Banning abortion does not give government absolute control over a woman's body. to say that is factually incorrect and emotionally driven. Banning abortion gives the government the power to protect the unborn from being killed by a woman simply because she does not wish the unborn to live, because it will hinder her life, or slow her career goals. These are not solid reasons to terminate a human life. Essentially abortion is the killing of an embryo, or fetus. In the cases we discuss a human embryo, or human fetus Yes there are natural abortions that occur. We are not talking about those. http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/abortion No banning abortion does not give the woman's body to the government it only gives the government the power to say a woman can not have an abortion. Now there are other laws I'd like to see like smoking bans and drinking bans while pregnant. These laws are meant to protect human lives. you may not agree with it, but that is the intent of the laws. Now some will argue that banning abortion will not reduce the number of abortions. Nobody has shown any hard evidence of this. some say 5,000-10,000 died from illegal abortions. The real number in 1972 was less then 50 and roughly 130,000 illegal abortions took place. Now why people feel overturning Roe V Wade in itself will make abortion illegal is beyond me. It will not. It will give the power back to the States where it rightfully belongs. some say oh but the 14th amendment. Yes the 14th amendment which had nothing to do with privacy in intent, all it was is an enforcement amendment to ensure all laws apply to all citizens regardless of color, gender and country or origin. Some will say oh but the 9th amendment... 9th amendment only applies if the federal government or state government does not have laws restricting that right, it is retained by the people. Lots of rights are restricted by laws. Some will argue oh the government can't restrict my unalienable rights. So you liberty is not restricted by laws? But we don't have issues with murder laws, stealing laws, or graffiti laws. why? Because they protect the freedoms and rights of others in the name of safety and security. Banning abortion gives freedoms and rights back to the fetus that never should have been taken away. It protects the fetus and life. Nobody has shown me any hard evidence that legalizing abortion has saved lives. I have shown plenty that shows every abortion with very few exceptions results in death. Sometimes two. Yes I believe in freedom of choice, liberty pursuit of happiness and the right to live. I believe it needs to apply to all to include the unborn. Some will say oh but you can't give rights to one without taking from another, that's how all laws work. Murder laws take away the right of a person to have total control over their actions to protect the life of another. some will say oh but the fetus is not a person. There are fetal homicide laws on the books. Oh but those don't apply to abortion. You are right, because abortion is legal currently.
Do you think these statistics are a coincidence? http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97may/abortion.htm LEGALIZING abortion was a public-health triumph that for pregnant women ranked with the advent of antisepsis and antibiotics. In 1971, the year after decriminalization, the maternal-mortality rate in New York State dropped 45 percent
No. I never said legal abortion was less safe for women. More then just women are involved in abortion. I said there is no hard evidence that lives are saved by legalizing abortion. Yes less abortions end in death, but that does not prove lives are saved. When I say lives I am referring to unborn and women. Pro-choice are only concerned with the woman. I personally have concerns for both woman and unborn. You can say and think what you want, but that is the truth. If I cared only about the fetus, then I would not support danger to the mother exceptions. I have concerns for the mother when her life is really in danger. No all pregnancies do not qualify. Not all pregnancies involve life threatening injuries. http://healthtalkonline.org/peoples...atening-complication-pregnancy-and-childbirth Not all pregnancies have these life threatening conditions involved. Yes there is a risk to those conditions, but it is not a guarantee. http://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/news/conditions-that-threaten-women-s-lives-in-childbirth-and-pregnancy- this article states severe complications are not common People like to point to laws that state a person can not be forced to use their body, or parts of their body to sustain the life of another. this is a poor argument when it comes to pregnancy IMO, as no other case is that life being sustained for the purpose of reproduction. No other case involves an act that results in the creation of a new completely unique individual that deserves protections under the law.
Unless there is an actual physical signed contract involved, what other time do we force people to go through something that puts them at risk?
Could a woman eat as much of a miscarriage-inducing herb or fruit as she wanted? Remember, you claim a ban on abortion ONLY covers a woman getting an abortion.....is that true?
BTW, as discussed on that other thread.....there are no "pro-abortion" laws that are the "equivalent" of anti-abortion laws. An anti-abortion law would use the threat of criminal prosecution to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. For it to be a "pro-abortion" law...it would use the threat of criminal prosecution to force a woman to terminate a pregnancy. There are no such laws.
So in your zeal to save the "lives" of zefs, you don't care how many desperate women die? Let me remind you that abortion does not involve "new completely unique individuals", but only the POTENTIAL of new completely unique individuals, and that potential is only realized by the sacrifice of women.
I know what a contract is. An agreement to have sex with someone is not a contract, is not binding, and can be revoked at any time.
That is your OPINION, and not everyone agrees. An aborting woman does not believe, as you do, that she is killing significant life. Why do you think your OPINION should overrule hers? Yes, they know because the poll question explains what it is. Abortion rights are protected by the Constitution and are not subject to a vote.
consent is more then a signed contract - - - Updated - - - Why would it not be true? You are acting like abortion laws never existed and suddenly abortion laws would be different
I'm asking you if your claim holds true, Steve. You CLAIM that a ban on abortion would not "control a woman's body, just prevent her from getting an abortion". Okay....would she have the right to EAT things that would induce a miscarriage? If you say "Yes"...then what "teeth" are in your ban? Is the only concern for proponents of a ban that the woman "can't walk into a clinic and have a procedure performed"....and NOT "protecting the unborn baby"???? But if you say "No, she wouldn't"...then you are contradicting your "No,no,no...it's not about controlling the woman's body" claim, since clearly it WOULD control what the woman put into her body.
No it is a new and completely unique individual and yes I have proof. It certainly is not part of the mother, has already been proven. To sit there and say I do not care about women and whether they live, or die is ridiculous at best. It's not about me, or my emotions. It is about the law and what laws should do The number would be roughly 1/4 of 700 so we will say 200 based off number of women who die during pregnancies and roughly 1/4 of all pregnancies end in abortion. Yes 200 lives to save hundreds of thousands is what the laws should focus on. It's not woman verse fetus it's life verse life. It's not about emotions it's about protection and saving lives. That's what laws should do. If someone dies breaking the law are we supposed to feel sorry for them? do you feel sorry for a guy who shoots up a school, then kills himself? The fetus is not a potential anything, no matter how hard SCOTUS tries to dodge reality, it is a human life from the very beginning. It is it's own being from the very beginning. the sacrifice of the woman is what allows the unborn to develop and live outside the womb.
What an emotional plea....no science , no facts, just ""Aww, it's a little LIFE"".... If a fetus is it's own being AND NOT PART OF THE MOTHER then why can't a woman have it taken out and let it fend for itself ?????????????
Oh read the 11th amendment and tell me things covered in the constitution are not subject to a vote. No they don't. Lets say they do know Roe V Wade concerns abortions (40% of Americans do not) how many of the 53% according to a 2013 poll actually know that overturning Roe V Wade will not make abortion illegal? I bet very few. http://www.gallup.com/poll/160058/majority-americans-support-roe-wade-decision.aspx this also states only 28% want it legal under all circumstances and a majority actually want restrictions on abortion. Also after first trimester support for abortion goes down to below 30%. I find it interesting that the 27% number who believe in second trimester abortion is less then those that support abortion under any circumstance. and the 31% who think 1st term abortions should be illegal is significantly higher then the 18% who think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances.
and you still keep missing the issue, taking blood is a single act . .lets actually compare taking blood to pregnancy, the truer comparison would be akin to giving consent to having blood taken and then it is assumed you have consented to give a pint of blood every week for nine months with no recourse to revoke your consent. Rubbish, if every single act of sex resulted in pregnancy then you might have a valid point, it doesn't and you don't, no person is expected to accept protracted injury through a risk taken, if that was the case then any injury incurred by playing contact sports would go untreated. You still have to prove that there has been a 'complete disclosure of the facts'. Abortion would fall under ''alternatives' of what informed consent is. Not in the slightest because that is a contractual consent and not informed consent, and further more when actually compared to pregnancy you would have to pay $50 every month for nine months .. that would fall under extortion. No you can't and neither can I force you to continue paying $50 per month for nine months even if you agreed to it in the first place Nope she did not. BTW. I haven't failed to notice how you cherry picked a part of my response and ignored the rest.
The answer is this what did state laws say pre Roe V Wade. And yes my goal is to stop a woman from legally being able to get an abortion and protect the unborn baby. That is why I would support smoking bans and drinking bans while pregnant. It is not about controlling women, it is about protecting the unborn. Now if as you claim all a woman has to do is eat fruit and herbs to force a miscarriage, then why does she need to go into a clinic and have an abortion? And what harm does this cause the woman? How effective is this method? And no I would not ban legal fruits and herbs from being consumed. Now if she eats something illegal then she would be subject to banned substance laws correct? Now a question for you. Do you think a woman should be allowed to smoke, drink, abuse herself to cause miscarriages while pregnant?
Seriously Fox? I've already supplied scientific evidence of a new unique life upon fertilization. A woman can't have it taken out, because that would kill it and would be murder. The unborn needs the mother for survival until viability. Even newborns can't survive if left alone. So should society be allowed to kill a newborn if it wanted to, so it didn't have the burden of raising a child that is completely helpless on its own. would forcing financial responsibility of a child be infringing on their rights of liberty and happiness? Now once again I will supply you links, which you will ignore, because that's what you do. http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx- If it was not it's own individual how can you be charged for two murders? http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_134maureencondic1.html- Embryology Scientist http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html- Lots of Embryology Scientists
You just contradicted yourself. If an herb or fruit shows a pattern (not 100%, but even 70 or 60% effective) at inducing a miscarriage....you would have to make it illegal to help "protect the unborn".
NO, you posted , a fetus is it's own being AND NOT PART OF THE MOTHER ......(then why can't a woman have it taken out and let it fend for itself) Why should the pregnant woman be forced to house something that is not part of her ? If a surgeon leaves some equipment in you after your gall bladder surgery do you have to keep it in you?
she certain can be charged with a crime for eating things that are harmful to the baby when she is pregnant just like she can be charged for excessive drinking and drugs while she is pregnant
Sorry, but the very definition of "individual" is "separate", so a zef is not an individual. It has been proven that laws do not stop nor even lessen abortions, so laws do not "protect" the unborn. You cannot save lives by passing an anti-abortion law, all that does is make abortion more dangerous for women thereby resulting in MORE deaths. The fetus is potentially an individual, but not while connected to the pregnant woman. It is not "its own being" until it can support its life functions with its own body organs.
Yes a fetus is a living human. It's is not dead and it is very much human. didn't even read the links did ya.
IF it was a "living human" it should be able to be taken out of the woman and survive... It may be "human" but it is not A human....I sure don't want to see one walking down the street!!
