Woman gets more sucked out than she bargained for

It is not; I am sorry you feel that is my only intent.

This is related to the United States neglecting the human right protected in Europe since around 1734. The female has the right to intentionally get pregnant and then for 12-weeks change her mind.

This is supported by the fundamental human right to protect human dignity without harming another.
Abortion of gestation before 12-weeks is necessary to prevent harming the dignity of another human. A doctor assisting in abortion of gestation after 12-weeks must disrespect the dignity of another human being with a heartbeat.

U.S. Congress, via Noah Webster, misspelled copy[rite] and everyone educated in the U.S. does this today. The right to control human dignity and retract prior public speech is related to abortion of gestation to preserve dignity.

From 2009-2015 GOOG spent about half-a-million in legal fees opposing this right to protect dignity (against me). The FCC alleged to recognize “online” as a Title II Common Carrier on Feb. 26, 2015, as demanded, in order to quietly obviate Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et. al.,(5:14-cv-05135)(14-3447)
Defendants Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation did the same though Google Inc did not completely and remains earth's most profitable porn deliverer using unsafe wire communications despite the FCC alleging to protect public usage of Title II Common Carriers.

Abortion of gestation prior to development of a human heartbeat after 12-weeks preserves the same right to protect human dignity that is the clear anchor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in English. Signed by the United States.

AR Act 301 does not allege to respect the fundamental human right to abort gestation for 12-weeks but at the same time states this very clearly.

Abortion of gestation in the first 12-weeks and development of a human heartbeat is a human right. Abortion of gestation can be done for birth control if this is desired by the female. It is not simply "viability" that needs respect but development of a human heartbeat.

 

Blah blah abortion of gestation blah blah human dignity blah blah EXCEPT FOR WOMEN....you have no objection to "harming their dignity" by taking away their rights and causing them hardship...



YOU: ""This is supported by the fundamental human right to protect human dignity without harming another.""


A fetus HARMS the woman it's in and you don't give a damn....




Again: Why is it so important for you to make other people's lives harder?

 

Yes; A fetus "harms" the woman it is in. During the first 12-weeks of gestation, the harms are usually too small to be noticed. These "harms" are self-inflicted injuries resulting from intercourse except for rapes. The people with lives made harder by Act 301 being found constitutional do not respect the sanctity of life enough to warrant my concern.

This Petition for Certiorari will most likely be denied without comment.
There is no Circuit Court split but very few cases are nearly as impacting.
The 20-week ban of artificial abortion of gestation passed in the House and will be STEAMROLLERED over SCOTUS after passed next year if declared unconstitutional for respecting human life before viability. Just watch.

 

A complete lack of knowledge about what a pregnancy does to women is no excuse for having no respect for THEIR human dignity.
A woman gets pregnant and she experiences increase in hormonal levels by up to 400%, increase in blood pressure by up to 15%, suppression of the local immune system, re-routing of the circulatory system, a new organ grown in the body and the displacement of organs within the body .......HARM.

These "harms" are NOT self-inflicted, ...although by you saying that it once AGAIN proves that punishing women for having consensual sex is what you and all other Anti-Choicers are all about


If YOU climbed a mountain and fell and got hurt is that "self-inflicted" ? Should you receive medical aid? Or because the injuries from your fall were self inflicted should you be forced to lay on the mountain with no medical aid????????????

A suicidal person slashes their wrists and if found in time is medical help denied because the injuries were self inflicted? YOU WOULD WITH HOLD MEDICAL AID...shameful!!!!!




People who want to make life harder for other people have an illness.....a dangerous illness.....

 

Please tell me what strain of weed you are smoking so I can avoid it.

 

WHY PASS A LAW FOR SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN??:wall:

ALL this law does is interfere with a very sad and heartbreaking circumstance - where a pregnancy - overwhelmingly a WANTED pregnancy has to be terminated either because the woman is facing a life threatening situation or the foetus itself is so abnormal that it will never live a life

ANYTHING that holds up medical intervention in pregnancy can lead to maternal death -

Have you any idea how FAST a woman can get into difficulties? IF this legislation causes medical personnel to hesitate - as in the case of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland - she COULD have had an abortion that would have saved her life but the medical personnel were scared of losing their licences

As for the "self inflicted injuries" - are you going to walk up to the woman with heart failure related to pregnancy and tell her that was "self inflicted" because she had sex??

Oh! And consent to sex is not the same as consent to pregnancy

 

AR Act 301 never applies in these sad situations. NEVER

AR Act 301 never applies in these sad situations. NEVER These medical personnel should lose their licenses for NOT aborting to save a life! These doctors would need their licenses to pay off the malpractice suit I would pursue if my wife had died because of this type malpractice.

Sorry, but Oh-Yes; Consent to sex has always been natural consent to risk a possible pregnancy if birth control fails. This is a natural fact (like 2+2=4) and is not debatable. Repeating this allegation over and over does not make it any closer to becoming true.

 

No - truth is once you have that form of legislation it then becomes the provenance of lawyers who run the insurance companies who will soon tell a medical officer not to go ahead in case they trigger litigation under this act

The Irish law did not prohibit abortion in this case but it had become so embedded within the culture surrounding it that it caused medical officers to hesitate and that is what killed that poor woman

In pregnancy things can go wrong FAST and we sweat blood when they do - you do not want ANY hesitation

Oh! And consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy unless and until the risks become equal

 

Sure consent to sex is consent to the RISK of pregnancy....so what? It is NOT consent to get pregnant nor stay pregnant.

Just because YOU can't answer questions like, why do you think you should have medical aid if YOU take a risk and are injured but don't think women should have the same right?

YOU think women should be punished by being forced to give birth because they had sex, you are just like every other Anti-Choicer. Your ridiculous blather about respecting human dignity is just a bunch of hot air...

I'm afraid we've seen too many Anti-Choicers in this forum not to recognize misogyny when it rears it's ugly head.

Thank you to Fugazi for the following:

The Legal cause of pregnancy

Pregnancy is not caused by a male. Pregnancy can only be caused by a fertilized ovum. There are two relationships, one is the sexual relationship between a man and a woman, the other is a pregnancy relationship between a zef and a woman.
While a man can cause a woman to engage in a sexual relationship with him he cannot cause a woman's body to change from a non-pregnant state to a pregnant one, the only entity that can achieve that is a fertilized ovum when it implants itself into the uterus (which is the generally accepted start of pregnancy). Thus although a fetus and woman can have a pregnancy relationship they cannot have a sexual relationship, and obviously a man cannot have a pregnancy or sexual relationship with a fetus.
So although a sexual relationship between a man and a woman usually precede a pregnancy relationship between a woman and a fetus the two relationships are by no means the same. what is more, not only is it the fertilized ovum, rather than the man, that joins with a woman in a pregnancy relationship, but it is the fertilized ovum, not the man, that is the primary cause of that relationship. The only way a woman will ever be pregnant id if a fertilized ovum implants itself and stays there, and the only way to terminate the condition of pregnancy in a woman's body is to remove the cause pf that pregnancy; the fertilized ovum (or fetus in later stages). Under the law, therefore, it is the fertilized ovum or fetus, not a man, that is the primary cause of pregnancy.
How to assess causality, whether of pregnancy or any other matter, is one of the most complex questions in the legal field. Often the law must determine cause in order to assess who or what is responsible for events or damages. The law makes that determination by assessing casual links, that is, by identifying the sequence of events, or chains, that explain how or why an event occurred. The law tries to consider only the causes that are "so closely connected with the result" -Source : Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts - Page 264 that it makes sense to regard them as responsible for it. In the process, courts distinguish between two main types of causes; factual causes, which explains in a broad context why an event occurred, and legal causes, which constitute the sole or primary reason for an event's occurrence.
A factual cause can be thought of as necessary but not sufficient cause of an event, there are two types of factual cause - 1. casual links, 2. "but for" causes, the former increases the chances that another event will occur but do not cause the actual event itself (Source : Calabresi - Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts - Page 71) and the latter are acts or activities "without which a particular injury would not have occurred", yet not sufficient in itself for its occurrence eg. If a woman jogs in Central Park at ten o-clock at night although such activity increases the chances they may be beaten, raped or murdered, it does not actually cause those events to occur; someone else has to do the beating, raping or murdering. Exposing oneself to the risk of injury, therefore, while it may be a necessary, factual cause of that injury, does not mean it is the sufficient, legal cause. The person who does the beating, raping or murdering are the necessary and sufficient cause of the injuries, and thus are the legal cause.
Among the virtually infinite number of necessary factual causes the task of the law is to locate the one necessary and sufficient cause of the event, that is, the legal cause. The legal cause is "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation .. the primary or moving cause ... the lat negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted. The dominant, moving or producing cause" - Source : Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed Page 1225, the legal cause is, therefore, both a necessary and sufficient condition to explain why an event occurred.

This legal distinction between factual and legal causes relates to the distinction between sexual intercourse, cause by a man, and pregnancy, caused by a fertilized ovum. A man, by virtue of being the cause of sexual intercourse, becomes a factual cause of pregnancy. By moving his sperm into a woman's body through sexual intercourse, he provides a necessary but not sufficient condition for her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition, not until a fertilized ovum is conceived does it's presence actually change her body from a nonpregnant to a pregnant state. For this reason, since pregnancy is condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body, it can be identified as the fertilized ovum to be the legal cause of a woman's pregnancy state.
In the case of most pregnancies, men and sexual intercourse are a necessary condition that increase the chances of pregnancy by putting a woman at risk to become pregnant, but the conception of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body and its implantation are the necessary and sufficient conditions that actually make her pregnant. What men cause in sexual intercourse is merely on or the factual sequential links involved in pregnancy; the transportation of sperm from their body to the body of a woman. Moving sperm into a woman's body, however, is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman's pregnant condition, it is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk of becoming pregnant. Once a man has ejaculated his sperm into the vagina of a woman there is nothing more he can do to affect the subsequent casual links that lead to pregnancy. There is no way he can cause his sperm to move, or not to move, to the site of fertilization, nor can he control whether the sperm will fuse with the ovum or not, for this reason is makes no sense to say a man causes conception, much less that a man causes pregnancy. Until a fertilized ovum conceives an implants itself into a woman's body pregnancy cannot occur. Sexual intercourse, therefore, although commonly a factual cause of pregnancy, cannot be viewed as the "controlling agency" or legal cause of pregnancy. The fertilized ovum's implantation accomplishes that task.
While the man depositing his sperm inside the vagina may possibly set in motion a sequence of events that may or may not lead to the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the woman's uterus, the law does not identify events that set things in motion as the legal cause of eventual consequences.

Sexual intercourse falls therefore under the "but for" factual cause ie without men there would be no sperm; "but for" sperm, there would be no fertilized ova; "but for" fertilized ova, there would be no implantation in the uterus; "but for" implantation by fertilized ova in a woman's uterus, there would be no sustained pregnancies.

A man is a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but a man is not the legal cause
A man depositing sperm into the vagina is- for the most - a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but is not the legal cause.
The sperm fertilizing the ova is a necessary and significant cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy, this is the legal cause.

Factual Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/actual-cause/
Legal Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-cause/

 

Sex is accepting the natural risk of getting pregnant. Sex is not consent to staying pregnant and AR Act 301 allows artificial abortions of gestation for 12-weeks.
[snip]

Sex is not consent to staying pregnant and AR Act 301 allows artificial abortions of gestation for 12-weeks.
Medical abortion of potential gestation every 11-weeks could even be chosen as your method of birth control

:[snip]

 

The glee will come from the false attempt of this Act, you support, being blown apart and being shown, yet again, that pro-lifers will resort to any under-hand, deceptive trick to achieve their true goal of controlling others.

Your attempt at a strawman is noted and treated with as much contempt as your Act.

You may do as you wish, I will continue to point out the dishonesty of this Act you support. It is strange how pro-lifers always run away from those who destroy their arguments.

 

Fox, the whole of this Act is not in force most of it was kicked out as unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, the only part still in force is that the doctor must inform the patient that there is a heart-beat.

The rest of this Act simply does not pass scrutiny and is nothing more than a thinly veiled deception pretending to be about maternal health.

 

all a load of hogwash, the UN actually supports Abortion rights - http://www.bustle.com/articles/5263...sing-to-support-reproductive-rights-worldwide, just as the UDHR implies the right to abortion under the right to health ideology, the majority of international human-rights expert committees, in their observations to specific governments, have identified unsafe abortion or lack of access to safe abortion as a human-rights issue. The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights guarantees the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, with equity and non-discrimination. In 2004, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health made explicit the need for abortion services so that governments fulfill the right to health, writing that “where abortions are legal, they must be safe: public-health systems should train and equip health-service providers and take other measures to ensure that such abortions are not only safe but accessible,” echoing earlier UN proclamations.

 

You need to get a biology book and actually learn something about human development, because from what you have written above it is plain to see you know very little about the issue.

Perhaps in your "wisdom" you can explain how injuries imposed by a third party are self-inflicted?

 

This is an appeal to tradition fallacy and an appeal to nature fallacy, and even IF consent to sex were a consent to the RISK of pregnancy, consent to a risk is NOT binding, nor does consenting to a risk mean or imply consenting to such injuries, should they be incurred by that risk .. research the law please. because it appears you have a distinct lack of knowledge concerning it.

While consent to sexual intercourse merely causes the risk that pregnancy will occur, consent to expose oneself to risk that one will be injured by a private party is not a legal proxy for consent to the actual injuries should they occur. On the contrary, the law recognizes the exact opposite. consent to jog alone at night in central park does not stand as a proxy for consent to be mugged and/or raped, should others attack you. The law instead recognizes in many ways how people can consent to factual, necessary causes of accidents and injuries imposed by other people without consenting to the legal causes of accidents. The "mere fact that one is willing to incur a risk that conduct in a deliberate violent act will be committed", for example, "does not mean one is willing for such conduct to be committed" - Source : W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, and David G. Owen; Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Ed, Page 113 - What this means is that just because normal consensual sexual intercourse usually precedes pregnancy does not mean that a woman has consented to pregnancy in much the same way as consensual jogging in the park after dark precedes a mugging and/or rape does not mean the jogger has consented to be mugged and/or raped.

 

I understand that.
What I will never understand are people who are determined to make the lives of over 50% of the population harder (especially when they have done nothing wrong).
What kind of person does that?
The total disregard for women as human beings is just incomprehensible to me....and, I believe, a mental illness.

 

Wash, lather, rinse, repeat.

 

This is something to think about.

 

Oh you're back and parroting what some other poster used to say about your posts.....

 

Why?


No one has said a zygote/fetus isn't life.

 

Human zygote and human fetus. The DNA says human. You guys and your disingenuous word games.

 

You didn't even READ your own post!?

No one has said a zygote/fetus isn't life. No one has said it isn't human either.....(????)

 

Yes, many people on the left deny a human zygote and fetus is a human being.

 

That's frightening that this lady's intestines were pulled out!

 

Try reading real slowly : """No one has said a zygote/fetus isn't life. No one has said it isn't human either.....(????)""

It is alive and it is human it is NOT A human...as in it is not a person.