Abortion is NOT a woman's right

While I too am Pro Life/Choice, it seems to me that any rights given to the unborn MUST entail limiting or removing the rights of the person they live inside. This is likely the primary reason the entire issue has not, and will not go to the courts. Added to this would be the obvious inability of the unborn to speak for itself which would mean that someone else needs to do so....who gets to tell the woman what her fetus is thinking?

 

Wow....and I just thought I had heard it all.

 

Ohhhh, I get it.

You're crazy.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it THAT far removed from some of our "pro-lifers" who talk of women being "sluts" and "evil"?

 

In rare cases when addressing the Inalienable Rights of the Person a paradox exists. Such a paradox exists related to the use of the land where the "nomad" and the "settler" both have an identical Right to the Use of the Land. That paradox also exists when we address the potential personhood of the preborn and the woman in the abortion debates.

There is a resolution to the paradox based upon pragmatic limitations being imposed upon the Freedom the Exercise the Inalienable Right which does not disparage that Inalienable Right. Such limitations must be established by compelling arguments and the limitation must always strive to the be least limitation possible to resolve the paradox.

Roe v Wade imposes a pragmatic limitation upon the Inalienable Rights of the Woman where her freedom to have an abortion, which the court expressly established as a Right, was fundamentally limited during the last trimester when the fetus became viable. That limitation did not prohibit a woman from having an abortion but did limit the timeframe related to when she could exercise that Right. The Court imposed this limitation upon the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right of the Woman but did not disparage her Right to have an abortion as it was Her Body and she had the Right of Self related to it.

Long have I looked at the arguments both pro-choice and anti-abortion and personally believe that the pragmatic limitation upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Rights of the Woman to have an abortion were established based upon compelling arguments in Roe v Wade but that is my personal opinion and, as noted, this decision is not up to me alone.

Because the US Supreme Court merely established "common law" (which is what courts do) based upon the US Constitution and the arguments presented before it I do see a potential need to re-address this issue in a national debate related to a Constitutional Amendment.

What I object to is the nefarious attempts to circumvent the "common law" by anti-abortionists that refuse to engage in a national debate based upon a Constitutional Amendment. For example the recent Texas anti-abortion law that fundamentally closed virtually all of the abortion clinics which was not based upon "medical" arguments was a nefarious attempt to violate the Rights of the Woman to have an abortion by denying access to abortion clinics through closure of those clinic. That law has been challenged and we'll see what becomes of it in the end but there was no question in my mind that it was exclusively about closing abortion clinics as opposed to any medical risks related to abortion procedures. If the law had been about medical risks the same criteria would have been applied to dentists that also use identical anesthetics during surgical procedures.

 

.... apparently because of something she did in a previous lifetime based upon Eastern religious beliefs in kama and reincarnation. Strange proposition coming from a "Westerner" to be sure as Christians don't believe in reincarnation or karma.

Perhaps she was a "while male" slaveholder in the South prior to the Civil War that raped his black female slaves and deserves to be raped in return in this lifetime? Now wouldn't that be ironic.

Sadly Christians typically believe in "original sin" which condemns every person so that any act against them can be called "karma" as the person is guilty of all of the sins of mankind at birth. What a weird religious belief. It is the position that everyone is "guilty" at birth so anything can be rationalized against them by the Christian religion.

I would re-evalutate my religious beliefs if I were to make such a statement. There is obviously something terribly sick and twisted by such a belief.

 

Abortion is a far more dangerous medical procedure to a woman's health, than dentistry.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-dies-having-abortion-33-weeks-pregnancy.html

Also, to quote an article from americanrtl.org, about the link between abortion and breast cancer.

 

Childbirth is more dangerous than abortion.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=25498649

 

The vast majority of abortions are for convenience, not health reasons.

 

first up as per slaves i thought as much…the cold in your face white man only stuff really shows how in need America was and is in coming to terms with humanity itself and there by changing the world at large…For I have always thought the real Good of America is part of our evolution(not a doc dred maniacal rant thing to say) and always really generates the best in humanity…sad that so many of your elected officials ruin it all..lol

. this abortion topic is exactly the thing needed to extract some of that genius which is the US Constitution…i know i know the gun laws …well nothing is perfect except God and the Muslims must love this fact that this gun crap is still considered a right …

Persian rugs always contain one faulty knot as to not(or Knot,pun intended) forget the fact only God is perfect…(doc fred bugging atheists here)


As a kid growing up next to america , most of us love all that is the creation of your country as you do.
Most americans never realize how much the average Canuk knows about their history, true i learn as i go along..

now before i address this...

are these your words?…they are beautiful.. it gives me a lucidity on what is the foundation of America…pure poetry and lucidity..

sometimes a few words strung together give so much..an online gem for sure…and don't forget to tell me if they are your words. doesn't matter where they come from or strung together from to form this thought...

and I now see why you people so love your constitution..those words have given it a life of it's own.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada is but a legal document, maybe cause it was put in place over a hundred years after The Confederation of Canada. Which still isn;t really the making of sovereign country .

We are a constitutional Monarchy and one never gets the feeling of being a sole soviergn nation here…ok braces for any other Canadian reading this…and i shall be reamed well…but to be honest , especially now with this conservative government ( nothing to do with the USofA concept of conservative /liberal) we are but a banana republic run mostly from outside ..America and Britain slicing her up like so much a banana republic…
We are constantly selling ourselves off ..China just bought it's first real chunk of the Tar Sands….or Oil sands which is a more user friendly term..lol..actually this whole bad oil thing is insane..sweet crude , dirt oil…just words for environmentalists to chose from and divert the attention from getting rid totally…and going electric..

bah…bummed beyond belief now!!!!

anyway…your words sparked that bit of demeaning thought process and patriotic hell i have to endure being a Canadian…

sorry for the rant eh…

once you label the fetus a person it's the end of abortion..the zeal in which you people protect your gun laws …put that into "Hey it's not an it!!!! it's a real live person in there"…then when daddy's stroke their partner's pregger's tummy and go "Hey there lil guy, how you doing in there…all comfy eh?.. can't wait for your arrival…oh look he kicked"…well it might be a she dear…"..and maybe just maybe when it's an amendment to the Constitution of the USofA we shall even get rid of the it vernacular thing when talking to the lil guy growing in your partner's tummy…

rant over..hope the subtle last part hits home…ok off to that grannie person who finally seems to have responded to my quoting her..

Happy New Year ShivaTD

 

NONE of them are for "convenience."

 

Which I ask again, what about a pregnancy do you find to be inconvenient for women? Please elaborate if you are going to continue to refer to pregnancy as nothing more than an inconvenience to a woman.

 

yeah well if you believe in karma …


when i was a practicing Buddhist , i always said it was easy to turn to someone and say "wow your beautiful and wealthy, you must have been so generous in some of your past lives"…

but how do you go to the person living in a wheel chair due to some accident and say"Wow you deserve this, you must have done some pretty horrible things in your past life to deserve this"..

it's karma grannie…it creates strength in the individual for they must take responsibility for their lives …NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS..

sorry if it offends you...

- - - Updated - - -

yeah well if you believe in karma …


when i was a practicing Buddhist , i always said it was easy to turn to someone and say "wow your beautiful and wealthy, you must have been so generous in some of your past lives"…

but how do you go to the person living in a wheel chair due to some accident and say"Wow you deserve this, you must have done some pretty horrible things in your past life to deserve this"..

it's karma grannie…it creates strength in the individual for they must take responsibility for their lives …NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS..

sorry if it offends you...

 

Prove it!

 

actually Jews do believe in reincarnation and Karma of sorts…


A very popular prominent NYC Rabbi caught my attention in the late eighties or early nineties..

he lost all respect from his community for saying this…became shunned even.not a perfect quote;

He said it was time we all got over the holocaust and move on. He then went on to say and this is a rough quote…They all were destined to be there and needed what happened to them to move on to the next stage of their growth as beings…..they all had done something and had some unfinished business to work through…

the horror of what he said was soooo misinterpreted..
like Grannie responded to my comment and the born jumping in like the reptilian a born is…lol..(i love gores…i BBQ them at festive occasions)
and then listen to…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V04IBsz-9Wo


but it caused me to do some digging and indeed yuppers Jews believe in a limited reincarnation…you keep coming back till you get it right sort of thing..

then the whole Gnostic book of Thomas thingy where Jesus talks of reincarnation…being Jewish and a Rabbi Jesus would have known this…

then some conspiracy theory that in the beginning of the Papal authority on all things New Testament, a Pope was ticked that people were saying they would be good and give proper money to the Church next life…the Pope decided to eradicate any mention of reincarnation in the Catechism and knew in a few hundred years all would be forgotten.

 

If an abortion is for "convenience," that would mean nine miserable months of pregnancy and childbirth were nothing but an "inconvenience," and only an ignoramous would believe that.

 

If women don't want to deal with nine miserable months of pregnancy and childbirth, then they shouldn't have sex.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

According to this article (a pro-choice site), some of the reasons women have abortions are because the baby would interfere with her life in a negative way (education, job, etc). That's what I call "convenience".

 

Reincarnation is a lie according to the Bible. Just read Hebrews 9 27.

 

So you accept what Guttmacher reported as factual, Sam?

- - - Updated - - -

And again, you try to change the subject, when the argument starts to go against you.

True or False, according to Guttmacher's study, which is more dangerous to a woman....childbirth or an abortion?

(Note my question above to you, after you CITED Guttmacher. And TRY to be honest and answer my direct questions with direct answers....for a change?)

 

God ordered the killing of babies. Just read 1 Samuel 15:3

 

Don't shoot the messenger.

I've had this discussion a gazillion times…at times there is a plethora of easy google links then it drops to a basic some Jews believe in reincarnation..

But i have had the opportunity to speak to well learned Jewish Rabbis and they all agree that it is true ,but ignored because it has no real value on the life you must live now…


thats their attitude..

nope you do recall Jesus as a little boy discussing"Things" with the Pharasees and they all agreed He knew His study well for such a young fellow.
thats because He was a Rabbinical Jew.


now where is the lie in this

Hebrews 9:27-28
King James Version (KJV)
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.


and what of the judgement once you die? and what is to become of you?

you need to know how to read Our Holy Bible

The whole thing is to appear without sin…and how is that accomplished?
Christ had to be tortured and die on a cross as a human being to eradicate sin…


so to must we be born here till we are pure and without sin…

this is the theatre for that alchemy..

 

Guttmatcher is a biased site.

Even studies from non-biased doctors admit that abortion increases breast cancer risk.

 

Sam, YOU just cited Guttmacher as authority on your belief that "most abortions are otu of convenience".

Remember??? It wasn't but a few minutes ago, sir.

 

I agree with you. it mostly is of a financial , social, nature. embarrassment due to the father and a life about to be spent with some loser you do not wish anyone to know you actually slept with the person..

family pressures and guilt…oh the guilt ..great reason to kill….

you read into others posts from your bent and what concerns you. you decide the intent of the post…

now i think you might have a point here, but i took the post entirely different… the pregnancy itself could be something that a person fears or just doesn't want to go through..

but alas thats no reason to kill…well it is for some…the upper classes don't…they cherish life far more than the lower classes that fill these abortion clinics with their tawdry reasons of inconvenience and thoughtless abortions.

 

Research study design

Most early studies of abortion and breast cancer used a case-control study design. This study design is very prone to recall bias (see above). In these studies, women with and without breast cancer were asked about past abortions. The researchers then compared the frequency of abortions in women with breast cancer (the cases) to those in women without breast cancer (the controls).

Higher rates of reported abortions in breast cancer cases (versus the controls) were seen in some of these studies, but it is likely that these were not true findings because of recall bias. Studies that ask women about abortion before breast cancer is diagnosed (prospective studies) do not seem to find this link.

A prospective study design is stronger and less prone to bias. In this type of study, a group of women who are cancer-free are asked about their past abortions and then are watched over a period of time to see if a new cancer occurs. In this type of study all of the women are cancer-free at the start, so there is no chance that having cancer will influence their memory of past abortions or their willingness to report past abortions.

Some prospective studies have further addressed the problem of recall bias by using new ways to find out about past induced abortions. For example, one study used birth certificate information of children born to women with breast cancer to identify women who had had induced abortions. (The number of previous abortions was listed in the birth certificate registry information.) This study found no increase in breast cancer risk in women who had an abortion followed by a live birth.

Research has confirmed that study type is likely to play a role in what is found. A review of the previous studies on this issue (see the next paragraph), covering tens of thousands of women, showed that women followed in prospective studies (which are less prone to recall bias) had no increased breast cancer risk if they had had an abortion. Case-control studies, which are prone to recall bias, pointed to a slight increase in risk.

Results from major prospective studies

The largest, and probably the most reliable, study on this topic was done during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In this study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (a total of 1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. All of the information about their abortions and their breast cancer came from registries – it was very complete and was not influenced by recall bias.

After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was done provide good evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.

Another large, prospective study was reported on by Harvard researchers in 2007. This study included more than 100,000 women who were between the ages of 29 and 46 at the start of the study in 1993. These women were followed until 2003.

Again, because they were asked about childbirths and abortions at the start of the study, recall bias was unlikely to be a problem. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found no link between either spontaneous or induced abortions and breast cancer.

The California Teachers Study also reported on more than 100,000 women in 2008. Researchers asked the women in 1995 about past induced and spontaneous abortions. While the women were being followed in the study, more than 3,300 developed invasive breast cancer. There was no difference in breast cancer risk between the group who had either spontaneous or induced abortions and those who had not had an abortion."
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer

It would seem.....not.



"

 

does it have to be miserable…my wife enjoyed it to an extent…yes there was uncomforted ..but the thought of her child growing inside…out weighed the discomfort..

have you had children and did you tell them how hard it was …were you the poster griping about ruining one's body for child birth and telling their kids this guilt?