Abortion Laws Should by Based on Science; Right?

Yes, in just 22 years.

I only claim to have a unique intellect. Still; There is no question what "IQ" tests say. This is part of the public record now. This only emphasizes my claim these numbers are wholly irrelevant. The coming answer for this issue will occur regardless of what I do and soon. The ability to abort gestation medically if undesired will be recognized to exist for the first 11-weeks and society will benefit by making this free. No unwanted human will need to be born very soon. The ability to freeze an embryo or earlier for use later showed science detected wen life has begun or has not. This was done by science but has not yet been acknowledged by the common public.

 

Unique is a good description. Special maybe! You have still not addressed the actual issue. I love how people try to appear intelligent and claim to have high IQs while demonstrating the inability to comprehend simple thoughts. Are IQ tests still considered a true measure of intelligence, or does it just show who has more RAM?

So here we go once again. We currently have thousands of unwanted children. You advocate bringing several times more into society using technology. What do we do with them? Please share your genius with us common folk. Please don't use any big words cus ya know us common folk aint lerned like yall!

 

I do not advocate bringing any more children into this failed world of human rule. I would seek to require publicly filed professions of intent to procreate to allow consumption of water without abortaficients after these are added to public water supplies like fluoride once was.
I have no idea what scientist treat IQ test to be but do not believe it would be RAM. Intelligence would compare more to faster operating systems crunching data faster. Windows 10 v Windows 7. RAM Memory is assumed to be unlimited in the human brain.
U.S. Courts use IQs to establish or renounce claims of incompetence. I believe beyond 110 these numbers are wholly irrelevant as these intellects exceed the test.

The artificial uterus will soon allow ectogenesis

The idea for argument is to address the issue of female autonomy and remove this from future SCOTUS consideration of artificial abortion.

 

Well, so far, there is zero need for artificial uteri since the current model is working fine. It doesn't address the issue of unwanted children, so it has little or no chance of reducing abortion. At best, it will be in the same category as cosmetic surgery and will be an option for wealthy women who want kids, but not stretch marks.

What about the physical connection between the baby and mother for 9 months. Is it possible that the baby human gets more than just nutrients from being in the womb? Could you be breeding a generation of psychopaths?

As far IQ measuring processing speed, I will have to give you that. You may be going nowhere, but at least you are getting there fast!

 

Soon men will be able to carry fetuses. I will be interesting to see how the arguments change once we are able to implant an unwanted fetus into one of the anti-abortion types.

 

Sounds like a pain in the a$$!

 

Oh, no, surely you 're wrong. The Anti-Choicers swear that there is no pain involved in pregnancy and no damage to women's bodies whatsoever.
They, with NO scientific proof, claim pregnancy is nothing more than a minor inconvenience.

Remember they fear science so they won't admit what science proves to them about pregnancy...

In a just world EVERY Anti-Choicer would be forced to gestate another human for 9 months .....and live with the aftermath...

 

It will also answer the question of transgender women or jealous men. Sometimes the ability to fail quickly and maintain perseverance help to shed light on the whole Earth.? - Thomas Edison? Henry Ford

Yes; exactly the idea. There is another option not being pursued that would be possible today. A chimera created from a female Gorilla and used to gestate human.

 

You have never said who PAYS for all your pie-in-the-sky ideas like gorillas gestating humans......

 

Excellent point!

 

No doubt, he will inform the SCOTUS of his great and unique intellectual revelations (aka fanciful delusions) in yet another Amicus Brief by Curtis J. Neely.

 

80% of Rightwing "pro-lifers" who worry about "human life" if it's a fertilized egg?

Would have no problem carpet-bombing a "suspected Iranian nuclear lab"....that was located right beside a daycare and an elementary school.

 

I am starting to get the feeling that you are just going to avoid the issue and keep trying to appear intelligent. Its not working.

The abortion issue is about one thing and one thing only. It is the "Unwanted" part. Each child will take 25+ years of parenting and those who don't "wan't" that commitment choose abortion. You don't "want" it either, so you are part of the problem. You have zero concern for the sanctity or dignity of human life. You seek only the appearance of being concerned.

 

......

Really? Not quite.
I wil tipe reel slow n use short werds. LoL

1) Intercourse may be done in the interest of procreation; or,
2) intercourse may be done in the interest of recreation; or,
3) intercourse could be done in the interest of marital intimacy, recreation, and procreation.
4) Intercourse can be non-consensual and a criminal violence.
5) Intercourse can be arranged, qualified and non-consensual and still done in the interests seen in #3.

Situation 2, 3, & 4 above may result in accidental procreation but the transfer of spermatozoa must be controlled entirely in 5 until the right of autonomy is allowed to be absolute after 11-weeks gestation ONLY.

Doofenshmirtz sir; The abortion issue is NOT about one thing and one thing only. The abortion issue is about the elective killing of a human and the VARIOUS rational for calling this killing permissible or even honorable. Very often, "unwanted" has only a tiny bit part in this consideration.

------------------ situation 1 -------------------------------------------------------------
A 38 year old woman with no children may strongly desire to procreate despite marriage to a male with an "undisclosed" vasectomy or an extremely low sperm count.
This 38 y/o might plan to be "raped" constantly in order to acquire sperm to allow procreation to begin per #5 above.
This "victim" might continue the planned "rapes" for months and only claim to have been raped after gestation has begun.
The 38 y/o may argue while reporting the "rape" to morally not desire abortion, regardless.
The desires of the 48 y/o male to have no, or no more, children have become irrelevant.
=====================================================
1. Female life dignity preserved but sanctity ignored.
2. New human life dignity and sanctity are preserved.
3. Input your own outcome here.
Z. Male dignity trashed. (ignored and not even worthy of a number)
======================================================

------------------ situation 2 -------------------------------------------------------------
A woman begins gestation after recreational intercourse or 2, 3, 4, & 5 above. This woman may desperately desire to procreate but does not wish to procreate now. The zygote within will be wanted someday but is unwanted at this time.
Before this growth becomes a Fetus, the growth may be killed per the Democratic Platform pp (25,37, 46), AR Act 301, or be frozen and not killed per science now.
=======================================================================
1. The dignity of the woman is preserved in all intercourse situations but #4 if allowed to kill a growth.
2. If required to freeze the growth by law, the dignity and sanctity of the woman are ignored as well as the sanctity of life of growth.
3. The dignity but not the complete sanctity of the potential new life are preserved unless killed.
4. Input your own outcome here.
5. If the new life is frozen as requested by the woman, this balances the dignity and sanctity of the blastocyst with the woman but rejects complete sanctity of new life and allows the woman to assign dignity to the blastocyst or embryo that would otherwise not exist.
6. If the new life is killed for any reason or for none: This would preserve the dignity and sanctity warranted a blastocyst with the woman because a complete new life has not yet developed and the dignity and sanctity of the woman must be preserved per the Democratic Platform pp (25,37, 46), and AR Act 301.
Z. Yes;male ignored again.
=======================================================================

------------------ situation 3 -------------------------------------------------------------
A woman begins gestation after recreational, procreational intercourse or 1,2, 3, & 5 above. This woman may desperately desire to procreate but does not wish to procreate now. The zygote within will be wanted someday but is unwanted at this time.
Before this zygote becomes a Fetus, the growth may be killed per the Democratic Platform pp (25,37, 46), and AR Act 301, or be frozen and not be killed per science now.
=======================================================================
1. The dignity of the woman is preserved in all intercourse situations but #4.
2. The dignity but not complete sanctity of the potential new life are preserved unless killed.
3. If the new life is frozen as requested by the woman, this balances the dignity and sanctity of the blastocyst with the woman but rejects complete sanctity of new life and allows the woman to assign dignity to the blastocyst or embryo, which otherwise should not exist.
4. If the new life is killed for any reason or for none: This would preserve the dignity and sanctity warranted till a Fetus with the woman because a complete new life has not yet developed and the dignity and sanctity of the woman must be preserved per the Democratic Platform pp (25,37, 46), and AR Act 301.
5. Input your own outcome here.
Z. Yes; males ignored again.
=======================================================================

Doofenshmirtz sir; There are NOT an infinite number of moral choices but it should be obvious after seeing the three issues above there are many considerations and it is hard to find this number.
Dignity from a natural beginning to a natural end is what I care about for everyone.

Three flips of two coins requiring six same results would be the number of moral choices that could result, - ignoring the husband's dignity but not the sperm donor's.


Results for three flips of two, coins with probability all six results will be "heads" is much less than one.
The correct moral answer and the answer that will be required by law can be described mathematically already.[SUP]1[/SUP]
This is a number but is NOT one!. The fundamentals of probability are linked above and will help you start seeing how rare this occurrence is.

Hundreds of thousands of times, gestation is aborted each year despite enormous desire to be continued instead.

 

The next time you are pregnant you can chose this path. Others, of whom you have no control whatsoever (nor does that silly AR 301 piece of garbage), will chose as they decide.

Deal with it.

 

OMGAWD! You actually sit around dreaming up these weird scenarios !!!!!


And you think your ideas and morals should rule why???


Did you ever consider that the major brain damage YOU claim you received may have left you not seeing things as clearly as you think ????

That maybe you should take into consideration what people who haven't had brain damage have to say.....

 

Thinking of these weird scenarios and many more permutations which can result in gestation all occur in my mind almost immediately and require very little time. It took more time to select these outlying moral examples. appealing to your ,specific ideological alignment, and reduce these to human language this forum would allow.

Yes; Morals like mine should rule because these morals have done acceptably for the human species until recently. War is wrong as are other wrong actions because of encroaching on another person's autonomy. Encroaching on another person's autonomy is wrong. My morals are sanctified and only accepted by me, -not created by me.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident ......"

This was an attempt to describe the very source of my morals and the same moral truth all humans either accept or ignore.

No; I do not see things as "clearly" as those without brain damage, with severe brain damage, or ANY others.
I accept this fact and realize respecting the dignity and sanctity of human life from Fetus until natural death is unlikely and the Rule of Law is no longer adequate.

 

"""""" My morals are sanctified and only accepted by me""""""


So, keep them to yourself and don't try to impose them on others and everyone will be happy....

 

So in reality you accept that abortion has been a moral choice for most of the world since records began because it has been generally legal for far longer than it has not.

 

Yes, Abortion is a moral choice and should always have remained the choice of exclusively the woman and always would have had human medical knowledge not increased. As medical technology progressed, it became possible to hire a doctor to rip out the unwanted "growth".

This scientific development involved another person and the State. This reduced the once popular coat-hanger-cervical fishing trips. As the intellect of humanity expanded and more people became involved in human gestation, the Rule of Law and regulation of the medical profession were required to be considered. Doctors who swear to "above all else; do no harm" have to morally accept doing harm to a potential human if requested. This continues because if all doctors would kill a potential life, PP would not exist.

"The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue"[SUP]1[/SUP] -1978. This direct quote was from a case where a patent attempted to force another to donate bone marrow. This was used later when a hospital was ordered to required a pregnant woman to have a c-section before chemotherapy.[SUP]2[/SUP] This case was settled wrongly but the policy changed to never do this again.





Yes, Abortion is a moral choice and should always have remained the choice of exclusively the woman and always would have had human medical knowledge not increased.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 - http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/judpol/mcfall.html
2 - http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/angela.htm
3 - http://portal.mah.harvard.edu/templ...s/uploaded_documents/Landmark legal cases.pdf

 

If this is the Anti-Choice argument I think RvW and women's rights are safe


Just curious ...where do doctors swear to "above all else; do no harm" ??



You: """"The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue"1 """""



Which would be why women are under no obligation to gestate and give birth...thank you for bringing that up

 

Abortion were being performed by third parties long before the name doctor became associated with them. ... even the bible tells how to use a concoction to force abortion.

No idea where people get this "above all else; do no harm" it is not part of the doctors oath, not in the original nor the modern version, and as to PP not existing I think you forget that PP offer far more services than just abortion.

I know the quote and the case very well hence why it is included in my signature ... but do you know what it actually means?

It still remains the choice of the woman and you seem to ignore the fact that a doctor's duty to their patent involves more than just their physical well being.

 

It is as taught in ANY seminary. It is the meaning of the phrase I will reject harm and mishief as originally proscribed ALL medical abortion.

It was the response by [insert judge name here] addressing the argument that ancient common law supported compelled donations in the interests of the State attempting to save a subject.

When a doctor treats a pregnant woman, the doctor must consider the potential life within if the placenta has formed and a new heartbeat has formed and can be heard.








---------------------------------------------
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath http://www.cerc.utexas.edu/utda/publications/aspdac07_hipp.pdf

 

Which is not even used in the vast majority of places training doctors any more ... In a 1989 survey of 126 US medical schools, only three reported use of the original oath, while thirty-three used the Declaration of Geneva, sixty-seven used a modified Hippocratic Oath, four used the Oath of Maimonides, one used a covenant, eight used another oath, one used an unknown oath, and two did not use any kind of oath. Seven medical schools did not reply to the survey - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2541124/ and has zero legal standing

There is no direct punishment for breaking the Hippocratic oath in modern times.

It means simply that no state can force one person to use ANY part of their body to sustain the life of another ergo the state cannot force a woman to use her womb to sustain the live of the fetus REGARDLESS of the gestation period.

 

We Americans will all soon be made aware no "Oath of Office" or abuse of "top secret" data will be pursued in U.S. Courts. "Top Secret" laws are no longer enforceable. This failure of law includes the inability to criminally pursue perjury except by judicial FIATs.

Once the Fetal heartbeat is audible, most of humanity wishes to defend these tiny heartbeats from even the mother. I do not agree with your "consent" ideals but see the power of the Democratic Platform reducing the perception of "killing the Fetus" to protecting the safe individual authority of "choice" about whether to continue or to cease gestation.

1) As long as capital punishment continues, the absolute right to choose to abort gestation will always exist. 2) As long as warfare continues, the absolute right to choose to abort gestation will exist. 3) As long as the Rule of Law continues, the absolute right to choose to abort gestation will exist. This will be immoral in the minds of many or even most but the majority will never be impacted directly in the least or know of anyone who is.