The Necessity of Abortion

Do you mean living people?

 

So not all cases? Can you think of cases where the law HAS protected them?

 

I have children, and I know exactly where they came from.

BTW... Do you have children? When did you start loving them?

 

Can the government force people to not kill?

 

Abortion. Was that a trick question?

 

Yeah you're right. Women AND their male partner put babies there!

 

If you are capable, name just ONE single thing in this world that you would consider 'UNnatural.' Because it does appear that you think that everything is natural!

 

For some reason I thought that you were saying if at least one LIVING human doesn't die.

 

SECOND Amendment?

 

What does it have to do with what century this is? Was my opinion more popular in a previous century or something?

The only difference is that it was conceived without the woman's willingness to risk pregnancy.

Sure, the abortion procedure is identical!

Why would we want to "punish women for having consensual sex?"

 

When something takes place because of a natural creature it can be considered natural. When a Lion kills and eats a wildebeest this is a natural death though it can be said the beat di not die of natural causes. When a woman miscarries a child the same can be said, as with an abortion but more so because the mother "Decided" on the miscarriage and tolls were used to accomplish it. When a chimp uses a stick to catch termites for dinner it is a natural action performed in what some consider an unnatural way but that is entirely a matter of personal opinion and my opinion sways toward the natural direction while yours sways unnatural. Thing is, MY opinion does nothing to limit the freedoms of American citizens.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Get thee a book on biology...women do not "put" babies there.

She has no obligation to sustain it's life using her own body. NO one does.


YOU do not decide what an obligation is or isn't. There is no law that says she has an obligation to gestate....nor is there a reason.

Uh, we danced this stupid dance before when you couldn't address what was in the post you quoted...…….

I wonder why you quote posts you can't address....it's very odd....

 

Yes, it seems your idea that a fetus due to rape is "not as good as" a fetus due to consensual sex so it can be aborted is rather "primitive".

But it helped you squirm away from answering "do you really think a fetus is "bad" because it was caused by rape????"""

Still no answer...

So it's OK to abort it then ? Why would that make a difference?

So you're saying if the woman didn't enjoy the sex then SHE can have an abortion but if the woman enjoyed the sex then she should be punished by being forced to gestate.

UH, that's what lots of people want to know!!



You tell me..


The Anti-Choicers are the ones to answer that question not Pro-Choicers!!

WHY do you want to punish women for having consensual sex by forcing them to gestate?

 

As opposed to a dead human dying?

Of course they're alive. If they weren't, Abortionists would be out of a job.

 

Yeah... 2A

 

Yes, you did refuse to answer that question earlier. I thought maybe you could by now.

My mistake.

 

The right to bear arms? Are you sure?

 

Yes.' I'll recap. Abstinence is a 100% effective birth control for every woman that isn't raped. The other <1% have 2A.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Get thee a book on biology...women do not "put" babies there.

She has no obligation to sustain it's life using her own body. NO one does.


YOU do not decide what an obligation is or isn't. There is no law that says she has an obligation to gestate....nor is there a reason.

Uh, we danced this stupid dance before when you couldn't address what was in the post you quoted...…….

I wonder why you quote posts you can't address....it's very odd....

What ON Topic question was that?

And why do you expect others to address your posts but you don't address their's?

 

From a member , Fugazi, who no longer posts:

FugaziNew MemberPast Donor





The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments. The precedence for a right to privacy exists in the Constitution.

The two cases you cited were not the basis of privacy protecting abortion, that decision came from Griswold v Connecticut (1965) with the justifications from Justice Douglas that saw the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating "a zone of privacy," to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment's reference to "other rights retained by the people," to Justice Harlan's decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct (such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives) that was inconsistent with a government based "on the concept of ordered liberty."

One question that the Court has wrestled with through its privacy decisions is how strong of an interest states must demonstrate to overcome claims by individuals that they have invaded a protected liberty interest. Earlier decisions such as Griswold and Roe suggested that states must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means when they have burdened fundamental privacy rights.

As to the two cases you cited I personally think that one is correct and one is not, Meyer v Nebraska in my opinion was wrong, I personally believe that the state has a compelling interest to set a national curriculum for all public schools without any requirement to cater to parents individual desires, parents have the choice then whether to enrol their children into that school or choose an alternative school or method of education. Pierce v Society of Sisters in my opinion was a correct decision, the state should not be telling parents what schools their children should attend.

What you also forget is that if ever the unborn are deemed as persons then they become subject to all the protections and restrictions that any other person must abide by, including 2nd Amendment right of self-defence and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, under the person at conception ideology the fetus MUST as a separate person gain separate consent to impose pregnancy onto the female, it cannot be assumed that her consent to sexual intercourse is consent to a third party to impose upon her autonomy, and should she refuse that consent then the accumulative injuries she sustains and the sustained time period she would be injured for would be more than enough justification for the use of deadly force, and because the state has a duty to protect all citizens from non-consented injuries it would fall to the state to pay for her abortion. """""""""



Thanks again, Fugazi, miss you!

 

I've answered every question you've asked. Most of them 3 times or more.

You can't answer one question.

 

You did NOT answer this question:

What ON Topic question was that?

 

This is the 3rd time you've posted excuses about not answering a simple question....LOL...

 

If only you cared about people as much as you do about zygotes