Abortion is NOT a woman's right

you did say that..

it's all due to an inner conflict you have from wanting kill children and your posts towards mine and deciphering mine in the way you do reminds me of women who hate men…

do you hate men…i hope not for i believe you have kids and they would pick up on this...

- - - Updated - - -

you wish it so is all…

it's not that at all.

 

My bad. I didn't word my response the right way. What I meant to say was this. Why are you saying that pro-lifers treat women like broodmares?

 

We need to go back to a fundamental issue. We have no Right to impose our beliefs upon the woman as our Rights cannot impose an obligation upon another person nor can it infringe upon their Inalienable Rights. The woman has a Right of Self and only she can decide what she wants to do with her body. We have no "Right" to tell her otherwise.

 

who gives you the power to choose what is right…

nazis thought it was necessary to kill Jews for a purer world.

you hide behind laws that are not necessarily right and exist due to the army and police that enforce them…


you are talking about termination/ extermination of human beings in their incubation stage.

see!!!! no use of murder… thats in part to your efforts..towards me

how can you sit there and protect the rights of people who want to end the course of a human being…

but then i have proven that it is evolutionary by nature…we watch as the aborted humans decrease the genetic hate pool ...

 

Actually you haven't proven anything, you have offered a theory which to date has not been scientifically tested, and even the quotes you used in the other thread states;

Scientists speculate that similar genetic mechanisms could be linked with phobias, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders, as well as other neuropsychiatric disorders, in humans.

 

that was just part of the science …wiki is such a low end piece of information gathering tool…


but it will do in a pinch…

genetic memory is proven time and time again…

don't you hate it when someone cherry picks a post to suit some other thread and agenda…
you would do well to practice what you preach sir...

 

Not a cherry pick at all, taken from the actual link you provided in the other thread and you were the one who referenced the other thread in your assertion that you have "proven" it is "evolutionary by nature". The quote used is not even your words and as such my repeating it here is not a reflection on the comment it is part of.

Genetic memory is still a theory.

 

I did not make any arguments based upon a subjective decision on what is "right or wrong" but instead cited the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Based upon legal precedent going back to the earliest recorded history a "person" only existed from the moment of birth until moment of death. That is not a determination that "I" make but instead a historical fact.

This thread relates to the Woman's Inalienable Rights so the fact that the Woman has Inalienable Rights is not a dispute on this thread. As Ayn Rand (someone I don't always agree with) once pointed out all Inalienable Rights originate with the First Inalienable Right which is the Right of Self of the Person. Without the Right of Self we have no Inalienable Rights.

So the question for this thread really isn't based upon the Right of Self of the Woman which is acknowledged by the very title of the thread but instead what is of importance is do we have any Right to violate the Right of Self of the Woman that is a Person. Obviously we do not because one of the fundamental criteria for an Inalienable Right is that it cannot conflict with the Inalienable Rights of another Person. A second fundamental criteria of an Inalienable Right is that it cannot impose an obligation upon another person.

We, as Persons, have no Right to restrict the Woman's decisions related to her "self" as those decisions are based upon her Inalienable Right of Self which is the First Inalienable Right and without which no other Inalienable Rights can exist.

If she wants to tattoo herself then we have no Right to prevent it because it's her body. If she wants to terminate her pregnancy then it's her body and we have no Right to prevent it. What part of "it's her body" do people fail to understand? Additionally we cannot impose an obligation upon her the continue the pregnancy either because a Right cannot impose an obligation upon another person (as previously noted).

If people want to discuss Inalienable Rights then they need to learn what an Inalienable Right is before discussing it. Apparently "Inalienable Rights 101" isn't being taught is our schools as most Americans are completely ignorant when attempting to discuss them.

 

please give a link of the historical evidence where a person is not a person till birth there for doesn't deserve the same inalienable rights as one? because I can prove the opposite

 

http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life009.html

 

Please do I would like to see that proof.

 

It is not a "person" either so it has no Inalienable Rights that only apply to "persons" and do not apply to non-persons.

Of course if we wanted to we could limit the surgical procedure of "abortion" to just severing the umbilical cord which is a part of the woman and is not a part of the unborn fetus. Would that make the Christians happy?

Of course the fetus still dies because it is not being fed but then not even a "person" has a Right to be Fed. A person has a Right to Eat but they don't have a Right to be Fed as a Right cannot impose an obligation upon another Person and expecting someone else to feed you imposes an obligation upon that person so it is not based upon an Inalienable Right.

 

I will start with how society treats the fetus as a person. They call the unborn a baby just like they call a newborn one. for example have you ever been invited to a fetus shower? have you ever asked an expecting mother when is her fetus due date. do you asks is your fetus going to be a boy or a girl. There for generally speaking society calls and treats the unborn as a baby same as the born as a person

there are many passages in the bible that treats and speaks of the unborn as a person

Job 31:15The Lord hath called me from the womb: from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. Isaiah 49:1
Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us within our mothers?
Psalm 139:13-14For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Gen. 25:21,22 In Genesis 25:21,22, Rebekah conceived twins, and "the children struggled together within her." That which was conceived was called a "child" between the conception and the birth.
The Hebrew word used here (BEN) is the most common Old Testament word for a child or son. When used for the physical offspring of humans, it consistently refers to distinct human individuals (see Gen. 25:1-4; 3:16; etc.). Job 3:3
On the very night of Job's conception it could have been said, "There is a man-child conceived." The word for "man-child" (Heb. GEBER) elsewhere means "man," i.e., a human individual (see Job 3:23; 4:17; 10:5; Psalms 127:5; 128:4; etc.).
Job 3:16 Babies that die before birth are called "infants" that never saw light. This is exactly like babies that are aborted. This word (Heb. OLEL) always and without exception refers to human individuals (cf. Hosea 13:16; Psalm 8:2; Joel 2:16).
Numbers 12:12; Luke 1:43 In Numbers 12:12, Moses describes "one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb." If a baby dies before it is born -- as in an abortion -- the woman who conceived it is still a "mother."
In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth addressed Mary as "the mother of my Lord" before Jesus was born.
The word "mother" (Heb. EM; Greek METER), in contexts referring to physical human reproduction, always refers to one who has procreated or formed another human individual, a separate and distinct individual from the mother herself (see Num. 6:7; Gen. 3:20; Luke 1:60). A woman who has conceived, even if the child is not yet born and even if it dies before birth, is a "mother."
Luke 1:41,44 Elizabeth conceived (v. 24), and the life "in her womb" is called a "babe" or "baby" (Greek BREPHOS). This is the second-most-common New Testament word for a baby. It is always used for that which is a human individual separate and distinct from its mother (see Luke 2:12,16; Acts 7:19.)
Luke 1:36 Again, the life conceived in Elizabeth's womb, before it was born, is called "a son." The word "son" (Greek HUIOS), in contexts that refer to the physical offspring of humans, always refers to that which is a human individual separate and distinct as an individual from its parents. It is the most common New Testament word for a "son" (see Matt. 1:21,23,25; Luke 1:13,31; 2:7; etc.)

all through out history in literature they refer to a pregnant women as with child or carrying a baby they don't distinguish the unborn from the born with a different name they call the unborn the same name as the born

science has agreed that a human is a unique living human at conception that is not debatable. only thing that is debatable is under the legal aspect when is a human a person. the courts have decided it is illegal to give an abortion after the fetus can survive outside the womb, and at that time it was 24 weeks that time frame thanks to medical science is getting shorter and shorter by the year right now it is 21 weeks

there has been many cases that some one who has killed a pregnant women has been charged with two counts of murder, and many cases that an expected mother has been charged with child abuse during her pregnancy for harming her unborn


so morally speaking when a human is a person is very subjective and there is no right or wrong answer it is a belief with no science to back it up. but historically speaking the unborn is a person because it is referred to by the same name as the born

 

That's true. Even with laws regarding persons (such as infants), there are no obligations required (such as with feeding.)

The basis of your argument in favor of abortion is that a right can't impose an obligation on another person. But you're not taking one fact into consideration. The pregnancy itself doesn't impose an obligation on the woman. Raising the child imposes an obligation upon the woman. Most women don't have abortions because of the pregnancy itself; they have abortions because they don't feel like raising the child. (according to this study-http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf)

But they can simply give the child up for adoption. Even if abortion was illegal, it still wouldn't impose an involuntary obligation upon the woman, because once the child is born, she can either leave it at the hospital or give it up for adoption.

And I know some people would argue that "adoption is emotionally painful for a woman, and abortion is less emotionally painful", but that's irrelevant with regards to pregnancy imposing an obligation upon the woman.

 

That is accurate because even though we have laws that require the care of feeding of infants and children they are based upon a voluntary obligation by the legal guardian (regardless of whether it's the biological parent or not). A woman can legally "abandon" the infant at the hospital and the State will assume guardianship and assign a voluntary guardian for the infant. If the woman removes the infant then she is voluntarily assuming the legal responsibility to care for the infant/child. We are a compassionate society but we do respect the Inalienable Rights of the Person related to our legal requirements for caring for infants/children under the law.

In fact pregnancy does impose an obligation as the woman must consume more calories daily to support the growth of the fetus (unless she somehow pinches off the umbelical cord to prevent feeding the fetus in which case the fetus dies). Purchasing more food so that the fetus can survive and grow creates a financial obligation as do the necessary prenatal medical requirements related to pregnancy today. The prenancy also incapacitates the woman physically to some degree adversely affecting her financially. For example she can't work on the delivery day so she suffers a financial loss due to the pregnancy.

 

you act like a women doesn't have a say so if she gets pregnant or not like it isn't a consequence of her own actions. there is only one instance that a women gets pregnant not of her own choosing and that is in the case forcible rape. there for her pregnancy is of her own choosing other then forcible rape

and im still waiting for your historical evidence that the unborn is not a person after I have proven through out history the unborn has been called the same name as the born. history has not distinguished the difference between the unborn and the born by giving them different names

 

Oh I'm not, but based on the way Doc here treats women he clearly seems to think women are good for nothing more than sex and making babies. It's rather vulgar the way he goes on about what he thinks of women if you ask me.

 

ok so basically you tweaked what you already taught me..
and i appreciate that and i realize you are talking about legal terms…

you say

and yet you go on to post

there is defiantly something tugging at your heart strings…and you are being contradictory ..

all what you say is very legal and i understood more fully since you taught me here…and i appreciate it…


but lets just look at this and why asked you who gives anyone the right to stop a human being from life

there once was a time when someone could hold a paper stating that this was chattel…an African american slave.
The person had the right own that person..oh was that African American considered a person.

i ask you again who are you to say what is right or wrong when a human being life is at stake…

A human being is defiantly being terminated, even though that human being is not considered a person. Just like slaves…

Human traffickers have no feeling of remorse and do what they do guilt free…same with abortionists..
funny that..

how is it a right if it does not protect the human being inside the woman…


and please ..ok with a little legal bafflegab and semantics you have erased the person from the human fetus…but it still is a human being and everyone of us at one time was in there …doing exactly what you think is some sort of right for the woman to do…

i do thank you though ..you are a joy to read and learn by…


sooo…what about the fact we all were at one time in danger of being flushed…your rights were at stake...

 

i would love for you to able to prove otherwise…please for my sanity here tell me…


i'm actually so crazed over this i am starting to view abortionists as natural selection in the sense of getting rid of the obscene humans…they pass on so much through genetic memory…i have a whole thread on it…it's genius.

 

i won;t report this as an insult for it is just someone who can't really understand a piece of genius..

you still won't say whether you are ugly or not…

ugly people have a lot of unfounded observations of men due to their needs not being met on any level…

my wife is smarter than me, is my barometer and i never looked at her as a sex object…nor have i with any of my wives and girlfriends…

now prostitutes yeah of course ..when i buy one it's all about sex…they are a sex object…

so you see my dear…i have no need to look at women as objects….i'm honest and get a lot of the lower needs of the masses of men out with prostitutes..beautiful ones…ones that know things...

 

did you come to my post and stop reading the rest of the thread because about 3 post after that I gave the evidence

 

frocable rape is karmaically governed..it would not happen without her deserving it…


now before someone goes and says i condone rape due to their ignorance..i'm not…but the child that comes from that is karmically due…

now of course my natural selection theory condones the abortion in this case due to the fact the rapist was violent as are abortionists…so aborting this baby is a bonus to the human race and one less violent person is always good.

- - - Updated - - -

yes…and i will give it the proper read…and respond...

 

dude!!! you gave me an entire lecture on cherry picking!!!!
it made me feel bad ,and as if not only i offended you ,but the entire etiquette of the internet…


not only am i dyslexic but i am a compulsive obsessive.. to the enth degree…

so now if you do not apologize and admit you cherry picked my post like i did to you on purpose to bug you with the one before….you will be seen as a Blaggard..

Everything in science is a theory to some extent…it does not mean it is wrong or in any way not scientific…

Genetic memory is a whole field of study…and abortionists pass on this sociopathic malady to their offspring…therefor i am coming to believe that abortion is part of natural selection and is good for society as a whole..

i meet with you people half way…no!!! more than half way…and you still ridicule…is this some sort of abortionist trait…some sort of evil affliction brought on by the blood lust of it all?

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

This issue was explicitly addressed by the US Supreme Court in the case of Roe v Wade. The attorneys for the plaintiff (pro-choice attorneys) conceded that if "personhood" existed for the fetus then their case against the abortion laws had no merit. As noted upon reargument the attorneys for the defense (i.e. anti-abortion attorneys), were unable to cite a single historical case where the fetus was considered to be a person. The argument of "personhood" for the fetus collapsed because a fetus had never been considered to be a "person" historically and this case was argued by the best legal minds of the time before the Supreme Court.

I seriously doubt that anyone here has found a historical case that established the "personhood" of the fetus which would afford it the protections of the person under the 14th Amendment and US Constitution considering that no one in 1972 was able to do that. The "anti-abortionist" attorneys admitted that no such precedent existed.

On a final note in this same citation from Roe v Wade "biological development" is not an argument when it comes to establishment of legal precedent of a fetus being a "person" afforded protections under the US Constitution.

One thing that constantly amazes me is that anti-abortionists generally don't read the Roe v Wade decision which addressed every single argument I've ever read from them. The Supreme Court looked at both sides of the issue of abortion based upon not just the arguments by the opposing attorneys and legal briefs it received but also did extensive research on it's own before rendering it's decision. Regardless of what side of the abortion debate a person is on the failure to read Roe v Wade represents a failure to even investigate the most fundamental issues involved.

Basically arguing either side of the "abortion debate" without considering the contents of Roe v Wade represents a presentation of an argument based upon ignorance.

 

Two key points that deserve a response. The problem with slavery where a (black) person was treated as property is that extensive historical predecent existed that they were persons and, as such, their Inalienable Rights as a Person were being violated. Their Right of Freedom should have been protected by the Ninth Amendment if by nothing else. The problem was with "conservative" Americans like Andrew Johnson that believed that the Inalienable Rights of the Person only applied to white men in America. Of note that belief continues to this day with far too many Americans.

When it comes to the issue of the "rights of the preborn" it is not my personal beliefs that matter at all. I'm very empathetic as I'm both pro-life and pro-choice. It is not a question that is left up to me decide but instead it's up to America to decide and we have the means to make that decision.

While no legal precedent exists establishing the personhood of the "preborn" we have the means available to establish legal precedent in the United States. We can amend the US Constitution just like we did with the 13th Amendment that expressly prohibited slavery (except by order of the court) in the United States to ensure the protections of the Rights of a Person which should have been previously protected under the Ninth Amendment but were not enforced because they were not enumerated. The 13th Amendment enumerated that protection of the Rights of the Person.

I have long advocated that the proper solution is a US Constitutional Amendment to address the "personhood" of the "preborn" as it is not up to you or I to make that decision. It is something that must, by necessity, be addressed by the social contract of America which is the US Constitution.