It's an English problem some pro-lifers seem to have, they don't know the difference between and adjective and a noun .. Even the title of that white paper is using human as an adjective and not a noun. It basically says "When does life, that we recognize as human, begin", and even in the paper itself it mixes and transposes human adjective and human noun. In the very first chapter the forward writer makes numerous mistakes; Among the chief obfuscations and confusions is the claim that we do not know when human life begins. This frequently takes the form of claiming that the question is a matter of faith or religious belief. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as is lucidly and convincingly demonstrated in this White Paper Plainly untrue, we all know when human (adj) life begins - notice the use of human as a adjective here, it then goes on to say - When a human life begins is a question of science. - notice the change to human noun here, probably hoping that no one would notice it, and when a human life begins is not just a question of science. Then there is this - The debate in our society and others is not over when human life begins but is over at what point and for what reasons do we have an obligation to respect and protect that life. Before we can get to that argument, however, we need to clear the smog surrounding the question of when human life begins. , a quick change back to human adjective again, and since when has there been any smog surrounding when human (adj) life begins. later on In this White Paper, Dr. Condic challenges some of the conventional wisdom about that moment and argues that a coherent and non-arbitrary analysis of the scientific data forcibly points to the conclusion that a new human life commences at the precise moment when the membranes of the sperm and egg cells fuse. Specifically, she critiques the more common position that human life begins about 24 hours later during an event called syngamy (the breakdown of the two pronuclear membranes in the new cell, which results from the fusion of sperm and egg). again the transposing of the adjective and the noun .. Do the writers of this paper really think that people are not going to notice. The whole paper does this in the hope that people won't catch on, and the author of the main article is not even a subject matter specialist!!!
I've stated over and over what it is, your assertions aren't assumptions, they are just assertions and false. If you would actually read what you are responding to, you would know my goal is to over turn roe v wade and give the power back to the states. Also advocate for only allowing abortions in the cases of danger to the woman, fetus, or if the fetus is already dead. Yes also smoking and drinking bans, which you seem content on running with and making false assertions, they aren't assumptions, as it's been stated clearly. So you can take that and continue to say the same false assertions over and over when I've stated it over and over what reality is.
It's not about control for the 100000th time, no matter how many times you try to assert it is, it still is not. You are the only one so hell bent on asserting this. You are free to assert whatever you want, but it does not make it true and myself and others who believe like me will refute your assertions everyday and twice on Sunday. you can assert it has not been refuted, but it has 1000000s of times
Justification for actions Truth is truth and if you have legislation on abortion you have the potential to have legislation that will control any woman of child bearing age as the line between what is an abortifacient and what is harmless is very blurred and does not look like being cleared up any time soon
potential is not reality as pro-choice like to claim the unborn is a potential life, when clearly it is alive
You're right, typically consent is a signed contract and full understanding of the risk involved and exactly what one is consenting to. Now if you can please elaborate what other time we force people to go through something that puts them at risk, that would be great.
Elaborate on something you brought up you mean? Well OK..Well you mean like in New York where people are forced to go day to day without being able to have a concealed weapon putting them at risk of being mugged? Or maybe you are referring all of us being forced to go through life with pollution in the air putting us all at risk of a wide range of illnesses. Or perhaps you are referring to laws that force someone to be kept on life support, if they are unconscious and sometimes legally dead if they have no will giving consent to a loved one to make their medical decisions? http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/Headli...shot-healthcare-workers/2013/10/24/id/532938/ heres a good example too.
No, people are not forced to leave their homes if they do not want to. However perhaps you can show us an instance where people are forced to give up parts of their bodies to save others? Or at the very least forced to do this when it puts them at risk? That would be much closer to the issue of abortion.
It is reality where I live we HAVE anti-abortion legislation and one of the reasons why a recent court case failed to convict a young girl who had taken ru487 was that the jurors were aware that this would open floodgates
Actually the woman doesn't give up any part of her body, as the fetus does not take any body part from the woman. But after the first trimester there are restrictions on abortion and the third trimester a lot of states have bans on abortion except when the mothers life is in danger. OK as far people being forced to use body parts to save another http://www.proskauer.com/files/News...3d3-129ac6a5c6c5/compelled-organ-donation.pdf It states that parents can force minors to donate http://uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Anatomical+Gift+Act+(2006)
Government is not capable of "protecting the unborn." No number of laws passed can "protect the unborn" because they are all unenforceable. It has been tried before and failed. You have been asked to give practical methods of enforcing anti-abortion laws and you have been unable to do so. It is being tried in countries around the world today, and it is failing there as well. Of the more than 40 million abortions performed around the world each year, about 20 million of them are unsafe illegal abortions, so those laws do nothing to protect the unborn, they only endanger women. Abortion will never be as dangerous in this country, even if illegal, as it was before 1973, because women have access to safe abortion drugs and abortion tourism. Nonetheless, there is no point in passing laws which cannot be enforced.
Horrible reasoning for supporting legalized abortion IMO. Well since abortions are going to happen, no point in passing laws to prevent it. You have shown no proof that abortions will not be reduced if laws are passed to protect the unborn. All you can show me is old data, cause that is all we have. Other countries have a lot of issues that they can not control that America does a better job of. I should not need to tell you how laws are enforced, you should already know the answer. Acting like somehow abortion laws are gonna be treated any different then any other law is false. All you have to do is look at abortion laws that existed pre Roe V Wade to find your answer.
I do know how anti-abortion laws are enforced, i.e. they are NOT. Please do look at anti-abortion laws pre RvW, please do, they were not enforced. Extremely rarely, an abortion case made headlines because a woman died from complications. In those cases, an abortionist might be prosecuted. What is horrible reasoning is believing that abortions will stop or even be reduced by passing a law. You have shown no evidence that criminalization lowers the abortion rate (saying the USA is different from other countries is not evidence). You have proposed no new methods of enforcement of anti-abortion laws, or old methods for that matter. Unless and until you can propose some method of enforcement, it is a waste of good paper and trees to write more anti-abortion laws.
Is there any evidence that criminalization of anything lowers the occurrence of the act? I don't need to show how laws were enforced, it is widely available for you to look at yourself. Now if you can find an unbiased source that confirms that abortion laws can not be enforced, then we can drop that whole item, but it will not change my stance or what I'm going to fight for. When have I said abortions will stop? Never is the answer. You have shown no evidence that it wont lower abortions. Zero. And even if somehow you do, I'm still gonna fight for what I believe in. Yes it is my duty as an American to fight for what I think is right, yes it is my duty as an American to disagree with what I disagree with. Yes as an American I do have an obligation to speak up when I believe the Constitution is being violated. Yes my voice does matter, I am an American. Yes both men and women are against abortion. A law that says the government will not allow legal killings of unborn is neither a waste of paper, or time.
Actually the fetus uses the womb and her nutrients to survive. If she does not want to be forced to give up her nutrients could she not simply have the umbilical cord cut to stop this? Do you agree with such legislation? Forcing minors and children to donate parts of their body through coercive methods by the family and the legal system if they really do not want to? I am curious to think if you find this to be moral and ethical behavior. Also I think you completely failed to read the link you gave me on the ethics of compelling people to donate organs or undergo surgery against their wills. Here is a section wherein a woman refused to go through a C-section because of her religious beliefs even though it meant putting the fetus in danger. The courts upheld her right to not undergo a C-section even if it meant the fetus would be harmed. I had to screencap the image since the website won't allow me to copy and paste. By the way, if you had read the entire paper you shared with me you'd have realized that in every instance the courts always recognize the right of competent adults to control their own autonomy, viewing the right to bodily autonomy as sacrosanct, and that they may not be compelled to give up their organs for any reason. The only other thing it spoke of was the issue of minors and incompetents being unable to defend their rights to their autonomy and the ethics of legally compelling them to give up organs/blood, etc.
History has shown that anti-abortion laws are ineffective and virtually useless. Is it important to you to reduce abortions or is it important to you to have a law? Anti-abortion laws differ from other order-maintaining laws in one crucial way: that is they attempt to regulate the inside of someone's body. So the result is that they cannot be enforced without invading the inside of a woman's body to search for evidence. Even so, doctors cannot tell the difference between a spontaneous abortion and a drug-induced abortion. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97may/abortex.htm There would be no history of illegal abortion to tell without the continuing demand for abortion from women, regardless of law. Generations of women persisted in controlling their reproduction through abortion and made abortion an issue for legal and medical authorities...... By the 1840s, the abortion business boomed. Despite the laws forbidding the sale of abortifacients, they were advertised in the popular press and could be purchased from physicians or pharmacists or through the mail. If drugs failed, women could go to a practitioner who specialized in performing instrumental abortions. Advertisements and newspaper exposes made it appear that what had been an occasional domestic practice had become a daily occurrence performed for profit in northern cities. Madame Restell, for example, openly advertised and provided abortion services for thirty-five years. Restell began her abortion business in New York City in the late 1830s; by the mid-1840s, she had offices in Boston and Philadelphia and traveling agents who sold her "Female Monthly Pills." Restell became the most infamous abortionist in the country, but she was not the only abortionist. The clientele of these busy clinics were primarily married, white, native-born Protestant women of the upper and middle classes.
Thank you for that case, I found the actual summary of the court case and it holds a wealth of important information regarding the right to body autonomy - http://www.leagle.com/decision/1994958632NE2d326_1897.xml/IN RE BABY BOY DOE - - - Updated - - - You are wasting your time and energy here Grannie, you could place the figures in front of his nose and he still wouldn't accept them.
If she wants operate on herself that badly and cut the umbilical cord, more power to her, but laws should not support that and if she does do that then eys she should be prosecuted for murder under fetal homicide laws currently, or if abortion, unless her life is truly in danger, or the fetus is illegal under the law period. No she should not be allowed to cut off the life supply of the fetus for any reason except to save her own life, or the fetus will not survive outside the womb if allowed to fully develop, or it never will fully develop. No not every pregnancy applies, in fact very few do. I do not find abortion moral, or ethical and nobody has given me a sensible reason why it would be, except under the exceptions I mentioned. I do not find it moral, or ethical to use children as science experiments, or for the purpose of organ farming. I understand there is a huge organ shortage in this country, but this is the wrong way to fix it. I do not agree with legislation that uses and abuses children, or the unborn. I consider the 2006 Act to do just that. It allows parents to use their children as experiments and organ donors. Children shouldn't even legally be allowed to have their organs donated, as they themselves can not consent legally due to being too young. Now when they reach the age where they can legally consent to actions, then it would be up to the individuals, not the parents. Likewise I do not support abortion in that it exploits the unborn as a burden on society and the woman. It allows the woman to use the unborn as an excuse to kill. She claims it is her body and her life. It is not just her body, or her life on the line. There is an unborn who can not give consent to her killing it. So by default the law says that is up to the woman, even if her own life isn't in real danger of being lost. Difference between organ donation and pregnancy is for one half of the DNA etc etc to make the unborn is always inside the woman in the form of an egg. When the egg is fertilized by the sperm then the entire unborn is inside the mother. It does not require a surgery, or donation outside of the sperm donation given by the male. Also the unborn is very much human and alive and developing from the moment of fertilization and not part of the woman(even has different blood type in a lot of cases). The uterus is there only to support the life of the unborn. It serves no other purpose. Plus the unborn doesn't take the uterus away, it borrows it. Now arguing you can not take my nutrients from me if I do not want to. Fact is those nutrients belong to the unborn and you. Brings up another key difference. I donate my hand, I'm not getting it back. It is not being borrowed, it is being taken from me. The uterus is never taken from the mother. Plus there are fetal right laws in place to protect the fetus.
You are right, and I am aware that no amount of reason, facts, or truth will sway a true pro-life believer. What they forget, however, is that there are many lurkers reading these posts, and their continued non-acceptance of reason, facts, and truth is readily apparent to lurkers whose minds may not be set in concrete. Repeated denials of evidence and history just gives me another chance to state the reason, facts, and truth in another way, in different words, and to provide new links....all to appeal to lurkers unknown to us all.
So basically what I got out of that is not the laws are unenforceable but the government just did not enforce it, much like what is happening with our immigration laws. Which means the government did not go after the sellers, or people who performed the acts, much like the government is not going after employers of illegal immigrants.
Then please give us some specific methods which could be used for enforcement. Preferably some that do not violate a woman's civil rights. I will give some examples of how women would evade an anti-abortion law and you can tell us how law enforcement should go about stopping that evasion. 1. A woman takes misoprostol obtained from the internet or by a trip across a national border. Or perhaps her doctor will prescribe it for some different ailment not knowing she is pregnant. 2. A woman learns about herbs grown in back yards and cultivates her own garden. Herbs also have multiple uses, not practical to criminalize growing herbs. 3. A woman patronizes a ship "Women on Waves" anchored in international waters just off the coast. 4. A woman takes an "abortion tourism" trip to a state or country where abortion is safe and legal. 5. A woman has a sister or a cousin who has had enough medical training to perform an abortion (it's not hard, you know, women learned from the Jane Collective how to provide safe abortions when they were illegal). 6. The Jane Collective can be reactivated, providing abortions safely but having no established "clinic" which could be raided. These are all proven ways that women can evade anti-abortion laws. Prove to me that you could stop them.
Abortion is totally ethical as it falls under the sacrosanct protection of bodily autonomy. Perhaps you'd know this if you had read your own linked article. This is one thing I think we both fully agree on. Do you think that women actually get pregnant with the intent to kill? Because they want to kill? But much like the issue of organ donation, do you truly believe women should be forced to nourish and sustain the life of the fetus against her will? I have already shown several cases where the uterus has more purposes than just procreative ones. It is important to maintain a woman's internal structural integrity in that it separates her other organs appropriately and it is a form of pleasure for her, uterine orgasm. It also belongs to her and if someone else is to 'borrow' it shouldn't she be free to say whether she wants that other to borrow it or not? And no, a woman's nutrients belong only to her and she should not be legally compelled to give them up if she does not want to. You own link argues against this repeatedly. Perhaps you should read it. There are only fetal rights laws to protect the fetus as an extension of the woman's rights because in order to harm the fetus you must harm her first. Surely you realize this?
