If abortion were banned on the state or national level, would "pro-lifers" support...

Maybe you are right and I don't have the intellectual capabilities to understand your argument - or maybe you are wrong and I understand your argument perfectly well and still don't approve your line of argument. What you can not do, however, is stating that "American Law" shares your position without giving explicit proof. I understand that, as you said, you have developed this argument over a long period and consulted a lot of experts. That, however, doesn't make your argument infallable and it is no guarantee that "American Law", i.e. let's say any federal court in the United States, would follow your argument and consider legal action according to it - and therefore the line of argument itself, can not be a means to escape from the discussion about the argument or to declare other interpretations of the same law as inferior, as suggested in the respective post. I simply appeal to both your intellect and your honesty in this regard when continuing the debate.

It is not possible to lead a constructive debate about your argument without having a concrete assumption about when life begins. I don't actually mind about which state we argue here, since for both of us (as we both do not believe that human life starts at conception, nidation or another of the processes mentioned so far) it is a mere theoretical game. Nevertheless, we can not continue the argumentation without coming clear about when life starts. So far, I have assumed that we both agree on the assumption that "personhood" starts at conception, i.e. at fertilization. This means that from the moment of fertilization, the fertilized ovum is granted the full rights under the American constitution.

After fertilization, we can make the following observation: The fertilized ovum is brought towards the uterine wall against its consent by the muscular force of the woman. It is, so to say, coerced in the first moments of its existence. Then follows what you call "intrusion" (I find the debate about the terminology here actually rather unconstructive, because 'invasion' as a medical term is not the same as invasion in a legal or military sense). Arguing that intrusion is the first coercive act, you would either have to hold the position that the fertilized ovum has given its consent to be brought to the uterine wall, or you would have to hold the position that the fertilized ovum becomes a human being just a moment prior to its 'invasion'.

The concept of implicit consent exists in American Law but it results in a lot of blurred lines. You actually mention neither the concept of implicit consent at all (for example with respect to the female body) nor do you mention any other concept of consent with respect to the fertilized ovum. In contrast, you write: "Since consent legally is an agreement for a person's interests to be invaded by another, a person must have the choice of whether to consent or not." and "Without choice, that invasion is necessarily coercive, not consensual.". Both are statements which you (1) do not assume for the fertilized ovum and (2) in which you deny the possibility of implicit consent (which actually does exist in American law).

More than that, the line of though which considers the invasion of the endometrium a coercive act is not compatible with both reasonability and common legal interpretations. Consider, for example, the following situation: I negligently infect you with AIDS and you die from fever. Then I claim that the legal cause of your death was not me infecting you with AIDS but your own body which caused the fever and therefore yourself. I would be wrong, because I would not consider that the fever inevitably follows from the infection and that the reaction of your body is not a conscious reaction. In the same way, the invasion of the uterine wall is not a conscious decision - in fact, not a decision made by a brain at all - but a biological reaction. Nobody would argue that the reaction of your body in case of fever is comparable to that of a mentally incompetent person in its totality. And nobody, not even hardcore pro-lifers, would argue that the invasion of the fertilized ovum is an act any more conscious than the fever reaction when it comes to the infection with AIDS.

These examples are intended to make clear one thing: That what we, in our world of the interaction of conscious human beings, percieve as action, is not necessarily transferable to the cellular world because these are two different realms of experience. Comparing the unconscious parts of the woman body or the cycote with mentally incompetent persons simply doesn't work. It is consistent also with American Law.

Considering the baby in the house in Antarctica, it does violate your property rights during the whole time of being in your house. It might even crap on your carpet but still you will not find any judge which approved the killing of the baby. Why? Not because it is no violation of your liberty (which I agree that pregnancy is), but because killing in this case is clearly and obviously beyond common sense.

 

Yes it would be returned to the states and the right to life (in the womb) crowd would continue to harangue the pro choice people and continue to chip away at access to it if not out right ban it.

Let’s be clear about something. Ending or overly restricting legal abortion will not end abortion and may not even significantly reduce the number of abortions. Rather, it will force the practice back under ground to be performed by the back ally butchers who will endanger women’s health and even their lives, and escape any restrictions on late term abortions which may well increase in numbers

Please understand this. Most people who are pro-choice are not callously pro-abortion. Regardless of ones beliefs about when life begins, we recognize that abortion is not a pleasant or desirable thing. I for one have no problem with overall policies that are aimed at making abortion rare-although I am adamant that they should still be available.
How do we do that? By supporting meaningful sex education and the availability of contraception for starters. Then, by ensuring that women and families are confident that they will have the help and support that they need if they choose to carry the child to term. That would include nutritional and financial assistance, affordable day care, early child hood education, and health care coverage for starters. How about we throw in tax policies that strengthen the middle class and promote job growth. The problem is that too many pro-life conservatives are against all or most of these things and there for they are really just pro fetus and pro birth.

I believe that most pro-choice people would, in turn agree to a ban on late term abortions that are not medically necessary and ensure that the woman is fully aware of all alternatives including adoption. And speaking of adoption, they need to get over the hysteria about allowing gays and lesbians to adopt. They are a valuable resource for children who might otherwise suffer at the hands of a parent who was not prepared to care for them, or languish in the foster care system.

Is it possible for conservative to get smart about this, or will they insist on clinging to absurd positions of just wanting abortion stopped, even in cases of rape, incest or a danger to the mother’s life.? Are you willing to come out right now as being truly pro-life, pro women, pro-family and pro children ?

 

Religious Right Unaware That Rosa Parks & Martin Luther King Jr. Supported Planned Parenthood -

After Perkins falsely claimed that Sanger wanted to “eliminate the black race,” Jackson accused liberals of “rewriting history.” If Jackson had bothered to do any research, he would have found that Rosa Parks served on Planned Parenthood’s board and Martin Luther King Jr., a vocal advocate of family planning services, accepted the inaugural Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood, praising Sanger as a kindred spirit: - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...orted-planned-parenthood#sthash.Af8B412d.dpuf

 

IF you wanted dialog with that poster you have to quote him so he knows you responded........

 

Or we could just amend the Constitution to make the banning of abortion absolutely clear.

I'm so sick of this as an excuse to liberally permit abortion. Laws prohibiting murder also do not end murder. It is meant to discourage murder because if murder were legal, there'd be a lot more of it. I have no sympathy for back ally butchers or anyone who would go to one. I think that the people who want unfettered access to abortion greatly exaggerate this as a scare tactic. It is quite obvious that making abortions illegal will greatly effect availability.

You can't claim to be pro-life and pro-choice. You can't say I'm personally for life and would never get an abortion, but I don't want to restrict the choice of others. That's a big fat cop out.

Throwing more money at more government programs will not make young people responsible. Holding them accountable for their actions will make them responsible. I'm so sick of the government can solve all solutions of the left. All the above named programs have nothing to do with abortion.

If you want to promote job growth then stop regulating every aspect of human life. Stop taxing everything we do.

What late term abortions are medically necessary? That is very rare if it ever happens at all. But it is always the exception that the liberals want to drive a bus through.

And as for adoption, every child deserves a father and a mother and studies have shown that same sex parents do emotional harm to children.

Since such a small percentage of abortions are a result of rape, incest or danger to the mother's life, I would accept any laws banning abortion with those exceptions. Then I would fight to ban abortions in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. If the mother's life were ever truly endangered, I'm sure the physicians would save the mother at the expense of the child. I don't think the situation presents itself, if it does, it's rarely if ever.

 

I stand 100% behind everything that I said. You are denial of reality.

 

it would be like prohibition, another failed war.. this time on women

 

Jesus Christ. Is everyone as truly horrified at this as I am.

It's okay to kill thousands of women who've done nothing more than want to control their own bodies and make their own decisions, all in the name of some spoonfuls of meiotic cells. The naked misogynism of these people is appalling. If religion so twists people that they so thoroughly hate and despise a majority of humankind then I do indeed see why so many people hate religion.

 

And those same people want to be called "Pro-life" !!!!.........

 

""" I'm so sick of the government can solve all solutions of the left.""""


Ya, you want the government to solve YOUR pet problem, abortion, though , don't you....??

 

And I stand 100% behind what I said. The only denial going on here is the pro-choice people who are denying the science that clearly demonstrates that life begins at conception and that medicine has advanced so much as to render the argument that a woman must choose between her life and the life of her child obsolete. The liberals are running out of excuses for conducting the gruesome practice of abortion and these recently released videos will serve to turn public opinion against them by exposing their inhumane practices.

 

I want the government to stop spending half a billion dollars a year on an abortion mill like Planned Parenthood.

It could be better spent on saving American lives.

 

Yet the largest part of Planned Parenthood services do just that - early cancer detection, prenatal care, and other health services. It will be interesting to see if the health of mothers and babies decline in areas that defund PP - it was a major resource for such care for the poor.

 

And abortion. Money is fungible. It's immoral to send taxpayer dollars to support Planned Parenthood abortions when half the public is against abortions.

 

Yes, but like all your other claims, that is false....you have never shown that the government spends 1/2 a billion dollars on abortions

There are no abortion mills, that's just immature, inflammatory BS from those who have no good arguments.

Ya, you want the government to solve YOUR pet problem, abortion, though , don't you....??


Like making abortion illegal which will cost billions just in court costs....and EXTRA WELFARE....but , hey, don't ever think things through.....

 

Yet 99% of the public would be against denying poor people prenatal care that would lead to healthier babies for the poor people who use
PP as a health provider. Money is indeed fungible. But every dime wasted on efforts to outlaw abortion could be used to support health clinics, free vasectomies and condoms and sex education. Things that ACTUALLY reduce the numbers of abortions.

 

So sit there and mumble about it...but your morals are NOT everyone's and laws aren't based on morals...

AND AGAIN you have NEVER shown proof that the government funds abortions at PP....NEVER, you never have , ever...because it doesn't.

 

So women are just uterus's to you who are incapable of supporting themselves or their families? How misogynistic of you.

I know that liberals are smart enough to understand the word "fungible"...or are they? Government should not give money to abortionists, period.

It's the basic duty of government to protect the lives of it's citizens. Knowing what we know about the science of fetal development we need to protect the lives of the unborn.

 

Fine, provide those services if they are more important and stop abortions. Simple solution. But it is more important for liberals to make money off of the human sacrifice rituals.

 

Utter rubbish.....and totally unsubstantiated as usual.
You have never proven the government gives money to PP, or anyone else, for abortions. It might shock you but just you saying so doesn't make it true.

And misogynists are people who hate women so much they want them controlled like breeding animals and forced to suffer through pregnancy and childbirth.....that would be you.


Yes, it's the duty of government to protect their citizens. That's why they protect women from people like you and don't protect unviable fetuses because one has to be born to be a citizen....

 

Your silly hyperbole, "human sacrifice rituals." don't make you more credible....


Your side wants to take away those services by defunding PP so that women won't have access to affordable BC...


....and NO woman is obligated to use birth control....

 

Care to post a link to that "science" or will you continue to rely on baseless appeals to ignorance?

 

The only accusation (unproven) is that PP sold fetal tissue for profit. That says nothing against abortion.

 

Well, I thought everyone was smart enough to understand the word fungible.

Misogynists are people who think women are to be treated as sex objects and if the women are stupid enough to do something dumb like get pregnant then it's time to truck them down to the local "Planned Parenthood" where she is forced to have an abortion because the men didn't "plan" to become a "parent" with the woman he was just using for sex.

Half of the abortions are performed on females so pretending you care about women falls flat because you fail to care about them.

The fact that you acknowledge that even a viable fetus at nine months isn't a citizen and therefore can be killed shows little compassion for human life.

 

What is more important? Women's health or abortion? If you say abortion, then government shouldn't have to fund it.

If you say women's health then they should stop abortions.