Abortion Laws Should by Based on Science; Right?

100% irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Whether you agree with me or not means little, until you can show that the argument I put forward is faulty or wrong then it is far more relevant and correct than anything you have presented.

You have yet to prove that abortion is immoral, especially as morals are subjective.

 

The reality of abortion will remain until the pregnant woman is convinced to move forward with whatever options are available. Laws will stop abortion the same way it stops drug use. You can wear out your computer keyboard with claims that you care, but the reality is that you don't.

Do the math. There are already too many unwanted children that will never feel the love of a parent. You advocate adding to that number. If you really cared, you would subtract from that number by opening your home and providing love and care. No laws or any amount of technology can provide that.

 

That is what many might think. It is incorrect and the coming reality is foreshadowed by a written prediction in the form of predicting a coming day. Soon; -the "abortion debate" ends and education will make abortion of gestation such a trivial event that it will no longer be discussed much.

This is the future I have already seen. I do not know how humanity reaches this point. In these times (TODAY) some women who choose not to bear children are called blessed. See Luke 23:29.

I have done the math. I most certainly DO NOT ADVOCATE procreation. I feel women who do not bear children TODAY are blessed just as was true several times already..
This is the eminent future I know with no shred of doubt, but this belief may be a delusion.
What honorable person would bring a new child into this mess?

There are other scriptures and scientific papers supporting this future but the common forum reader should treat this as another delusional rant. Yes; this is sometimes realized by even me. lol....202...303

 

""" but this belief may be a delusion."""....sums it up pretty well.....


Odd, all those posts about how you're going to stop "abortion of gestation" ...and now you 've switched........did all the posts showing how wrong you were finally bring about this change ??

Did Doofenshmirtz finally convince you to do the honorable thing, adopt or be quiet?

 

This is where we have to part ways. You can keep your scriptures and your belief that we were all sinners before we were born because a talking snake convinced a naked lady to eat an apple thousands of years ago. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

Hardly; I will not stop pushing for allowance of "abortions of gestation" strictly before the Fetus has a heartbeat. This is the future Act 301 gestation regulation will eventually be.

Elective killing of a Fetus will still stop; Just as I claimed to support. You and Doofenshmirtz seem to think I have claimed or need an interest in a Fetus or an unwanted child to care about humanity? I care about humanity in only the abstract sense and this is NOT effectively the equal of not caring The is calling common law nonfeasance instead the worse malfeasance.

Abortions of gestation which kill the human Fetus will soon cease. This is the ONLY honorable thing. ! I care about global warming but still drive a fossil-fuel powered vehicle and heat my home with.fossil-fuel. This is the same as NOT CARING according to Doofenshmirtz.?
This line of thinking and this type offensive tenor would warrant Rule 11 sanctions if postulated in U.S. Courts.

Women who are barren or whose breasts never nourish a child are blessed in a nation where a criminal oligarch and a wealthy narcissist compete to lead. I am glad my youngest is a teen and would NEVER procreate today.

 

Your words.....bolded above...



Never have you said how you think abortion will stop........never......it has always been and always will be and nothing, not one single thing you have posted has shown anything other than that...

Yes, I treat it as a "delusional rant" ..YOUR words...

 

Arkansas' Act 301 was already declared unconstitutional by the Eighth CIrcuit Court of Appeals. The US Supreme Court denied cert.

You need to catch up with reality.

 

Your Act 301 was completely destroyed over numerous posts, pretty much every assertion you made concerning it I shot full of holes, and was confirmed as unconstitutional by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and denied cert. by the Supreme Court.

 

Smartest post yet!

 

Without also granting the absolute right to abort for 11-weeks, Act 301 was incomplete. It allows this clearly but did not acknowledge the human right to autonomy to exist from 12-weeks gestation till natural or elective death.

The court was correct, but only because this was an indirect attempt to limit elective abortions of gestation. Adding the guarantee of "free" elective abortion(s) of gestation for 11-weeks and free pregnancy testing will soon pass and will be Constitutional. Act 301 will be amended and will return. I understand the holes you saw in Act 301 but these are all addressed. This is NOT the manner I hoped this change would occur but just watch.

 

Hmm .. so you are just going to ignore the right to autonomy of the female in favour of the foetus in direct violation of the equal protection clause?

I am not sure you do understand the holes at all ... explain please how you are going to address the violation of the equal protection clause as it applies to the female. How can the court's protect the foetus after 12 weeks without violating the females rights?

 

The dignity of the living Fetus will be acknowledged and the fundamental right to live will supplant the right to autonomy or "consent". There will, of course, be many situations where the gestation of a Fetus may need to be aborted based on the damage done to the female, done either mentally or physically.

Females would help decide the process because no male can ever be the peer of a pregnant female. The amended Act 301 will create a committee of women for approval of purely elective killings of any Fetus. Nothing will be ignored by they law.

 

Dream on. Changing Act 301 as you suggest does not address the constitutional flaws in Act 301. It cannot be "rewritten" to pass Constitutional muster as long as it has that silly heartbeat nonsense in it. You really don't understand the law on this at all. Your emotional fantasies and wishful thinking control you.

 

So you are up for creating a new addition to the right to self-defence that only applies to the unborn . .which, again is a direct violation of the equal protection clause .. and then upon the advent of birth removing that right .. why are you so free and easy with other peoples rights?

You do know that the state must make laws that apply to ALL people, do you not, they cannot make laws that only apply to a certain number of people for a certain length of time.

The state simply cannot make a law that violates a certain groups right to consent and right to self-defence.

Except you are ignoring the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

 

No one can live with dignity when their rights are destroyed.

Anti-Choicers deny hating women but when you take away their rights and turn them into nothing more than broodstock you are treating them as if you hate them and certainly affording them no dignity...


You: """a committee of women for approval of purely elective killings of any Fetus""""


Why women? They aren't even human according to you and have no rights? (Do NOT bother denying that). How silly ! If you won't allow ONE woman to make a choice over her own life why let a committee of women make that choice???

Are you contending that a group of women might equal one man??




You: """fundamental right to live will supplant the right to autonomy or "consent". """


So it's survival of the fittest, kill or be killed, rape at will with no repercussions........... you propose a horrible world...

 

No, The right to self-defence would apply to the Fetus and the host female. Neither would be permitted to harm the other. Period. If the Fetus is harming the Female, either physically or mentally, the Fetus could be defended against. This Statute will increase early abortions of gestation enough to turn pre-11-week medicated abortions of gestation into the preferred method for birth control for many. These will be paid for by the State. At the same time; This will drastically reduce abortions of gestation done after 12-weeks.

Consider the 1790 U.S. Copy[rite] Act misspelling of "copyright". Copyright was coined in the 1750-60s by Sir William Blackstone on p406 of "Book the Second: The Rights of Things" Ch. 26 Volume II of "Commentaries on the Laws of England" when rights concerning things held were addressed in a law book.

This Statute will address all prior SCOTUS decisions and the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment. This concise Statute will withstand any legal challenge and will invite these challenges directly.

 

The right to self-defence cannot apply to the fetus as it is the fetus that is the instigator and maintainer of the non-consented injuries against the female, by your logic a rapist can legally defend themselves when their victim fights back.

You say " Neither would be permitted to harm the other. Period." yet the only way to stop a fetus harming the female is to remove the fetus from the womb, there are no alternative methods that can or even will stop the fetus harming the female even under normal pregnancy conditions .. you seem to forget that pregnancy is already legally deemed a serious injury in some cases.

Irrelevant .. read the Constitution, 14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws Your idea removes the equal protection of the law from pregnant females, the law protects ALL people from non-consented injuries inflicted by third parties even if those third parties have no intent or knowledge of the injuries they are causing.

It simple does not .. it is 100% unconstitutional.

 

You have not convinced me that the fetus should be considered a person by 12 weeks, but you do touch upon an interesting idea. It is only logical that anybody who wants an elective abortion is going to get one as early as possible. Unfortunately, the very reason a woman might need an abortion (lack of resources to support a baby) might also prevent her from going directly to a clinic to get an abortion. She might spend weeks trying to save up the money (making the process more expensive). The government could help discourage late-term abortions by providing free elective abortions up to week 12. Of course the government could also eliminate a lot of unwanted pregnancies with comprehensive sex education, and freely available birth control and contraceptives, but none of this will happen as long as politicians are afraid of religious conservative voters.

 

Thing is even if all of the above things you mention were implemented it still doesn't give the state the right to ban elective abortions especially if they also decide that the unborn are persons from conception .. doing that would render Roe invalid but in a good way, it would mean that elective abortion would be legal at any time, for any reason and the state having to pay for it. The only thing that allows the state to impose restrictions on elective abortions in later pregnancies is the reality that the unborn are not deemed persons under the meaning of the Constitution.

 

. . . . Fugazi uses the ignorant assumption that a Fetus "attacks" the host female or that a Fetus does this without "consent".
IGNORANT is wrong due to ignoring clear facts and does not imply stupidity or lack of intellect as would violate URCP Rule 11.
The McFall v. Shimp, 1978 case cited above in a signature has very little value as precedent because of being wrong on its face and being only one common law assertion considering and citing no case and no authority for this political assertion by Hon. Jim Flaherty.

This former judge (far left above) died last Thursday Sept. 1, 2016[SUP]1[/SUP] at age 84 and will not be harmed by the now required invalidation of the ruling quoted and linked below.

This assertion was a political statement worthy of absolutely no precedence. U.S. law has NEVER been honorable and has therefore never yet challenged this IGNORANT assertion and yet the IGNORANCE quoted above has often been cited as if it were authoritative, which it most certainly is NOT..! Being cited in scores of cases since 1978 only helped destroy the facade of honorability U.S. law asserts EVERY TIME CITED.

I have not yet begun to destroy the validity of this alleged precedent. Great Britain introduced Earth to laws pertaining to "intellectual property" first in 1734 after protecting fundamental human rights for hundreds of years as a rite or entitlement protected by only the Crown. The first writing of this Royal ritual was the 1710 Statute of Anne. In 1734; this rite was modified to first protect the fundamental human right to protect honor or reputation with the Stationers Act of 1734 for William Hogarth's political cartoons. (the first on Earth) This law was modified to protect the Reputation of his widow in 1766. Jane Hogarth Thorncrown asked 24 y/o Benjamin Franklin (polymath author) to advise his contacts in Parliament to protect Ms Hogarth's human reputation from potential abuse of her dead spouse's art since these could be reprinted unscrupulously. (racy-for-the-time)
This is the clear foundations of the EU RTBF.

A counselor of moderate intellect could link British Sir William Blackstone's "copyright" with the U.S. Copy[rite] Act of 1790 FOREVER and explain the non-enumerated U.S. right to protect reputation supporting abortion of gestation before 12-weeks and supporting same-sex marriage far better than the rational of liberty and justice stretched out to support this ruling now.

The elective actions of the female (intercourse) caused the entrapment of the Fetus and waived the right to "consent" especially after granted continually for 12-weeks. (49 days) Life-endangering harms occurring as a result of host female's prior choice(s) offset any prior waiver. Delivering early after 20-24-weeks can support Fetus' autonomy and aborts gestation but does not always kill the Fetus.


----------------------------------------------------------
1. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/ob...udge-family-always-first/stories/201609040207
2. http://www.leagle.com/decision/197810010PaDampC3d90_189/McFALL v. SHIMP

 

Thank you for keeping the mind open
.
. . . . The Fetus has completed all organ genesis when the heartbeat is audible. The lungs have not yet finished. The Placenta generates the progesterone required to allow gestation and the placenta develops according to the genes contributed by the male. The two humans have joined and become another one. I do not believe the Fetus chooses to do anything intellectually but will react to stimuli. There are no memories of this event and yet experiences en utero have been alleged to affect early life. I do not believe this, but some do.

. . . . I was on life-support for over six weeks with a respirator and feeding tube. The respirator was removed with a DNR order. I was allegedly asked if I needed help breathing as I was dying. I could not speak without air but allegedly gave a thumbs-up. I remember these facts the same amount I remember birth. -ZERO-

. . . . This will soon occur and there will be few children born accidentally or when not wanted. The right to abort gestation is as clear as the right to free speech. I believe the United Methodist Church will pay for artificial abortions of gestation today if asked. Maybe not but more than likely for members anyway.

. . . . This is the immediate future. The voters will support this when explained as:
Religious humans are being unholy by denying a human right granted by God or taking away a right given to humans by a Creator. After all. certain rights are inalienable.... The human right to abort gestation for 11-weeks is as fundamental as the human right to reject Christ or even reject God.
"Lucifer" allegedly invited humans to eat a fruit to try and be like God. Human laws can't override any liberty created by God. Still; Religious conservatives are trying to one-up God by outlawing artificial abortions of gestation.

Education, as stated by Fugazi, is the only way to properly resolve this controversy.

 

Nothing ignorant about facts, and it is a fact that the fetus injures the female REGARDLESS of whether those injuries are consented to or not and that is a scientific FACT . .what is relevant and important is whether the female consents to those injuries, if she does not then by definition the fetus IS attacking her whether the fetus knows or intends to injure is irrelevant. The law recognizes that both involuntary and voluntary acts can cause harm and injury to other people and that involuntary characteristic of an action does not give its perpetrator any right to inflict harm or injury. The fetus's behaviour falls into that category of action in which the law assigns objective fault even without the presence of conscious intention. In this sense, people can be objectively at fault whether or not they have the mental capacity or requisite knowledge to know that their behaviour is criminal - Source : LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law Page 212-213

In the absence of any other ruling concerning whether the state can impose on a person to force them to use any part of their body to aid another then McFall vs Shimp is the de facto standing. Judge John P. Flaherty Jr encapsulated the understanding of body autonomy perfectly when he said "For our law to compel [the] defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn."

Even Roe is wrong because in no other case except pregnancy, do we legally compel one human to give up their bodily autonomy to sustain the life of another human, and yet Roe allows the state to do this after a certain time frame and that is a direct violation of the equal protection clause, if the state can force a woman to relinquish ownership of her womb . .even for a short time .. then it can force another person to relinquish ownership of a kidney, after all having only one kidney does not dramatically impact on a persons life ... To date no court has given justification for this violation of a woman's rights.

and again you are wrong, the Judges ruling certainly does cite precedent as follows - "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. "

none of this has any relevance what so ever.

Rubbish, do you even know what entrapment is and to whom it applies. Entrapment ONLY applies to law enforcement agents, not to the general public and even IF it did apply to the general public it still doesn't apply to pregnancy .. Entrapment means "the act of causing someone to do something they would not usually do by tricking them:" please do explain how you can entrap ie cause someone to do something, when that someone doesn't even exist at the time intercourse takes place?

The elective actions of a female who consents to intercourse have absolutely zero to do with pregnancy, her actions and consent are given to the man and cannot be seen as proxy consent to another person ie the fetus, the best you can hope for is implied or informed consent which can legally be revoked at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all by the female explicitly by word or action saying 'no' . .there is no timestamp limit on implied and/or informed consent, you could consent for 10 years to something and that still does not change your right to say 'no' the next day . .nor to defend yourself, up to and including deadly force, if the person you have said no to ignores it and injures you.

You yet again want to change the Constitution to suit your own agenda.

 

No; There is nothing ignorant about facts. Ignoring them or treating one explanation of many facts as holy is ignorant. When the Fetus is considered a whole person, the location of the new person was determined by the female/mother. There was no trespass. After waiving the right to autonomy for 11-weeks, the waiver can only be retracted due to physical dangers to the mother. The Fetus does not consent to anything and once the choice to procreate has been made continually till a new heartbeat is heard, this new human has the same right to continue living as the female/mother. Competing rights to consent to harms caused by another must be balanced against the results caused by withdrawal of consent. Our society is founded on balancing rights regardless of the title used.

Society is founded on determining when the desires of society must overrule individual rights. Any other system is clearly anarchy due to treating one human view of rights as inviolate.

This founding principle is for anarchy and is not a society. Giving "consent" absolute rule, rejects all laws of society. When no laws are allowed to violate consent, no society can exist. Quoting the McFall v Shimp FIAT in bold does nothing to lend it any authority. The ruling is a FIAT written by a man to justify an obvious, honorable decision.

The right to autonomy and therefore consent is not absolute.

Listing the FIAT in bold does not make it anything but an oft-cited mistake endorsing anarchy.

Not the legal term entrapment but the colloquial trapped within.

Yes there is a timestamp on rights. You mean anyone can do anything desired at anytime. This is anarchy and killing whenever you want and for any reason or no reason is anarchy.

 

I agree. The government only has a mandate to protect one person from another person. The fetus is either a potential person (and the government has no true mandate to protect it) or it is an actual person (and the government has no mandate to force one person to provide gestation for another person).