Kansas voters block effort to ban abortion in state constitutional amendment vote

Charis response “Yes, Having consensual sex is not a crime, neither is getting pregnant a crime. Please explain how women are being punished by having their rights destroyed. So, I can respond to that statement.TIA

 

It went from individual choice to state purview. Not all our rights need to be listed in the constitution. That’s why we have the 9th Amendment

 

Leaving my door open could cause temporary residence of another human also, doesn’t mean I have to accept it

 

Does the not acceptance of that temporary residence involve the destruction of the body?

 

If that’s what she chooses.

 

This answer is a bit confusing based on the question I originally asked… in answer to your following statement…

The Mello Guy post ~ “Leaving my door open could cause temporary residence of another human also, doesn’t mean I have to accept it.”

My original question… “Does the not acceptance of that temporary residence involve the destruction of the body?”

 

.

IF abortion is banned then women who have sex and get pregnant are punished by being FORCED to gestate.

They have lost the right to bodily autonomy....and are FORCED to sustain the life of another. ......something NO one else is forced to do.

They are forced to have their bodies harmed.....even convicted criminals are not forced to sustain the life of another with their bodies.


The fetuses is given more rights than the women they're in...

 

Hopefully after 65+ million abortion they will finally wise up

 

Doesn’t make sense, accepting indicates they’re fine with it

 

May I suggest that your meaning will be more readily understood, if you replace, "not acceptance," with, "eviction."

Second point to understand, is the difference between an analogy, and exactly the same situation.

To try to make the comparison as close as is possible, the answer would be yes; IOW, it would not matter, if the eviction were to lead to the squatter's death, at least from a legal perspective. Let us say-- again, to try to make the analogy a closer fit-- that this trespasser is: 1) surviving on the food reserves of @The Mello Guy ; 2) is diabetic, but is using Mello Guy's insulin; 3) is not dying from exposure, only because he is using the Mello Guy's heat and shelter (etc., etc.). Mello Guy is not responsible for what happens to the individual, once he is removed from the residence where he is not wanted, from the property to which, the squatter has no rights.

When does the fetal squatter, gain rights? That is the main question, which is the concern of this issue. From the analogy above, the Roe standard-- no right to abortion (in typical circumstances) after the fetus is sufficiently developed to, at least potentially, survive outside of the womb-- seems to make sense. That is, it is the difference between ending the life of something which could not survive as an individual, versus something that hypothetically, might be capable of differentiation, as its own, viable organism.

That standard, then, did not consider a fetus, as a person, before this point. And I think that view is in agreement with popular opinion. That is, those who regard an inseminated ovum to be a person, as well as those who consider a fetus nothing but the mother's personal property, only a part of her own body, like any other growth, until the moment of birth, are both in marked minority groups. The majority, I would contend, do not consider a zygote/embryo/ first trimester fetus, to be identical to any other human being, at that point (regardless of what its genes make possible). But by roughly the third trimester, the fetus's characteristics, especially regarding brain function, cause most to think of it, more akin to another person, instead of just the rough clay, developing towards becoming a person. Sometime between week 13 and week 26, is where most would set the threshold, for at least junior personhood; and that period defines the framework within which, the clear majority of Americans, see this debate as falling.

To try you with another analogy, it is akin to deciding at what point, while in its chrysalis, a caterpillar ceases being its former self, and has transformed to be more of the butterfly or moth, which will emerge.

 

Way too long. Let me give you my 10 cents…it’s her body. I don’t get a say and neither should you. I don’t want her or my healthcare decisions controller by some half wit politicians.

 

The key word is… IF… it will be banned.

Does the body residing temporarily in a uterus have body autonomy?

 

Thank You for the information. I agree, between week 13 & week 26 is where most would set the threshold, for the majority of Americans.

Charis response “Please provide an explanation why the body of a woman has ownership over another’s body temporary residence via eviction?TIA

IF it's the states then the state should pay all medical expenses for pregnancy and birth and the next 18 years of IT'S ( the state's) child's life ...

Charis response “ Please provide an explanation how the State is allowed ownership over another’s body temporarily residing in another’s body.”TIA

The woman's.

Charis response “The uterus where another body resides temporarily. The only function of the uterus in a woman’s body is to provide a temporary residence for another’s body.”

Having sex and getting pregnant are not crimes that should punish women by having their rights destroyed..

This is the response to my post above concerning my eviction statement. I simply was using the… “doesn’t mean I have to accept it”

“Leaving my door open could cause temporary residence of another human also, doesn’t mean I have to accept it.”

 

I never said that I, personally, "got a say;" the federal and state governments, however, certainly do get one-- if you don't realize this, you'd better try your teeth on that 10¢ of yours, because I think someone gave you a wooden dime.


Lastly, if this isn't too many words for your taste, I would point out that if you were to get a say in whether or not government-- which represents everyone-- had any jurisdiction, at any point during pregnancy, that would be the equivalent of your having a say in the issue, itself. IOW, we citizens are all entitled to the very small say of our individual votes, and that is it, regardless of how we feel about any given issue.

 

If a body is using another against its will to sustain itself then it cannot — as per the definition of the word — have bodily autonomy.

If you want to protect these bodies, develop a system where it can be removed from its hosts body and develop without enslaving another.

 

That split is decisive': Abortion amendment fails -- with unexpected help from rural Kansas voters


HOLTON — On paper, it should have been clear which way Pamela Martinson would vote Tuesday on the proposed Value Them Both amendment to the Kansas Constitution.

A Catholic farm wife in a deeply conservative area, observers expected voters like her to spearhead support for the proposed amendment, which would have done away with state-level abortion rights protections.

Only that wasn't the case at all — Martinson voted against Value Them Both, as did many of her fellow residents of Brown County, where 44% of voters opposed it. That was well above the 25% who voted for President Joe Biden in that county in 2020.

In Jackson County, where Martinson ate lunch Wednesday in a Holton restaurant, the result was even more stunning: 52% of voters rejected the amendment. In comparison, 29% voted for Biden in that county in 2020.


Attendees at the Value Them Both Coalition watch party comfort one another after learning Kansas voters rejected the proposed constitutional amendment.

'We'll vote as we choose'

"Women have rights," Martinson said as she explained her stance between bites from a plump, loaded baked potato at Trails Cafe. "It's nice to know we still do.

"It's very simple," she added. "Being Catholic, I don't believe in abortion for myself. But I feel women have a right to decide what happens to their bodies."

Martinson recalled how she felt no pressure at church but received a barrage of calls from amendment supporters.

"It became very annoying," she said. "Get a grip, people. We'll vote as we choose."

cont:

Kansas abortion amendment rejected with help from rural voters (cjonline.com)

 

ummm…by definition NO.

1. • Not sure why you keep pushing that narrative….

 

States Where Abortion Is Illegal Also Have the Worst Support Systems for Mothers | National News | US News

13 States, out of how many? And, I am sure, will be subject to the vote of residents in each.

Perhaps medical professionals should do some research in regards to 'threat to the mother's life', because, if as you say there is great concern, how many years has an ectopic pregnancy bee known to a dire threat to a woman's life?

I'm sure I will be seen at the ballot box... but not likely in the way that you tint the statement.

 

Then perhaps your post is best directed at those who claim that the 'right' to an abortion is in the 'Constitution.'

By claiming it under the 9th, you are opening a door to interpretation you may best consider.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
.

IF abortion is banned then women who have sex and get pregnant are punished by being FORCED to gestate.

They have lost the right to bodily autonomy....and are FORCED to sustain the life of another. ......something NO one else is forced to do.

They are forced to have their bodies harmed.....even convicted criminals are not forced to sustain the life of another with their bodies.


The fetuses is given more rights than the women they're in...

Yes, but all of my post applies.....and IF you read my post you will see I said "if".
And places HAVE banned abortion.

No, it is not born yet so not a legal person....it has no rights.


And if it was deemed a person the woman would still have the right to kill it....it can't use another to sustain it's life... no one has that right.

 

They should keep it in their pants.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
.

IF abortion is banned then women who have sex and get pregnant are punished by being FORCED to gestate.

They have lost the right to bodily autonomy....and are FORCED to sustain the life of another. ......something NO one else is forced to do.

They are forced to have their bodies harmed.....even convicted criminals are not forced to sustain the life of another with their bodies.


The fetuses is given more rights than the women they're in...



Yes, but all of my post applies.....and IF you read my post you will see I said "if".
And places HAVE banned abortion.




No, it is not born yet so not a legal person....it has no rights.


And if it was deemed a person the woman would still have the right to kill it....it can't use another to sustain it's life... no one has that right.

Yes, MEN should "keep it in their pants" ( the simplistic and unreasonable crap when a poster canNOT address the post they quoted)....


and then no need for abortions ...it's is all their fault

 

As you use the "right" of political leaders to violently control everyone to wish for free stuff (at the expense of your fellow humans) or to force everyone to conform to your morals. We are awash with moralizing busybodies on both the left and the right.

 

It would help if you knew what you were talking about.

You don't.

Or do you think everyone would obey the law out of the goodness of their hearts?

 

If the person refuses to leave voluntarily then the police are called to remove them forcefully. Feel free to make the connections.