A few things about Roe vs. Wade you may not have been aware of...

Blah , blah, blah.....WHERE in that mess was anyone FORCED BY LAW to give blood???

WHERE is the Federal law that says YOU can be FORCED to give blood or your heart or your kidneys ???


NO where.


NO person should ever be forced to have to use their body to sustain the life of another....and you can dither and dither but that is a FACT,

 

YES, I can because a woman uses her organs to sustain the life of the fetus.

Contrary to what you think, that the fetus just floats unattached inside the woman, that's not true.

So what if a woman's body was "designed" to do "it"....my hands were designed to grip a throat but strangling other people is against the law.

Or do you believe that since fingers were designed to wrap around a throat we should just strangle people???

The woman did NOT create the situation...NO woman can make herself get pregnant, she either will or won't...

But no one is !!!!!!! It's against the law.....

Sustaining the life of the fetus requires women to use their own organs and pregnancy ALWAYS leaves lasting effects....just because you don't like science or facts , that's the truth.

.


It's only like organ donation if the woman is willing. ...she is donating her body.....NO one can be FORCED to use their body to sustain the life of another.

No, your post wasn't nice nor even a good "try"....failed on all points...

 

Laws can and have been changed. As you should well know. Of course we already know by your own acknowledgement that you do not respect laws you don't agree with.

 

That sure does NOT address or answer the questions in my post you quoted :

""Blah , blah, blah.....WHERE in that mess was anyone FORCED BY LAW to give blood???

WHERE is the Federal law that says YOU can be FORCED to give blood or your heart or your kidneys ???


NO where. ( I guessed in advance that it would have to be ME who answered


NO person should ever be forced to have to use their body to sustain the life of another....and you can dither and dither but that is a FACT,""











YOU may live in a dream world of "well, laws can change"...but I live in the present real world...AND I bet if the laws changed to say YOU must give up your heart to sustain the life of another YOU'D object

 

Except I've never suggested it should be the law that someone be required by law to endanger their own life to sustain another. You are creating a strawman argument.

Serious questions?

Why are you so obsessed with abortion rights anyway? Don't you care about anything else?

 

Sanger was opposed to abortion, she preferred preventative measures to plan pregnancies. PP (the ABCL was founded 1921CE) didn't provide abortion services until after Roe v. Wade made the procedure legal, in 1973. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood#Origins

"Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (PPFA), or Planned Parenthood, is a nonprofit organization that provides reproductive health care in the United States and globally. It is a tax-exempt corporation under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3),[4] and a member association of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). PPFA has its roots in Brooklyn, New York, where Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the U.S. in 1916. Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921,[5] which changed its name to Planned Parenthood in 1942."

"Both Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger are strongly associated with the abortion issue today.[24][25] For much of the organization's history, however, and throughout Sanger's life, abortion was illegal in the United States, and discussions of the issue were often censored.[26] During this period, Sanger - like other American advocates of birth control - publicly condemned abortion, arguing that it would not be needed if every woman had access to birth control.[26]"

"Focusing, at first, on legalizing therapeutic abortion, Planned Parenthood became an increasingly vocal proponent of liberalized abortion laws during the 1960s, culminating in its call for the repeal of all anti-abortion laws in 1969.[30] In the years that followed, the organization played a key role in landmark abortion rights cases such as Roe v Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992).[25] Once abortion was legalized during the early 1970s, Planned Parenthood also began acting as an abortion provider."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

Sanger left the presidency of PP in 1962, as I recall. So the blame is misdirected in any event.

 

Nope, no strawman, you wish abortion were illegal don't you? If it was then it would be (your words): ""be the law that someone be required by law to endanger their own life to sustain another."""

Now THAT is a strawman I believe....if not, it's an evasion, a segue from the point, a diversion to change the subject when shown you're wrong...whatever..

 

In other words you have no good answer.

In regard to the earlier statement you made, most pregnancies are not dangerous for the woman involved so its a nonissue.

 

I guess I won the contest with another poster who seems to think men know all about pregnancy.

YOU want abortion made illegal: If it was then it would be (your words): ""be the law that someone be required by law to endanger their own life to sustain another."""

SUSTAINING ANOTHER'S LIFE IS WHAT PREGNANCY IS. YOU are not forced BY LAW to sustain another's life with your body....but you do NOT want women to have that right.

ALL pregnancies cause harm. ALL pregnancies carry the RISK of death .


PROVE OTHERWISE or stop with the flim flam.....

 

the overwhelming majority of pregnancies do not cause major harm and carry very little risk of death.

And I notice you are lying about what I said yet again. As I never said the statement you put into quotes.

You are once again trying to create strawmen.

 

I NEVER said that the "overwhelming majority of pregnancies " cause "major" harm . ALL pregnancies do harm... and you HAVE NEVER PROVEN THEY DON'T.

ALL pregnancies carry the RISK of death.

YOU want abortion made illegal: If it was then it would be (your words): ""be the law that someone be required by law to endanger their own life to sustain another."""

THAT is what making abortion illegal IS.

You , as usual, have no facts and have to back up your claims....... You cannot answer direct questions that show you to be wrong so you have to segue off everytime....that's worse than any of your imaginary "strawmen" you accuse me of, again with no proof...

 

Most pregnancies carry no significant risk to the health of the mother. Much less death.

I cannot prove that (and by the rules of debate I'm not obligated to) because one cannot "prove" a negative.

I've said nothing about making all abortions illegal. I've said (and I believe) that ELECTIVE abortions should be illegal.

 

Not a significant risk.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
I

ALL pregnancies carry the RISK of death.
..

Not true, unfortunately. See https://mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa13/perinatal-health-status-indicators/p/pregnancy-related-mortality.html

"A pregnancy-related death is defined as a death which occurs during or within one year of the end of a pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes such as injury.1 This definition includes more deaths than the traditional definition of maternal mortality, which counts pregnancy-related deaths only up to 42 days after the end of pregnancy. Although maternal mortality in the United States declined dramatically over the last century, there has been some reversal of this trend in the last several decades, and racial and ethnic disparities in maternal and pregnancy-related mortality persist.2,3,4

"In 2006–2009, the latest years for which data are available, a total of 2,689 deaths were found to be pregnancy-related at a rate of 15.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The pregnancy-related mortality rate has more than doubled from 1987 levels of 7.2 deaths per 100,000.5 This dramatic rise may reflect improved ascertainment of pregnancy-related deaths as well as increases in chronic conditions and severe maternal morbidity. 6,7 The pregnancy-related mortality ratio among Black women was 3 times the rate for White women in 2006-2008 (35.6 versus 11.7 per 100,000), a disparity that has remained relatively constant. The pregnancy-related mortality ratio also increases with age. Women aged 35–39 years are more than twice as likely to die from pregnancy-related causes as women aged 20–24; for women older than 39 years, the risk increases five-fold (data not shown in graph images or in data tables on this site).8"

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

Charts & cites, sources @ the article @ the URL.

So - given data on age & race, general health - women can estimate their mortality risk in broad categories. An abortion in the first trimester is generally much safer than carrying a fetus to term.

 

Roe v Wade legalized abortion through the 1st Trimester.

 

That is not a significant risk.

 

YOU want elective abortion made illegal: If it was then it would be (your words): ""be the law that someone be required by law to endanger their own life to sustain another."""

THAT is what making abortion illegal IS.


W H O are YOU to decide what risk others should take?
You sure are free and easy with deciding what OTHERS should risk......bet you wouldn't

 

I suggest you learn how to quote. In post 43 you have me saying your words ""Except I NEVER said that and you know it. You are unable to tell the truth about even the simplest matters. Which speaks volumes about your intellectual bankruptcy""

...and you DID say that. I did not lie about it....Post 30...YOUR words...

 

SUSTAINING ANOTHER'S LIFE IS WHAT PREGNANCY IS. YOU are not forced BY LAW to sustain another's life with your body....but you do NOT want women to have that right.

 

YES, you did when you stated you want elective abortions made illegal.....that is FORCING women to use their bodies to sustain the life of another.

 

Of course.

That's the way of the world. Aren't you indicating that people should pay for the abortions of others?

 

i don't consider encouraging women to do what is right to be "forcing" them.

 

I did not use those exact words which is what I take your post to mean.

 

Here's the post of mine you quoted :


YOU want elective abortion made illegal: If it was then it would be (your words): ""be the law that someone be required by law to endanger their own life to sustain another."""

THAT is what making abortion illegal IS.


W H O are YOU to decide what risk others should take?
You sure are free and easy with deciding what OTHERS should risk......bet you wouldn't """""







WHERE in that did I say or indicate that "people should pay for the abortion of others"?


Since you never answer inconvenient questions, I'll answer for you: NO WHERE.

But that is so typical of you squirming to change a subject where you have been proven wrong...Bring up something totally unrelated to hide behind




You forgot to answer this pertinent question:

W H O are YOU to decide what risk others should take?


Why can't you answer that question??