It took a war to end slavery and the Holocaust. Will it take a war to end abortion?

I think you defined innocent just fine.

Pro choice support a womans choice to abort. If its a womans choice then she can abort at any time and for any reason. This creates an "abortion culture" where pregnant women, mothers and the unborn do not have the same value as non pregnant childless women and men. This is where we get the "she should've had an abortion" way of thinking.

Ofcourse they should grant it more access. It wouldn't be in her body if not for an action her and her partner chose to partake in. And in the case of rape the rapist should be held accountable for any and all "injuries", not the fetus. In all cases the fetus did not cause the situation, someone else did.

 

Thank you.

It supports her choice either way, and no it does not create an "abortion culture" is creates a culture of respecting the individuals right to choose.

Sorry the highlighted part is pure emotional hyperbole, there is nothing of any fact in your statement, the very fact that pro-choice supports a woman's choice what ever it is is evidence enough to show that they are valued as much as any other person, taking away that choice is devaluing them.

Sounds like you are advocating consent to sex = consent to pregnancy and that has been blown apart on numerous occasions.

By saying "Ofcourse they should grant it more access" you are in effect stating that the unborn have rights over and above what all other people have ergo you are advocating for the unborn to be "supper-persons" ie of higher standing and value than anyone else, this kind of thinking clearly violates the equal protection clause and is in direct contradiction to what the Constitution stands for.

Can you please point out anywhere where a person has been granted the right to be attached to another persons body in order to sustain their life without their consent?

The state cannot grant something to a group of people it does not grant to all other people.

If I invite a mentally incompetent person into my house and they then start to injure me, by your logic I cannot defend myself as the mentally incompetent person did not cause the situation, I did by inviting them in

I also take it from your above comment that you are against abortion in cases of rape.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3 But you know how rape culture makes people say things like "she shouldnt wear that, she's asking for it", "she shouldn't act like that, shes asking for it." "She shouldnt be at that place at that time, shes asking for it"?
Well abortion culture makes people say "she should have aborted that baby, its disabled", " she should've aborted that baby, she's too poor", and "she would've aborted that baby if she was really raped".

Do you deny this culture exists?

And yes I am advocating consent to sex=consent to pregnancy, so long as the person was aware sex led to pregnancy. I advocate being responsible for your iwn actions and not killing one being for the acts of another. Just because you and the pro choice movement disagree, it doesn't mean its been "blown apart" Currently in the USA the unborn have a right to use the mothers body after 24 weeks. In other countries its earlier, and in still other countries its always.
Plus people always rely on the bodies of others for survival. Newborns, the elderly and disabled, welfare recipients, people in public health care, they all need assisstance from others. And those others use their bodies to give that assisstance. You raise revenue for public funding without the use of human capital, and create machines that provide care without the need for human intervention, and then you can say no one has the right to use the bodies of others to survive.

Giving someone the choice to kill a third party, for their own actions or the actions of a second party, is a right no other human has.

And if you invite an incompetent person into your home, knowing they will cause you injury, and intending to kill them and claim self defence, not only is it wrong and immoral but also illegal if it can be proven.

 

No one says i am going to abort my baby
It is a baby when it is born

Killing a third party assumes you have a person
In this case you do not have a person being killed

No one has a RIGHT to use the body of another in order to survive
Others may offer help
They may even donate a kidney
But the person in need of a kidney has no right to someone else's kidney
Even if they will die without it
You have no right to use my body to survive..... Full stop

 

Btw
A war was not required to end slavery
It was not required in britain, or canada, or many other places

 

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject .. though I condemn those who say such things.

No it does not "make" people say it or are you so reliant on what others say that you cannot form your own opinions? and again please show any such evidence that pro-choice people actually say these things.

then you are 100% wrong . .you are aware that getting into a car may result in an accident that causes you injuries, by your logic the fact you are aware of the risk means you are not entitled to any medical help and that is just plain stupid.

A consent to a risk does not imply consent to injuries, furthermore IF the unborn are ever declared as persons equal to all others then as a separate person they MUST gain separate consent to impose pregnancy onto the woman .. consent is NOT transferable without the agreement of the person who gave the original consent ergo the consent to one person (a man) for one action (sexual intercourse) is not proxy consent for another person (the fetus) for a separate action (pregnancy)

You could try for implied and/or informed consent, problem is those are only valid to the point that the person, by word or action, explicitly says "No", once they have done that implied and/or informed consent is moot and irrelevant.

She is being responsible, just not in a way you agree with . .why should your opinion on what is responsible or not over ride other people?

Difference is I can, and have, provided ample evidence to the assertion I make, where as you have provided nothing more than your opinion .. please do provide your evidence that consenting to one person for one action means or even implies consent to another person for a separate action.

Yes currently in the US that is the way it is, simply because the unborn are NOT persons under the law, therefore the state can and does impose restrictions, just as it can impose restrictions on how you drive your car. All that changes when or if the unborn are ever granted personhood status .. however with the advent of certain laws the legal standing of a fetus has become a grey area, so the question is -

If the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus, on what grounds can it allow the fetus, as an incompetent actor, to intrude on the body integrity and liberty of another private party, the woman, as a means for attaining its objective?.

The courts have not yet addressed the constitutionality of the states response to the intrusion, including the use of that intrusion as a means for accomplishing the state's goal : The protection of the fetus .

The issue in abortion rights is, therefore, not the state's interest in protecting potential life, but rather the state's justification for offering greater protection of potential life than born life. In other words, the issue is not the legitimacy of the state's interest in potential life but rather the state's justification for granting to pre-born potential life a greater right of access to another person's body than it grants born life.

None of the above rely on a biological connection to another person, all are socially dependent .. something that any person can provide, and no they do not rely on the bodies of others for survival, they rely on the assistance of others for survival. The newborns mother/career does not supply oxygen etc from her/his own body. The Elderly do not require an umbilical cord to be cared for. The disabled do not need to suppress the local immune system of their career. The welfare recipients do not need to re-route circulatory systems in order to survive. People in public health care do not need to grow organs in others in order to survive, so yet again you simply do not understand what social and biological dependency is.

Again you have no understanding of social and biological dependency, none of the above require a physical connection to another person in order to be accomplished.

Tell that to those killed in drone strikes or everyone of the innocent people killed in war, better known as collateral damage.

Don't change the question to suit, I never said anything about "knowing" they will cause you injury. Answer the question asked and not the one you just made up to suit.

 

And here's where the oxymoron shows up again.

If a person really believes that aborting an embryo is "killing a baby" - how can they justify allowing it at all, even in non-consenting situations? That's basically saying that "murdering a baby should be okay" under any circumstances.

So this reveals the concern isn't a genuine belief that it's "murder" - just that it's "ethically irresponsible" along with a desire for the state to enforce "responsibility"

 

Some pro-choicers openly believe it is a baby, but believe killing is acceptable because it is inside the woman and using her body. So likewise why wouldn't you think there could be some pro-lifers who believe it is a baby but that killing could be acceptable in certain situations?

 

Please do show proof that any Pro-Choicer in here has ever said the fetus is a baby.

 

I've always opposed that stance - I believe that brain activity should determine when it's a human life and when it has rights.

With the exception of the mother's life is the only justifiable exception that I can see - If a pro-lifer believes an embryo is a baby, then how can they justify killing it just because the father is a rapist? That's just saying that some lives are worth more than others.

 

Well IMO killing is acceptable in certain situations; Morally, ethically and sometimes legally. Self defence is a pretty universal one, i dont think there are laws anywhere that say you can't kill to save your life. Mercy is another one. Euthanasia is legal in many places around the world and is always moral (IMO) if it means saving a person from pain and suffering with no chance of recovery. Then there is self sacrafice or defence of others. If you have two conjoined twins and either one or both will die, it's pretty much accepted that you end the life of one to save the other.

I personally don't think rape victims, or those uneducated in sex should have more access to abortion than anyone else. Except in cases of self defence or mercy. My point with that statement was that you can't claim the unborn are "invaders" if you gave them no choice but to be in your body.

 

You think rape victims gave the fetus no choice but to be in their body........



"""""I personally don't think rape victims, or those uneducated in sex should have more access to abortion than anyone else"""""


How hard hearted to want to force a rape victim to have the filthy rapist's kid. Punishing the victim , how sick!
Forcing 12 year old to have their own father's baby, disgusting and immoral ..

 

Cerebral electrical activity can be detected as early as 7 weeks. That's about the same time those little arms and legs begin wiggling around.

Let's make one thing clear - it is considered a fetus at 9 weeks after conception. Plenty of women get their abortions after 9 weeks. Not an embryo.


And those supposed "embryos" that get frozen for in vitro fertilization are, with only 100-150 cells, scarcely more developed than a blastocyst. So do not confuse these early "embryos" with an embryo at 6 weeks.
By the time it has arms and legs, it is too late to be able to freeze it.


______ human embryos with roughly 100 cells each _________________ human embryo at 7 weeks

 

This debate is already over. Roe v Wade ended it.

 

That's what pro-choicers would like to think. But the reality is these Supreme Court judges were legislating from the bench. They were without proper standing under the U.S. Constitution to interfere, but they did anyway. There were two judges on the court who dissented, so it was not a unanimous ruling either.

 

It's over. Let it go.

 

I'm sure that's what plantation owners told Abolitionists after Dred Scott v. Sandford.

 

Apples and oranges, apples and oranges, what a horrible comparison. Try again.........

 

A war huh? We are headed into an over populated world. I wouldn't be surprised if at sometime in the future every family will be limited to a single child. Much like is done in China today.

 

Perhaps. But we need to figure out a way to do it without killing the innocent.

I take it you don't have a problem with lots of guns in the hands of the civilian population?
The more people we can find an excuse to get rid of the better, isn't that right?

Seriously, how can those who know abortion kills a human being, but who nevertheless support it as a means of population control, possibly be opposed to guns???

 

I am not opposed to guns, in fact I own quite a few as any old country boy from Georgia does. But as I see all of this urban sprawl eating up farm land left and right, soon hybrid seed won't be enough to sustain the world with its every growing population. Who know how far into the future I was talking about. 10 billion, 15 billion people on this hunk of rock. Sooner or later limits will have to be placed on the size of the family. It is that simple.

Either that or find a way to kill off a few billion people.

 

Simple answer; not gonna happen.

 

The Nazis figured out a way to do that. I suppose we should be thanking them.

 

I suppose we could be humane about it and when we can no longer produce enough food for everyone, let them fight it out. The way farm land is being eaten up and the world population explosion, it is bound to happen sooner or later.

Limiting each family to one child I suppose will come into play at sometime in the future. A sort of George Orwell thing.