Abortion is NOT a woman's right

for the sake of not getting banned….
it's someone who chews on the glue bag they are sniffing…


and this whole new supposed experience tactic thats happening all over the forum laltlety ..how many accounts do you have..

 

Just the one....I didn't know glue came in bags....whodathunkit.

 

The right to life is not an "extra right". It's a basic human right.

 

So is the right to make decisions about one's autonomy. Can you show me any other instance, besides pregnancy, where a human has the right to use another human's body without their ongoing consent for any reason?

 

Key word, "consent".

I would argue that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. Regardless of the fact that it's "just a risk", it's also a fact that if the woman never had sex, she wouldn't be obligated to sustain the fetus's life. It's sick and evil to risk creating a life, and then arbitrarily decide to abort that life, just because it's an inconvenience.

 

What about pregnancy seems like an inconvenience to you if I may ask?

 

So now you are begging the question .. prove that the right to life is a basic human right?

How do you overcome the clash of rights should the fetus be endangering the female, both (In your opinion) have a right to life, which one over rules the other?

Find me any other time apart from pregnancy where a person has the right to use another persons body in order to sustain their life, even if the assumption that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy (which I would argue it is not) a person may remove consent at anytime for any reason . .so is this another right you are going to remove from a pregnant woman?

 

and yet you have not provided anything of relevance to back up your assertion that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.

that is just your opinion and your opinion does not make it law, why should your opinion over rule someone who has a different opinion, like most pro-lifers you seem to be under the impression that your moral opinion is superior to others .. thankfully it is not.

 

With regards to bodily autonomy, you can't just "remove consent" when the situation involves an innocent child's life that you are responsible for creating. People gotta grow up and take responsibility for their own actions.

 

Oh but you can, the sooner you realize that then the less irrelevant comments you will make.

A mother of a two year old child consents to her blood being used to keep her child alive, can she remove consent to the usage of that blood at anytime, after all she is "responsible for creating" that child is she not, or is this another right you want to remove as well.

Are you going to even attempt to provide evidence that the right to life is a basic right, or just ignore it like you usually do.

what you really mean by the above comment is that you want people to be dictated to by what you consider to be the right thing, and again you adhere to the assumption that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, yet so far, you have not provided a single relevant piece of evidence to substantiate that opinion.

 

the question is why. you bring up a valid point in that the mother can become the executioner of her own children.
This aspect of the abuse of the laws of the land can be seen in Roe vs Wade and it's obscene abuse the constitution.

i fear that the evaluation of oil pipelines will only be an abuse of law and power in much the same way.

 

There is no "abuse of laws", or can you give reason to why there is.

 

it is an opinion…Roe vs Wade deals with the person aspect of the human being murdered and states that not until birth are you a person…


it's my opinion it is an abuse of the intent of the constitution …which of course is all about law…

i view the moment of conception that that entity is a chicken or a lamb or human being…if left to it's own natural devices it will mature into an baby which will mature into a child which will mature into a teenager which will mature into an adult which will mature into a demented senior citizen which will mature into a dead person…

my point is such, ignoring what you are killing due to some arcane interpretation of the supreme court does not make it so. so!, being an abrupt stoppage of cells progressing with no legal entity applied to them at all..

it's a total lack of definition that argues the fact they have no legal status…these tiny group of cells…that to some are a miracle of life and evolution..

 

Which is pretty much what the constitution states.

and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion and may live your life based upon that opinion .. however that doesn't automatically mean you can force others to adhere to that opinion, or enforce that opinion through law.

The constitution is not really about law per say, laws are formed on the interpretation of the constitution.

and I doubt many would disagree with you . .however that is not what the abortion debate is about.

No one is ignoring what is killed, that is just pro-life hyperbole, what is ignored is the females right to control her body and the usage of it, and you are incorrect about the legal aspect associated with a zef. Roe specifically expressed that the state has a right to declare interest in the protection of potential life, the crux comes to deciding when the interest of the state over rides the rights of the woman .. in this case that point is viability.

again that is not strictly correct as shown in the previous answer.

The biggest problem that pro-lifers face is that SCOTUS cannot be over ruled .. unless they do it themselves, the supremacy clause will always over rule any state level legislation concerning abortion.

The rights conferred by states cannot trump the rights conferred by the U.S. Constitution, and even if fetuses were elevated to the status of person, they would remain juridical persons, and juridical persons are not natural persons.

The bottom line is this: even if states were to enact fetal personhood laws, states would simply be clarifying their interest in protecting potential life, not creating a fetal right to life. Under Roe, the only right that could trump a woman’s right to privacy is a state’s compelling interest in potential life, not some right to actual life held by the fetus itself. And, as Justice Kennedy explained in Gonzales v. Carhart, (citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which held that states may not impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion), a balance must be struck between a woman’s right to abortion and a state’s right to “express profound respect for the life of the unborn.” This suggests that personhood activists will have a difficult time convincing the Court that the rights of the unborn are paramount to a woman’s constitutional right to privacy.

 

i never intended to force others to adhere to sane view of what they are doing. all i ask is there be an honesty about the murder of the the most vulnerable of the human species ..

so by this token if some country decides that democracy is the best option for a country they depend on economically, then they can kill at will and destroy the government in power in order to control.

killing in order to control is ok with you..

fine then...

 

This is really interesting but I was just thinking about how you both are debating about the United States constitution and I have to wonder, what is it like to debate a Constitution that doesn't apply to either of you since you're both from/live in other countries? Is it ever weird to talk about the US Constitution being the law of the land when really it's only the law of the land for people who live in the US? xD

Also Doc, I have to ask, what is the abortion issue like in Canada? I have seen the stats and the information that there are no laws on abortion there, even in third trimester, but I have to ask if that's true or not? And what is the general public's opinion on the issue there too?

 

when you use emotive words such as murder then all you do is demean your own position, to do so is intellectually dishonest as you well know.

I always find it disingenuous when people clip and cherry pick certain parts of anothers comments in order to try and discredit the whole, I had hoped you would be above that, seems I was wrong.

As you well know there is a vast difference between an individual expressing their right to control their own body and a country (made up of many individuals) expressing their control over another country ie controlling others.

The only control advocated is by pro-lifers who wish to try and enforce their ideology onto others by force of law.

 

Thing is, rightly or wrongly, people the world over look at the US and see what is going on there, it can and does influence other countries. I for one do not want the avid pro-life groups to gain a foothold in creating legislation against abortion as I know it will influence decisions made in my own country.

It surprises me how few Americans really understand or know their own constitution or how laws are made because of it. I've done plenty of studying of it in my time debating abortion mainly due to the fact that it is seen as a fairly major issue in the US, other countries don't seem to 'hung up' on it, and as the saying goes 'when in Rome ...'

I debate in several other forums, a few are purely UK and in those the US constitution rarely if ever is referenced. Does it feel weird, it did at first, now it is almost second nature.

 

we gave the order of Canada …our highest honour to some maniacal murderer called Morgentaller .. he was the first to create abortion clinics which are totally legal ..

there are as many lunatics let loose in this country as yours , except the figures are lower due to a lower number of people actually living in this country.

As per your constitution and stuff…


you should realize that most Canadians know more about your country than their own…


when asked who is the first american president everyone knows it is…George Washington…i don;t even know the first prime minister of canada..i think it is John
A Mcdonald but i'm not positive…

it's weird like that up here…maybe telly has a lot to do with it…dunnoo..

anyway..it's the same political nightmare ..and the mass murder takes place here as well…i'm just as adamant about stopping the killing on Canadian sites..

 

actually it is murder for it is killing a human being cold bloodily even though it might be legal today in the eyes of the law..

murder is what it is,…killing is what it is…anything other is a lesson in intellectual suicide. it's a lie ..and to lie to oneself is intellectual suicide.

i assure you that i do not do this…if so it is coincidental as per your reading of me…if you can actually show me this in writing i would be interested immensely…
I pride myself on being original as can possibly be…if my thoughts on this matter are shared well..it's not that others have impressed me and i take on their ideals …they are my own…


as for impressing you…blah..not my thing..i would rather awaken you to reality and you loathe me for it

sometimes going over the edge in order to make a poignant metaphor serves it well…if it cause the reader to think...

well put,,but alas the law is on the side of pro choice…

as is the concept of murdering an individual in the growth process of a woman's womb…which by nature is there for that purpose, along with a myriad of other functions the woman is born with…

you do realize that most people including Jews know about reincarnation….you do realize that there is a certain set of karmic laws governing this and it comes with prices…you do realize that you were a woman as many times a man…maybe a few off …

and so the ownness is on the woman to follow through the birth process…it comes with the gift of life ..her life….and the deal she made karmically to be born a woman…

it's ticking me off by the way that you think i cherry pick from others….and you should really make sure of your accusations towards me….

 

Actually it isn't. Murder is a legal term taken from common law with the actual word originating in the 1300's, with the definition as follows;

when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

The elements of common law murder are:

Unlawful
killing
of a human
by another human
with malice aforethought.

The Unlawful – This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as an execution, justified self-defense, or the killing of enemy soldiers during a war.

Killing – At common law life ended with cardiopulmonary arrest – the total and permanent cessation of blood circulation and respiration. With advances in medical technology courts have adopted irreversible cessation of all brain function as marking the end of life.

of a human – This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the birth canal and took its first breath.

by another human – at early common law suicide was considered murder. The requirement that the person be killed by someone other than the perpetrator excluded suicide from the definition of murder.

with malice aforethought – originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning – a deliberate and premeditated (prior intent) killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

Murder is purely a legal term and as such cannot be applied to abortion which is a legal procedure.

You did so in the very post you were responding to, my full comment (with the parts you picked out bolded);

and I doubt many would disagree with you . .however that is not what the abortion debate is about.

No one is ignoring what is killed, that is just pro-life hyperbole, what is ignored is the females right to control her body and the usage of it, and you are incorrect about the legal aspect associated with a zef. Roe specifically expressed that the state has a right to declare interest in the protection of potential life, the crux comes to deciding when the interest of the state over rides the rights of the woman .. in this case that point is viability.

and I did not say you had to impress me, just being honest with the quotes you use in your responses would be enough.

and sometimes it is used to promote a purely emotive hyperbole.

As far as US law is concerned it is on the side of the constitution.

Individual consent in most societies and most legal system is of primary importance. Bearing that in mind, if a woman does not agree to the ways a fetus affects her body and liberty, then, by definition, the fetus is legally harming her. To say that a medically normal pregnancy is a serious bodily injury is already established in the law in contexts other than abortion. It is termed "wrongful pregnancy." When a fetus affects a woman's body and liberty in pregnancy without consent, the changes are so massive, they meet the standards currently set in law for the use of deadly force in selfdefense.

Which is irrelevant to the abortion debate, just because a person has the ability to do something does not imply that the law should force that person to do so. Only 0.8% of the worlds population has the blood type of AB negative which is a universal acceptor yet we do not force people with this blood type to supply it.

Again this is placing a belief of some people above those who do not believe, laws should not be formed on beliefs, but on what is best for society as a whole. Abortion has no effect on society as a whole.

The determination of gender is nothing more than an accident, in fact you are 2% more likely to be born a male than female. Your personal opinions notwithstanding and as a doctor you should know that gender is not a predefined outcome,

I have as shown above, perhaps in order to avoid misunderstandings you would be better to quote the whole of a response, sometimes taking but a small part can lead to diminishing the whole.

 

The sixth commandment forbids abortion.

 

so the accusation i cherry pick is all about my method of using the quote function…?????

how anal is that?

as for murder…yes it is a legal term…but it is also used in the vernacular of non lawyers..
i tried to make that clear…



soooooo what you are basically saying is the law and constitution is the last word on whether it's a person or even a human being…and everyone thinking even remotely that the fetus from the point of conception is anything other than just a lump of cells with no rights and the woman has all the rights in the world to flush it without conscious or guilt…are blowing wind out their arse

soooo…how are you with Sharia Law…hmmmmm…it's law….it's part of a billion people's source of what is right and wrong….

does this make it right…does this make it moral and ethically correct…
'
flushes all respect for fugazi's posts…..

 

I personally don't believe in the Bible as anything more than an ancient and archaic text of hypocritical nonsense and thankfully the country I live in does not force me to live by it. Thank Zeus!

 

This is called a tu quoque, a type of fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

It is also essentially a strawman or a red herring because since you clearly cannot refute the argument against the discussion focused on you must change the subject to something easier to refute. This will create the illusion that you have somehow refuted the argument when really you have not.