the woman's body. Or, to phrase it in your terms, due to the woman's self-autonomy, the man has no control over the woman's body, and thus no control over anything inside of it.

3. Granting for argument that a fetus is an individual equal to the woman, how can the fetus's individual autonomy invalidate the woman's?

It is not the fetus's autonomy that is violating the woman's because it has none. But even if it did (which I reject), it would be the fetus living inside of the woman against her will that violates her autonomy, not the fact that the fetus itself has autonomy. Thus the anti-abortionists claim that a fetus has rights above that of the woman--namely the right to live inside the body of another autonomous individual against that individual's will.

The fact that not all of the nutrients are going to the baby and the heart is still pumping blood cells to both the woman and the baby is irrelevant. Were the fetus to take all nutrients and take over the heart, the harm would be greater, but the fact that it causes harm to a lesser degree does not mean it is not causing harm at all. For example: say a man were to stab a woman in the stomach with a knife. The woman survives. Not all of her blood leaks out of her body, and not all of her organs were damaged. Are we to then say that because the man did not kill the woman, he has not violated her rights? Surely such a notion is absurd.

As to your marriage point: marriage involves two consenting parties. Partner's in marriage agree to give up part of their autonomy/ownership. That is what contracts do--they are means of individuals abdicating various rights under various terms. By the very nature of the woman seeking an abortion, it is clear she does not consent to the action of bearing a child, and therein lies a major distinction between marriage and abortion. Prohibiting abortion is more akin to the government forcing individuals to get married without consent.

No, but the cohabitation of a normal and happy relationship is voluntary and with the consent of both parties. In the case of a woman seeking an abortion, clearing she does not consent to the arrangement.

To a woman seeking an abortion prohibited from doing so, pregnancy is the forced cohabiting of a zygote/embryo/fetus with a woman. As such, the individual autonomy of the actual woman is violated at the expense of the potential child.

The mother's autonomous rights are being violated, and it is even too much to grant the fetus individual autonomy for it is not even biologically autonomous. But for now we do not need to address whether or not the fetus is deserving of individual autonomy or self-ownership. Even if it were, such autonomy does not include the right to violate the rights of another.

It appears to grounding of your position is that the woman consents to bearing a child. In other words, say it was proven beyond a doubt in your own mind that a woman who seeks and abortion does not consent to being pregnant. Would you then become pro-abortion? To give you the same insight, if it were proven to me that the fetus is an individual human being and that the woman consents to bearing the child and thus her rights are in no way violated, I would become pro-life.

 

That is just it, it does not.

Where is that enshrined with the force of law?