lmao. The op acts like it's some wriggling demonic entity sliming its way inside a promiscuous woman. What a joke. LOL
Not to the same standard as hospitals .. which is what these TRAP laws proposed for abortion clinics .. if it is about "women's health" then the same standards that apply in hospitals should apply to ALL organisations that treat women.
Please cite where you got this from. you do know that Sanger had very little to do with the Negro project after the initial ideas and fund raising don't you, you do also know that her ideas were ignored and she was removed from the project before it got started. Sanger knew how the Negro population felt towards white doctors, she knew they did not trust them and as such she understood that in order for the birth control idea to work it would require Negro doctors etc to run it .. it is of no coincidence that the project failed after her recommendations were ignored .. the often quoted piece you have used as usual has been cherry picked and used out of context. A larger portion of the letter this quote is taken from makes Sanger's meaning clear - It seems to me from my experience . . . in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table. . . . They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. . . . His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County's white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us. The minister's work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs (Sanger, 1939, December). do you disagree that the number of immigrants to the USA needed to be reduced .. have you eve read the 1924 Immigration Act? You should read your own citations. - - - Updated - - - Anything they can do to punish a woman for having sex they will do.
Here you go http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/ppracism.txt and https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/planned-parenthood-founder-spoke-at-ku-klux-klan-rally/ Further http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger05.html How many people were sterilized because of the views of this woman and others like her?
biased - Information compiled by Lynn K. Murphy, Life Research Institute, June, 1994 Biased 100% biased Sanger was certainly an advocate of Eugenics, she was not racist and there is nothing in anything she wrote or said that gives evidence to her being racist, in fact on the few occasions she mentions race she ALWAYS stands against racial discrimination. Sterilization in the USA started in 1907 BEFORE Sanger become a public figure, to attempt to link her to this practice is disingenuous to say the least. The fact that she advocated against the "feeble" and "unfit" having children does not indicate a racist agenda, to do that you would have to show that she advocated this for a specific race ONLY .. she did not, she advocated it for ALL races including her own. Sanger was removed from the project BEFORE it was implemented. She was involved in it's initial idea stages and securing funds that is all.
You DO believe in the stork!!! OK, here's how it goes....the fetus does not enter the woman through her vagina.... Your statement :: ""Does anyone have the right to sponge off another for 18 years? """".........................what does that have to do with abortion?
It isn't a matter of "enforcement", but that the "choice" doesn't exist. On what sound, fundamental intellectual premise does this choice exist? To be more specific, why does this "choice" only exist in the womb? Should we not then agree that there are "undesirables" and we should eliminate them? What's the difference between a fetus and a living person? If we believe in the conception of this "choice", then there is no fundamental difference. The value attached to a living person is irrelevant as compared to the financial or social "harm" this person has inflicted. The only value life has, is to the person living. Not to society and not to the parents. There's no argument that could restore the person's value under this conception. His value is flimsy, subjective, based not on his own person but on how society views him. The existence of his head, legs, torso, etc does nothing to justify his existence. It just means he grew a few limbs. Maybe, if we view humans as stock and cattle and the need to preserve the economy as "workers". Ah yes, under that argument we can establish a "value" of life. But not a very high value. Something tells me if that argument became the norm though, many people would resist. So you see, by the laws of Naturalism we cannot permit this "choice" ethically. It is a "choice" that can only be given through selective application and you and I both know there's no logic or intelligence in that. There's only bias, and arrogance. I will grant you, there is no science that confirms that. But it's the day-to-day living. Because life has its value, human beings have grown. Because humans have grown, there've been as many great individuals as there have been evil individuals. And because we don't know, who knows through our selective application we may end up allowing more evil people to live then good people. That isn't desirable, now is it? We humans cannot govern over the creation of life, it is beyond our portfolio. What we can do, is to govern our own lives and make choices with our own lives as best we can. But there is no logic that determines our right to make choices to rule over other lives. Other than a dehumanizing one. And as I just demonstrated, the only way to dehumanize one, is to dehumanize everyone.
Sort of reminds me of that X-Files episode with the demonic twin eating people at the carnie circus. Is that really how rabid right wing neo con christians view the world? Cripes what a backwater belief system.
It exists under consent and self-defence to name two things and it doesn't only exist in the womb, you also have the choice to defend yourself against non-consented injuries imposed on you by a third party do you not? A fetus and a living person have fundamental differences the main one being that a born person is not biologically dependent on another person in order to sustain it's life and while a born person may be social dependent that is a task ANY person can perform, only one person can perform the biological requirement of a fetus. No person has the right to use another persons body to sustain their own life without consent, so why should a fetus (as a person) be any different, to demand that the fetus be granted a right that no other person has is a clear violation of the equal protection clause, the only way round this is to either state that no person has the right to use another persons body without their consent or that all people can do so. The choice is about whether the female consents to her body being used to sustain the life of another, a choice all people have, including you. Life only has as much value as another places upon it, that is 100% true for everyone including you. Naturalism is a philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, once the unborn are deemed as persons they are no longer natural, the fall under the remit of law and are subject to the same protections and restrictions of those laws.. If however the unborn remain as a natural item then there is nothing that stops a person influencing or changing a natural process .. we do it all the time, furthermore as a natural process the unborn simply do not qualify for the same protections as born people, the very laws that would be used to protect the unborn also restrict what they can and cannot do. It is simply irrelevant as to how many good or bad people have been born or not, all this is doing is using potential as a basis for law and as far as I am aware laws are not enacted on the premise of we don't know or the potential of something. Abortion no more dehumanizes the unborn than deadly force in self-defence or executions dehumanizes, this attempt to project an emotional argument is disingenuous
Define consent, specifically define consent as it relates to pregnancy. Because it is impossible for a fetus to ask for consent, in such a one-sided proposition the female is the one who "decides" upon consent or not. That's totally illogical. But nevertheless, it's the "position" the law has taken. There's also a distinct difference in consent and self-defense for people. Namely, that I'm "defending" myself from someone who is an aggressor towards me. The fetus is not an aggressor(I've had this argument before, though the "law" also upholds this one, it's real flimsy and lacks any consistency. Indeed, all "pro-choice" arguments are the real emotional ones). The fetus is acting biologically as it is programmed genetically to do so. To presume the fetus as anything but natural, also denies ourselves our own natural existence. We cannot escape from the life cycle we started from. Does the chicken not come from the egg? It's not a matter of which came first, both are of the same property. The problem with the abortion argument, is that there are those(like yourself) who can and will choose to apply their "logic" or "reasoning" and there never will be a defined "reason". At least, not so long as the "choice" proponent is relevant. If we uphold actual science, we know that the fetus contains human property, only came from humans and that pregnancy is a natural cause of term. In other words, this argument will go nowhere, never solved by society but unsatisfactorily satsified by those in a robe. Much like the gay marriage argument in the 21st century, which also had no defined philosophical points of view or a boundary. Not necessarily, while that "one person" can only perform the biological requirement of a fetus, there's a lot more of that "one person'(namely the female) who can in fact perform the biological requirement for fetuses. See what I did there? A fetus is just as much socially dependent as a living person. It's just that the fetus is connected to the womb of a specific female. Furthermore, while "any person" could for example contribute to charity, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to. Nor should a family be obligated to raise a live child, under the same logical premise as for abortion rights. Indeed, logic dictates that if life is valueless, then no one has the sanctity of life. You cannot simply say "At this cut off point, society deems X person worth living." That's preposterous. Except, the fetus is never "using" another person's body to "sustain" its own life. The womb provides nutrients for the baby to grow into a strong, healthy and viable baby. It is one part, of the whole human body. Health complications aside, the body's function is entirely up to the woman. This too, is a flimsy argument when we understand the full definition of using another person's body, or "sustaining" a life. The fetus's existence in the womb is a natural reaction, to natural human chemicals caused by human interaction. There's no argument in the world, that can even begin to portray it as force. The only "force" used may be non-consensual intercourse(and since I know you'll bring it up, other "non-sexual" ways that sperm is injected into the womb.) But that's it. Since sperm takes no life of its own, you cannot in anyway put responsibility on the fetus. That statement has been made by a pro-choicer I believe, arguing that the inability to take responsiblity is the reason for dehumanizing the fetus. But that also cannot hold water. Again, if so, we have to invalidate our own lives as that means we all essentially forced our way into being. You'll call this "emotionalism". Not at all, it's taking a personal interpretation of one's actions. We were once sperm, we, in your mind, forced our way into our mother's wombs and hence came into this world either willingly or unwillingly. Maybe we survived an abortion, who knows. This is a lot like the argument that gays could marry someone of the opposite sex, but not a guy x guy or girl x girl(before the SCOTUS) ruling. You can theoretically claim I have this "choice", but there's nothing that compels this choice into being(as a guy anyway). Could I choose to donate blood? I guess or maybe a kidney? This is about as close as guys come to the reproductive system for females. But there's a decisive difference: My blood or a kidney, relates to my body specifically. The fetus is a developing body, of a life of another. You cannot make a "choice" on another person's life. And unless health complications provide for it, the fetus is not making you choose the woman's life either. In most cases, it's a natural birth. You want to use abortion when health complications endanger a woman's life? Fine. I've always supported Medical Abortion and I'm not nearly as radical as a bible thumper or as a Middle eastern radical. But I believe there is no logical argument that a healthy fetus should just be tossed down the toilet, at X woman's convenience because 'well, it's a drag.' Yeah, life's a drag and you've been inconvenicing people your whole life. So have I, it doesn't mean the people we've inconvenienced thought they had the right to cull us. I mean smh, this isn't emotional but this is just an example: I never did come out of my mom's womb. My mom had a C-Section. My oxygen was cut off, I got brain damage and I was born with CP. Anyone could've easily made the decision that "AmericanNationalist' just wasn't worth it. But very thankfully, they didn't. Acknowledging that very fact, is why I'm pro-life. I don't see the arrogance in being "able" to make a decision on a life, when I had the fortune of living. It could only come from a self-absorbed view that doesn't care about anyone but themselves. Tell me, if someone with brain damage and CP could aim for a political career, then who are we to deny human possibilities? That's not emotionalism either, it's an appeal to reason. It's an appeal to morality, to humanism. The denial of some possibilities, will eventually lead to the denial of all possibilities which in turn will lead to a decline in human life. You want to wear contraceptives forever? Fine, be my guest. Some people just don't want a family and that's okay. Wanna tie the tubes? Okay sure. Psychologically speaking, I'd be nervous as all hell to castrate myself but if I have to make that decision then I will. But what I won't do, is to prevent that child from having all of the opportunities I had. In fact, there's only one case EVER that I could find myself supporting an abortion. And that is, if the child is deemed so unhealthy that it couldn't live a natural life. I don't want my child going through life blind or deaf, or mute. I don't want my child coming into a world that he/she can't fully experience. That's not fair to the child. Other than that, any other challenges: Bring them on. Life is so much more valuable than the pro-choice crowd thinks of it. It's not a blob to me, or a collection of cells(though it is in fact a collection of cells. Meaning it has the DNA constrains of real, living people. It has a living function already.) It's a child that gets to experience life, a child we can groom to be even better than ourselves. A child we can love, appreciate and put all of our fibers and energies into it. The pro-choice crowd simply doesn't have this enthusiasm of being a parent. And so, there are other preemptive methods if that's the life they've chosen for themselves. No need to bring the world in a morally grey area for a select few individuals. Individually speaking, yes. But I also hold that as a species, as a society we have to(and in fact do) hold human life in value. Like any other self-interested species though, unfortunately the value we hold on it sways depending on our varying interests. I find that to be incompatible with nature, and that we should in fact define a clear definition of life's value and where it can and should be protected. In my case, I do believe that human life begins at conception. If not then, then where? Is it when a child is born? But since we have the decision to nullify that birth before it happens, then no life can essentially begin. Not without the blessings of "the mother". No, life must begin at a point where Naturalism overrules anything else since we humans are indeed a part of nature. We're born here, we breath the same air and we even in fact contribute posiitvely via H20. Life could only begin at conception since that is the moment that sperm merges with the womb to create a fetus. Definition of Concept I hold that no one has the right to interfere in this conception. The only rights we have, are to the choices we made prior to conception(IE: Intercourse.). In making an exception for rape, incest, life to the mother I am upholding the principle the law upheld in that no one owes a life to another. But by that same motion, no one has the right to interfere in the life of another, which a mother is doing when she violates the womb without cause. I would say in light of what we've learned about transfiguration, alchemy and other sciences that Naturalism is now a fundamental truth. And yes, you're right we have hence changed natural properties. But what you fail to realize is that humans have transformed a natural property, into another property that's just as natural(see: GMO's as a controversial example.) In the case of abortion, the pro-choice argument is arguing to eliminate or to destroy natural property(the fetus). In this case, the natural property of the fetus, which in of itself is life. If a fetus were conscious enough to argue for the right to live, would we then suddenly change course? Imagine for a minute, if a fetus could communicate through the womb. There's no scientific evidence of that happening(yet) but it's not without the realm of possiiblity. If such an event would occur(and on a daily basis at that), would it change your argument? But given animal laws and protections derided to them(such as birds to avoid poaching) we can argue that we don't need the fetus to communicate with us to demonstrate it's qualities as a sentinent being. After all it has the highest quality possible: Connection to our DNA. There's no higher proof of its existence and worthiness of existence then that. Are you kidding? We use potential as the basis of law all the time. Where else did the phrase "If it can save one life!" come from?(And in light of this statement, I can reference to what I said above: We humans are lying hypocrites. Valuing life one moment and then denouncing it shortly thereafter.) Gun control advocates in the US want gun control laws to "potentially" keep the country safer. Laws restricting certain neighborhoods from pedophiles(as well as Emily's List) are meant specifically "to keep the kids safe." Every single law that has ever been, has been based on potential. Laws to regulate finance? An attempt to keep corporations and politicians honest. etc. There is almost no law ever written on the premise that it would work. Except in examples where that law had been tried elsewhere, and it worked. To bring it full circle: Okgrannie often argues all the time that abortion laws in fact, have not stopped abortion. Though in fact that was the law's intent. This is because "pro-choicers", such as they are cannot be persuaded by law in the same fashion that criminals who use guns cannot be persuaded by a "no gun zone". The only way to deter crime, is to make crime a detriment by promoting good behavior, good citizens and making it more rewarding to participate in society then to rebel against it. Likewise, the only way to lower the abortion rate, is to make having families a more consciousable, and easy "decision" for pro-choicers. No, I don't believe contraceptions and teaching more people how to use contraceptions(and to make them totally free) is the answer. The next argument will be for even more abortion funding and soon, the birth rate will continue to plummet. Walla, welcome to Europe and Asia.(Though they have different circumstances. Namely just flat out not wanting them) A strong family policy, which will promote strong family growth will defeat abortion in the end, rendering it to a select few cases where its application can be justified by human principles. No argument of mine has ever been emotional. If you feel emotion from it, it means it stirs a deeper reasoning. An atheist is an atheist for example, because he feels no emotion linked to the Church. Human life, and the nature of it alone begets emotionalism and therefore, it demands a deeper reasoning. I reject abortion because it rejects a deeper reasoning. Its only logic is "Sometimes women have health complications from pregnancy, therefore women should reserve the right to cut out the fetus from the womb." But as a human species some 7 billion huge(Including at least 300 million in America), clearly there was a point where this thought didn't exist. So it's safe to say that contemporary western thought values life a lot less then it did, say 20-30 years ago. So, why do we value life a lot less? I think the answer is because the option is available to us to do so, as opposed to back then. The "choice"(and hence the usage of that word to begin with) simply wasn't available. But taking that choice in my opinion, is the coward's way out. One may make that choice, and come to live to regret it. Finding that in the end, they never truly achieved happiness because they had no one to share it with. That's not a part of my reasoning legally or lawfully. It's just part of a personal reason I despise it. It's no different from abandonment, the only difference is that the child won't know that it's abandoned. I believe in all cases then where it's possible, one should put their child up for adoption. It's the same thing, you're not morally obligated to care for it. But someone else will, and that child will get to experience life. And the "choicer" gets the experience of not having to have its life burdened. I think that's fair to all(well, except the father but that's another story for another time.). Interestingly, with the advent of these new "choices" came a very ironic form of hypocrisy: Way back in the 1800's, scientific arguments held that the man(holding the sperm which fertilized the womb) was responsible for the child and therefore had rights to the child. Now, you're basically making the polar opposite argument. However, both arguments are fundamentally wrong. It is neither the man nor the woman who is scientifically responsible for the child. It is both. The man is responsible for the insertion of semen into the womb, and the woman is responsible for delivering the baby. It's clear that Nature designed a proportional role to both parents. Yet in the interest of self-proclaimed hypocrisy, the choicers wish to propose a false-dictohomy. That false dictohomy is also the reason the debate will never end. Because we're debating on a false premise: A: That we have a choice(we don't) and B: That one or the other is solely responsible. Both are.
If the foetus is unable to give consent, then like a child that consent is decided by the parent Simple Oh! and keep your responses short NO-ONE is THAT interested in what someone else is saying to have to wade through that much typing
Consent is an "act of reason," which must be a "voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another." - Source : Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed Page 305 - More simply consent is the willingness that "an act or invasion of interest shall take place" based on "a choice between resistance and assent." - Source : Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed Page 305 . In the context of pregnancy, consent means a woman's explicit willingness, based on her choice between resistance and assent, for the fertilized ovum to implant itself and cause her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition. The fetus is certainly an aggressor in the eyes of the law ie wrongful pregnancy, even more so if it is deemed a person from conception .. the law does not apply to nature and as such If the fetus is following a natural biological programming then the states should not impose law to protect it, once they do that then the fetus no longer is a product of nature but of human agency and there is nothing emotional in that logic. A woman's right to consent to the physical intrusion by a fertilized ovum is based on the pro-lifer ideology of the personhood attributes of the fetus. If the fertilized ovum were merely a physiological 'mass of cells', like a force of nature, the legal meaning of consent, defined as a concurrence of wills, would become an unnecessary, and a meaningless concept. It makes no sense, for example, to say that people consent to the way in which their blood circulates or their eyes focus or that they consent to rain. If people want to re-route their blood circulation, as in bypass surgery, or to alter surgically the way their eyes focus, they are not restricted by the right of the blood to circulate in their bodies in a particular way, similarly, if physiological masses of cells are identified by people as alien to their bodies, as in the case of cancer, no one is going to restrict people's right to eradicate the presence and actions of those cells, because of the cells "right to life" or right to use people's bodies. The same applies to a fetus IF it is viewed as a natural force, natural forces cannot break laws. The law is only relevant only to people, the state, or juridical entities such as corporations, and only when entities such as these become involved in the damage ot injuries caused by natural forces as laws applicable - as Mary Anne Case notes, "Law is precisely that which fights nature, If something were all that natural, a law would not be needed to bring it about," - Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy : Page 375. As a pro-life bumper sticker proclaims "The Natural choice is life", by which they mean that pregnancy is not only a normal but also a natural process, yet the word natural refers to processes that occur without human intervention, like hurricanes, earthquakes and death. If a person becomes involved in these processes they are no longer legally considered natural but are caused, at least in part, by human agency, for example, even if a person is insane, a fire set by that person is no longer regarded by the law as the result of natural forces; it is rather an event that obliges the involvement of the police, even if the mentally incompetent person cannot be legally held responsible for their actions. It is ironic therefore that the pro-life forces and others that say the fetus must be considered to be a person that contradicts any depiction of pregnancy as natural. To the extent that pregnancy is initiated and maintained by an entity that is a person, it is a product of human agency, not the product of a force of nature. Similarly, although it might seem as natural for a man and a woman to have sexual intercourse, from the standpoint of law, sexual intercourse between people is the product of their human agency, not the product of natural forces, if a woman refuses to consent to sexual intercourse, it is not lawful for a man to impose himself sexually on her by claiming that he is a natural force or that he is mentally incompetent. His imposition of sexual intercourse on a woman without her consent is the crime of rape, whatever may be our cultural attitudes toward the naturalness of heterosexual relationships, much less the rights of those who are mentally incompetent. So, too, with pregnancy. The condition of pregnancy is initiated and maintained by an entity that the Court has declared to be human life under the protection of the state. Pro-life forces insist that the fertilized ovum from the moment of conception is an actual person, just like a born person. Some states such as Missouri, have declared that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception onward. Because a fetus cannot be a person and a force of nature at the same time, to the extent that when a fetus attains human status it loses its status as a natural force. When it causes pregnancy it acts more like a mentally incompetent person than like a natural force - Tristram Engelhardt notes that modern technology transforms what we might think of as the "blind forces of nature" into processes under the human control of the medical field -Source : Engelhardt, "Concluding Remarks" in Abortion and the Status of the Fetus : Page 335 From the standpoint of law, therefore, pregnancy is not a natural process precisely because it is initiated and maintained by an entity, the fetus, that is protected by the state as human life, regardless of whether that human life has attained the status of a person. A woman's right to consent to what a fetus does to her when it makes her pregnant, therefore, derives directly from the state's designation of the fetus as protected human life, and while it makes no sense to say that you consent to a natural force, such as fire, to burn your house, it does make sense to talk about whether you consent to let a person, or some other juridical agent, burn your house. Equally important should you not consent, it is appropriate to call not only the fire department to put out the fire but also the police department to stop the person from breaking the law. If the state were to categorize the fetus as a mass of living cells void of human identity, of course, the issue of consent disappears, but so, too, would the state's removal of abortion funding from health policies as a means to protect the fetus as human life disappears. Once the state declares the fetus to be under its protection as a form of human life, however, the issue no longer is merely the woman's right to chose what to do with her own body, but rather the woman's right to consent to what the fetus as a form of state protected human life does to her body. The argument I use moves away from a simple choice to one of consent and non-consenting is more than enough reason for abortion, just as you non-consenting to someone stabbing you is more than enough reason for you to use deadly force to defend yourself. Whether the fetus contains human property that can only come from humans is irrelevant, a person killing another who is attacking them without consent is also killing a person that contains human property that can only have come from humans and yet it is legal and justified to do so. There is a way to resolve the argument .. support methods that remove the need in all but serious situations, for abortion instead of fighting them. A fetus is not socially dependent on anyone and no other person can supply the biological dependency the fetus requires, try removing a 12 week fetus and implanting it into another female and see how long it survives .. where as a baby can be given to ANY other person and it will survive. no idea what you are going on about here I haven't even mentioned whether other people should be obligated to raise a child, all I have correctly stated is that a born child can be dependent by anyone, where as a fetus can only be dependent on the female it is attached to. Except you again you are commenting on things I have never stated .. I said life only has as much value as another places upon it, which is 100% correct for all people including you. Yet you and other pro-lifers do exactly say at this point, society deems X person worth living .. you just choose conception as that point. Of course the fetus is using another persons body to sustain it's life, the womb provides nothing more than an area for the fetus to mature, all of it's nutrients, etc are provided via the umbilical cord that is attached to the female and draws those nutrients etc directly from the females body .. I suggest you actually research the definition of using another persons body to sustain life means, it simply does not matter if it is the whole body or part of the body .. by your logic if someone removes a kidney without consent it doesn't matter as it is only one part of the body and the rest of the bodies function is entirely up to the person. It is your attempt at an argument that is flimsy. You are 100% wrong as explained in my previous comment, the second the state provides protection for the fetus it ceases to be a natural element .. laws do not apply to nature. Sperm are not state protected where as a fetus is, once that happened the fetus is no longer a natural entity and is subject to the same laws that born people are subject to, there is no more dehumanizing of a fetus than there is dehumanizing the attacker killed in self-defence and no it does not invalidate our own lives as our mothers consented to the injuries imposed by us through out the pregnancy until birth. Sperm have nothing to do with it, unless you are advocating for the state to start protecting sperm .. are you? What part of consenting to injuries do you not understand, Women who assume the risk of pregnancy must be seen as acting in their own interest, one way is for them to have given their express consent to that condition, in this case the woman is not being harmed by the fetus imposing pregnancy on to her against her will, she may be harmed by the pregnancy, but she does not endure harm by virtue of imposition of pregnancy upon her against her will. apples and oranges .. nothing to do with each other. It is whether the person consents to the presence of another person using their body in order to sustain it's life, and contrary to your assertion people make choices on other peoples lives everyday.. the person who kills another in self-defence has made a choice on another persons life, the person who decides to turn off the life support has made a choice on another persons life, the court that sentences a person to death has made a choice on another persons life and the solider in battle makes countless choices on other peoples lives.
I disagree, pretty much every one of your arguments is based in emotion, and no an atheist is an atheist simply because they do not believe in God nothing to do with emotion linked to the church. You are free to reject what ever you wish, that does not imply that you can force others to adhere to what you want to reject, and you are wrong about the logic .. the logic I use is based on the person at conception ideology of pro-lifers and how the law reflects on that ideology, my study and research leads me to the conclusion that the person at conception ideology only strengthens the argument in favour of abortion at any time, for any reason and the state paying for it, and no you are wrong the thought of females that they can (and will regardless of the restrictions or risks) decide to have an abortion has been with us as a species since records began. No matter what penalties you place onto a woman who seeks an abortion they will still seek them. Again wrong abortion has been around far longer than 20-30 years and women have always had the choice, the difference being the choice they made then was not legal, now it is .. as it should be. There is a saying that answers this very well .. Don't judge others until you have walked a mile in their shoes, I find it quite callous to call people you know nothing about cowards. That does not over come the issue of forcing someone to sustain injuries for a prolonged time period without their consent .. would you allow the state to force you to sustain injuries for a pro-longed period when you have done nothing wrong, if not why should a woman allow the state to do this to her? No it is not fair, it is just expecting others to bow to your wants .. BTW I do not support forcing a man to pay for a child that he did not consent to. There is no false dictohomy, nor any false premise, you are assuming the premise (begging the question) .. please show where I have EVER stated that one or the other is solely responsible? The female is the only one that incurs injuries during a pregnancy ergo just as all other people have the right to stop those injuries occurring so do she.
How do you know it has a zero percent chance of survival at one week? Couldn't it be transplanted into the womb of another woman that volunteers to be pregnant? We transplant livers, kidneys, and hearts and I don't see any medical reason why a "fetus" (upon becoming a "baby" by surgical separation) couldn't be adopted and transplanted into the womb of a woman that want's to adopt a child. Hell, because legally it would be a "child" upon removal from the womb it would even qualify as a "dependent child" for tax purposes. Of course because the adoption results in a both a personal and financial benefit to the adoptive mother it's also logical that she pay for the medical procedures. Basically we'd have "surgical separation" and "early adoption" as the option to abortion. Wouldn't there be more than enough volunteers based upon the number of women that are anti-abortionists alone? They could "put their womb where their mouth is" so to speak. So I can remove any moral objections to the "premeditated killing" by abortion by using "surgical separation" instead and then the potential lifespan of the "child" would be dependent upon a volunteer willing to allow the transplant. What would be morally objectionable would be to force the woman to be involuntarily pregnant. Forcing an involuntary obligation upon a person is a violation of their natural (inalienable) rights. So even if there's not enough volunteer adoptive mothers that's not a problem for the pregnant woman because the surgical separation would still be acceptable to protect her Rights as a person. The fetus (or society on it's behalf) cannot impose an involuntary obligation upon anyone because involuntary obligations violate the Rights of the Person and the violation of the Rights of the Person is immoral.
Why just women? - - - Updated - - - I see this is how you react when you are losing a debate good to know.
Well, many of your ilk do..(and I'm not convinced you arent in that same boat and simply lying now, since I know your history of doing such), but I'm not going to waste the effort going through old threads looking for a gotcha. Noone mentioned Mob Rule except you. My statement infers that when enough interest is shown, an issue makes a ballot where people can vote. Latest example would be Marijuana. had nothing to do with mob rule, but rather the peoples will on the subject. I dont pass laws, and I dont recognize anyones inherant birth right to decide who lives and dies.. I said the only right that supercedes all others is the right to life. Thats the one single fundamental right we all have. How you would spin this into the unborn having more rights than anyone else, I have no idea. And if that Woman created it, it has a right to survive. It didnt create itself, and it didnt force itself on anyone. Give it up for adoption if you arent ready for a child. Like I said, you can google the images yourself. I wont post them here, not appropriate. Looks like hamburger to me. We both know your response here is full of crap.
Well, I dont. I was just making an example. I would surely think that a 1 week old will have a harder time than say the 20. Perhaps it could. believe me, if it can be done...I'd be all for it. I'd like to think it will be possible someday if it isnt already. Im sure there would be plenty. Noones forcing anyone into this "involuntarilly pregnant " situation. Everyone knows what can happen when you have sex. Dont take the risk, or make sure you are using something. Seems very very easy to do. The way life forms doesnt need to fall in line wiht our written laws. The rules of life are above them. A baby will grow in a mothers womb if she and a male partner fertilize said egg. It doesnt care what rights on a page or laws are...its going to happen everytime. It's like saying you cannot force someone to breath unclean air hahahah. Good luck with that one.
Why do people who obviously, openly have no clue about the medical limitations and abilities in relation to this think they have a valid viewpoint? First study the subject then make an INFORMED decision
Good idea but having that Anti-Woman agenda they can't be bothered with facts and/or science.....they're not convenient...
