They want to force a woman that was raped to carry the offspring of her attacker to term — sacrificing her career, health, and mental wellbeing in the process. It’s absolutely anti-woman.
The immorality of the State seizing control of a woman's body before a viable person has developed within it is self-evident. Politicians arrogating such personal, private decisions is the scheme of radicals hellbent upon inflicting their personal beliefs upon everyone else after they have failed to convince the populace of their notion that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a person. Most Americans oppose such maximal government intrusion and infringement of the freedom of individuals. The recent passage of a draconian law that would inflict a nine-month sentence on a 12-year-old rape victim is an indication of how extreme these fanatics are. A woman or girl controlling her own body in consultation with her medical and spiritual advisers as well as trusted friends and family before viability has been attained is far preferable to anonymous bureaucrats dictating to her, one way or the other. Surrendering such a private decision to the State means that the State is empowered to order abortion as well as prohibit it. In the meantime, anyone who wants to convince others of their point of view has freedom of speech (that should not be infringed by the State either.)
Please take note: For the Anti-Choicers who insist that the fetus floats unattached to the woman it's in and birth is merely a change in location: Changes in the newborn at birth Changes in the newborn at birth refer to the changes an infant's body undergoes to adapt to life outside the womb. Information LUNGS, HEART, AND BLOOD VESSELS The mother's placenta helps the baby "breathe" while it is growing in the womb. Oxygen and carbon dioxide flow through the blood in the placenta. Most of it goes to the heart and flows through the baby's body. At birth, the baby's lungs are filled with fluid. They are not inflated. The baby takes the first breath within about 10 seconds after delivery. This breath sounds like a gasp, as the newborn's central nervous system reacts to the sudden change in temperature and environment. Once the baby takes the first breath, a number of changes occur in the infant's lungs and circulatory system: Increased oxygen in the lungs causes a decrease in blood flow resistance to the lungs. Blood flow resistance of the baby's blood vessels also increases. Fluid drains or is absorbed from the respiratory system. The lungs inflate and begin working on their own, moving oxygen into the bloodstream and removing carbon dioxide by breathing out (exhalation). BODY TEMPERATURE A developing baby produces about twice as much heat as an adult. A small amount of heat is removed through the developing baby's skin, the amniotic fluid, and the uterine wall. After delivery, the newborn begins to lose heat. Receptors on the baby's skin send messages to the brain that the baby's body is cold. The baby's body creates heat by burning stores of brown fat, a type of fat found only in fetuses and newborns. Newborns are rarely seen to shiver. LIVER In the baby, the liver acts as a storage site for sugar (glycogen) and iron. When the baby is born, the liver has various functions: It produces substances that help the blood to clot. It begins breaking down waste products such as excess red blood cells. It produces a protein that helps break down bilirubin. If the baby's body does not properly break down bilirubin, it can lead to newborn jaundice. GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT A baby's gastrointestinal system doesn't fully function until after birth. In late pregnancy, the baby produces a tarry green or black waste substance called meconium. Meconium is the medical term for the newborn infant's first stools. Meconium is composed of amniotic fluid, mucus, lanugo (the fine hair that covers the baby's body), bile, and cells that have been shed from the skin and intestinal tract. In some cases, the baby passes stools (meconium) while still inside the uterus. URINARY SYSTEM The developing baby's kidneys begin producing urine by 9 to 12 weeks into the pregnancy. After birth, the newborn will usually urinate within the first 24 hours of life. The kidneys become able to maintain the body's fluid and electrolyte balance. The rate at which blood filters through the kidneys (glomerular filtration rate) increases sharply after birth and in the first 2 weeks of life. Still, it takes some time for the kidneys to get up to speed. Newborns have less ability to remove excess salt (sodium) or to concentrate or dilute the urine compared to adults. This ability improves over time. IMMUNE SYSTEM The immune system begins to develop in the baby, and continues to mature through the child's first few years of life. The womb is a relatively sterile environment. But as soon as the baby is born, they are exposed to a variety of bacteria and other potential disease-causing substances. Although newborn infants are more vulnerable to infection, their immune system can respond to infectious organisms. Newborns do carry some antibodies from their mother, which provide protection against infection. Breastfeeding also helps improve a newborn's immunity. SKIN Newborn skin will vary depending on the length of the pregnancy. Premature infants have thin, transparent skin. The skin of a full-term infant is thicker. Characteristics of newborn skin: A fine hair called lanugo might cover the newborn's skin, especially in preterm babies. The hair should disappear within the first few weeks of the baby's life. A thick, waxy substance called vernix may cover the skin. This substance protects the baby while floating in amniotic fluid in the womb. Vernix should wash off during the baby's first bath. The skin might be cracking, peeling, or blotchy, but this should improve over time.
That is true, however , forcing any women to gestate can lead to sacrificing her career, health, and mental wellbeing in the process...
Better study the history of planned parenthood. It was started by a liberal white supremacist who's intent was to minimize the number of black babies born. For her planned parenthood was 100% about killing black babies.
If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she needs to not have sex. A job is mo reason to murder your baby. Turning mothers into murderers is not in the slightest pro woman.
Dear @Derideo_Te If Constitutional laws did not involve BELIEFS in the Constitution we wouldn't have such disagreements as 1. people interpreting the 2nd Amendment differently where a. one group believes these political rights are inherent and cannot be regulated by govt against the will of those individuals claiming inalienable rights b. another group believing that Militia still implies or involves REGULATIONS 2. different priorities or beliefs about abortion laws where a. one group places MORE priority on protecting Substantive Due Process and liberty of the woman b. another group places More priority on protecting the right to life of the unborn 3. whether or not ACA was constitutional or not based on: a. one group arguing that a Constitutional Amendment was necessary first BEFORE extending or adding more duties to Federal Govt to regulate health care b. another group arguing that as long as ACA was voted in by majority-rule through Congress and passed through the Supreme Court as a tax then it is constitutional c. other groups arguing the ACA was never passed through both Congress and Supreme Court as the "same bill" (but was voted on in Congress as a public health bill and only argued as Constitutional by the Supreme Court as a tax/revenue bill, which arguably would have been voted down by Congress had it been presented as such) d. the argument that the ACA mandates violated Constitutional beliefs of citizens who were then penalized by fines if they didn't comply with this legislation that violated their beliefs. @Derideo_Te I have already found that people DO NOT believe the same things about Constitutional laws, and that's half the reason for the divisive arguments. It's not just a matter of Constitutional principles, because people do not agree or believe the same things ABOUT these principles and enforcing them. The issue IS ABOUT POLITICAL BELIEFS, and this DOES involve differences in BELIEFS about Constitutional laws and how to INTERPRET them (as with the 2nd Amendment) and how to ENFORCE THEM (as with the conflicts over abortion laws). Because of different political beliefs, that's why we don't have everyone agreeing what is Constitutional or not.
CC: @Mr_Truth @Sallyally @Bowerbird @Derideo_Te Sorry I didn't see your names as well! I'd like to get your feedback on this argument I tried to explain to DT. I am saying it SHOULD be that we agree to enforce Constitutional PRINCIPLES as a matter of LAW. However, the way people are interpreting law differently, our "political beliefs" are showing. Up to now, people who disagree on interpreting the law have been "fighting it out" in Courts, Congress etc. and trying to use "majority rule" or "judicial ruling" to decide which interpretation is right. This is fine for SECULAR issues that do not involve beliefs, such as voting whether the make the voting age 18 or 21 etc. Those are secular matters. What I find is that beliefs regarding issues such as abortion, LGBT, and health care options AREN'T just "secular" but actually involve people's personal BELIEFS So my point is to protect these beliefs equally under the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment equal protections of law, and Civil Rights laws against Discrimination by Creed. @Derideo_Te brought up "separation of church and state" When it comes to Political Beliefs, I am arguing why DON'T we treat these type of beliefs with the same respect and separation from govt as we do other forms of religious beliefs. The angle I take is that on matters of faith based beliefs and biases, where people do NOT AGREE on beliefs about Constitutional laws and principles, can we agree to RECOGNIZE Constitutionalism as a Political Religion, as well as Socialism as a Political Religion, Conservatism, Liberalism etc. Wouldn't it be more fair to all people to make sure laws respect ALL beliefs and creeds equally as the examples listed above and they do not push or force ONE belief system more than another because I'm arguing that's a form of Discrimination by Creed if we abuse Govt to establish or prohibit political creeds as any other creed, belief or religion that Govt is supposed to leave to the free choice of the people. Where we AGREE on policy, there's no conflict, as with solutions that all views and parties agree are solid policy. (Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service Public Law 96-303 was passed Unanimously by Congress www.ethics-commission.net as opposed to biased laws that violate Constitutional process principles and/or beliefs such as the ACA that was split along party lines because the Liberal Democrats believe it is constitutional to vote in health care into govt but the Conservatives believe it requires a Constitutional Amendment first to make sure the rights of the people and States are represented instead of overriding this by Congress on a federal level to give federal govt more authority without consent of the people affected by such changes to federal duties.) So my argument is that where political beliefs are involved, that cross the line between "church and state" and "personal choice of faith based beliefs" and public policy that is required for everyone, we should agree to require a consensus on law to prevent one bias in beliefs from being imposed by Govt on opposing beliefs to prevent discrimination by creed and to enforce equal protections of the laws for ALL people regardless of their political beliefs or religion. This is a critical point, and I'd like to know from you if I have explained it clear enough - what the problem is with political beliefs and what I propose as the solution: Either agree to resolve conflicts and make sure laws are written neutrally to include all views equally where beliefs are involved, OR agree to separate policies where people cannot resolve differences in beliefs and cannot be forced to change them or fund opposing beliefs against their will. We would not allow Hindus Catholics Muslims or Buddhists to impose their beliefs on the whole nation by majority rule; so why do we enable Parties to impose their beliefs in right to life, right to health care, LGBT beliefs about orientation/identity etc. on the public where these violate the beliefs of other citizens, penalize, or discriminate against them. If we require Religious Organizations to fund their own policies and allow members to follow them BY VOLUNTARY participation and contribution, shouldn't Political Religions as spelled out in Party Platforms be optional for people to fund and follow instead of mandating these beliefs by "majority rule" or judicial rule to FORCE them on everyone else. Isn't it DISCRIMINATION BY CREED to bar other religious organizations from doing this through govt, but allowing POLITICAL PARTIES to "establish their religion" through Government by force of law?
You are entitled to your misinformed opinion but neither Science nor the Law support your immoral absurdities above.
Dear @Robert E Allen 1. We wouldn't need to change the law of the land if we all agreed to apply the First Amendment to political beliefs the same as other types of religious beliefs. If we considered Right to Life and Right to Health Care as BELIEFS, then Govt could NEITHER establish nor prohibit those and related "faith based" biases in laws to either EXCLUDE or ENDORSE such BELIEFS. So @Robert E Allen the Right to Life beliefs would already be protected if we recognized, interpreted and enforced the First Amendment consistently 2. where we MIGHT need to amend either the Constitution or its interpretation is to RECOGNIZE political beliefs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments as a CREED that is protected from Discrimination by Civil Rights laws as well. If people such as liberals who CANNOT interpret the law this way but INSIST that COURTS or CONGRESS or Constitutional Conventions are necessary to make such changes, then we MIGHT need to amend the documented laws to get this protection out of them for Political beliefs and creeds. I don't understand why we can't just teach them as included under religious beliefs or creeds, but if people's processes don't work that way, we might very WELL need to Amend the Constitution to recognize political beliefs, parties and creeds equally as other religious beliefs and organizations.
Dear @Derideo_Te I am guessing what this means: there are consequences for your choice of actions by NATURAL LAWS of justice, cause and effect, or karma. So be careful what you choose because the effects will come back to you.
@emilynghiem - I’m not up to arguing constitutional law with you. I live in Australia and we do things differently.
Yep. We wouldn’t have it any other way would we? That a lot of old blokes should be laying down the law about women’s bodies is incomprehensible. Not to mention the “R” word.
1. There are things more powerful that science and law. 2. Science does not refute me either. 3. The law is the way it is because of activist judges abusing the constitution and our court system.
FoxHastings said: ↑ SO WHAT! It just shows black women have as much right to abortion as white women....do you object? SO YOU couldn't answer the question either .....and had to parade out the Old Erroneous And Unproven Crap about Sanger as if she's alive and personally running all the PP clinics....how silly..
Not the point. The point is that abortion is being used to wipe out large portions of their community. Guess you don't object to that huh?
