The state already owns the woman - whenever she trespasses on the rights of someone else. That's really what the entire issue revolves around. We just debate whether she has actually trespassed against the rights of someone else--but that is true of many types of laws that already exist, isn't it? Not unique to abortion. Were we to actually truly recognize that the state should have no right over people unless they clearly and indisputably trespassed against the rights of others, there would have to be many laws that would to be changed and removed from the books, from drug laws, to weapon possession laws, to prostitution and child pornography. Something I suspect 90% of those who support abortion have no intention of changing or examining.
Some may be taking MLK's quote out of context. What the quote ostensibly is actually referring to is disobeying laws because what the law is telling you to do is morally wrong. Versus how others may be attempting to interpret it, disobeying a law because it is morally wrong for that law to tell you what you should have to do. I think most all of us can agree with the first meaning of that statement. Viewing it with the second meaning would be much more radical and controversial.
I am not debating what a half century old year old law says. I am debating what is right! Dehumanizing children in utero was done utilizing our knowledge of human reproduction and development roughly 50 years ago. want your doctor treating you now using only what we knew 50 years ago? A child in utero is a human being. Therefore an abortion is a homicide, just like premeditated murder, only our laws are only recently catching up to what science NOW knows! The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a much more recent law that recognizes the human rights of children in utero “ At any stage of development”! It included an exception for abortion for political reasons, but that exception makes no logical sense! I know there are people who will defend this horrific and barbaric practice no matter what, so whether or not I convince you means nothing to me! I agree a woman has the same rights as a man, so what law grants a man the right to intentionally and with forethought kill another human being? A child in utero is not the woman’s body! Nothing posted here is emotion. Just cold hard facts!
before the 1970s the evangelical church had no anti-abortion opinion, not untill they realized they could politize anti-abortion did the come out politicaly against it, why were they slow on answering gods telephone calls?
The error in your logic is presuming that the fetus has person status under the law. Sadly it does not. Most women WANT to have a baby. For myriad reasons, some women DO NOT WANT to carry the fetus to term. It's her decision, not yours, mine or the state's or the church's.
You are uninformed. The UVVA clearly recognizes the human rights of a child in utero at any stage of development!!!!
Nope, flawed analogy. A foundation left to develop will only ever be a foundation. A zygote has everything he or she needs to become a fetus, newborn, toddler, adolescent and adult already a part of him or her intrinsically. All he/ she needs is to not be killed to develop. Before you start down the development road, a teenage human being is not fully developed, neither is a 21 year old adult! Want to kill them too?
Nothing flawed about it. Just like a fertilized egg in a petri dish. Except organs to provide basic life functions.
The right to an abortion does not appear in the Constitution but could be recognized as a right as mentioned by the 9th amendment. But that right was recognized through a SC decision, and that court decision can be reversed by the very same courts, which is exactly what has happened. As of now there is no Constitutionally protected right to abortion and therefore a matter for state legislatures to decide per the 10th Amendment.
FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE, as I've told you several times the UVVA does not, did not, have the power to bestow personhood on a fetus... IF IT DID THEN YOU WOULD BE DERELICT IN YOUR CIVIC DUTY TO NOT REPORT THESE "MURDERS".... WHAT tf HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH MY POST? NOTHING !...YOU ARE dodging IF a fetus has all the right to life that YOU claim then killing it is ILLEGAL and YOU have failed in your civic duty to report theses crimes
I don't know what UVVA is, but I hope it's not the descendant of those who officially decreed that the earth was the center of the universe.
You mentioned God, I didn’t! The fact that God’s disapproval is bothering you should give you cause to reconsider. Why is it that a crime is committed when a man intentionally kills a fetus within a woman? Scott Peterson was convicted of murder for killing his son, who was in utero when he killed him.
Negative. The SC can ignore the Ninth Amendment, but it still exists. There are many rights not mentioned in the Constitution, but they still exist. That, after all, is the purpose of the Ninth as discussed by Madison.
FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE, as I've told you several times the UVVA does not, did not, have the power to bestow personhood on a fetus... IF IT DID THEN YOU WOULD BE DERELICT IN YOUR CIVIC DUTY TO NOT REPORT THESE "MURDERS".... WHAT tf HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH MY POST? NOTHING !...YOU ARE dodging IF a fetus has all the right to life that YOU claim then killing it is ILLEGAL and YOU have failed in your civic duty to report theses crimes What TF does that have to do with the post of mine you quoted ??!!!!! Where TF DID I BRING GOD INTO IT? lol, I DIDN'T...WHICH SHOWS YOU ARE DESPERATELY FLOUNDERING FOR A POINT OF ANY KIND I don't know or care what Peterson was charged with....but if his wife had an abortion it isn't murder... BTW, can't you Anti-Choicers EVER dig up something newer than Peterson....???? Is it just laziness that compels people to use the same old same old???
From the UVVA : (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution– (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;""
You are, of course, wrong. as we have covered repeatedly, no law grants personhood. The UVVA just recognizes it. Any logical person sees it clearly.
FoxHastings said: ↑ From the UVVA : (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution– (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;"" DUH, it shows that it did not make fetuses persons since it doesn't affect abortion (which will always go on
