Abortion is NOT a woman's right

Since it's possible to make comparisons between them, they are similar in a way. So yes, it's an analogy.

 

This begs the question.

Only if the fetus isn't a person is banning abortion slavery. For if the fetus is a person, abortion is very similar to slavery because it dehumanizes the fetus. But if the fetus is not a person, then yes, banning abortions is slavery.

 

I honestly don't see how Anders Hoveland's statement was sexist. He doesn't hate women. He just doesn't believe that they should have the legal right to take a life away.

 

Sam, do yourself and us a favour and actually look up what sexism means, I'll even help you with a direct link to the online Oxford Dictionary - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sexism

Now please show me in that definition where it says anything about hating women as being a sexist .. here is a clue it doesn't.

If Anders hated women (which I admit I have my suspicions on) he would be a misogynist - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/misogynist?q=misogynist

one does not have to be a misogynist in order to be a sexist.

So please stop making a fool of yourself and at least spend some time researching words and issues you don't understand or know about.

 

Nothing is his statements have suggested stereotyping women.

 

Yes, when the baby has been born it's obvious that it's wrong. But tell me, why does it really matter so much if the baby has been born or not? Is the inside of the uterus like sacred ground or something?

Oh please!

Pro-choicers claim they're not people... that is until they see the video from the hysteroscopy. Then they start squirming, squirming like the fetus they see on the computer screen!

 

Anders, have you noticed their circular arguments just yet? Please tell me if you have.

 

A pro-life doctor explains why it matters:

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/01/granting-rights-fetus-cost-mother.html

Here is a picture of a 12 week fetus. It is 2 inches long and weighs 1/2 oz. Over 88 percent of abortions are performed by 12 weeks. Why would this photo make anyone squirm?

 

Your point?

Indeed, but unless we are to take the Catholic Church as the law giver, I submit that having sex is not only for procreation and not because I say so, but because we are wired that way. So a couple has sex for the joy of it, they use contraception according to direction and lo and behold she gets pregnant. She did not want it he did not want it and neither wants it. On what principle are we to force her to gestate?

Again, on what principle?

Why? Those who have children do so because they wanted to be parents thus volunteered for the task. Our couple as pointed out above did not.

Not really, because it is not a child.

On the contrary, if it was not, the species would have died out.

The decision was to have sex not to procreate. Much like walking on the street. If you are hit by a car, will you not sue? Why? You know well that accident do happen, yet you consent to them by walking on the street.

I am curious. Since you consider an abortion killing, would you condone executing the born child of a rapist? The principle is the same?

Only when people wish to procreate.

Only to the extent that the actions have some detrimental effect on society. For instance being drunk in public vs. being drunk at home. One instance is fine the other is inviting a trip to the lock up. In contrast abortion has no effect on society.

Like being hit by a car?

No those are imagines holes only. Bottom line is that "the body" carries with it rights and those rights can not be superseded by other's rights.

Never understood why other than silly puritanical rules. What do you think would happen if people were allowed to be in public nude?

 

We are talking about Basic Human Rights, correct? You know, Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness? Not privileges? Not what is legally allowed? Based on Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it doesn't mention Abortion as a Human Right.

Just Checking...

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

 

You disagree with what, Fugazi?

My questions?

I have to say I'm having a really hard time seeing how you can equate the two. I was not making an analogy.

It's a fact that a child in the womb is only where it is and in the state (condition and relationship) that it is in because of the actions that the woman and her partner took to put them there. That's not anything close to the same thing as a person accepting a ride in a car.

I disagree and I'd like to explain why.

If you were to wake up one day to find another human being hooked up to your body and who needed to stay hooked up to your body or they would die... You would be well within your rights to disconnect yourself from them and to get on with your own life whether they actually died as a result or not.

However, the same could not be said for a situation where you were to grab someone and connect their body to yours - yourself.

Could it?

When you create that relationship, you give consent for the other person to be there and they (as equal human beings) have rights too.

Not really.

The woman has the very same rights as the fetus does. Not more and not less.

I don't argue from a morality perspective.

I'm only concerned with the legal Constitutional aspects of the debate.

 

If I thought that it is moot, I would not be here.

I think it's a human rights issue and as someone who believes in equal rights and justice for all... I believe that the rights of all should be protected equally - regardless of the inconvenience it might pose to others.

No one person has the right to violate the rights of another.

 

While the act of abortion is even more reprehensible if the baby can already survive outside the mother, what does viability have to do with whether it is a life or not? A newborn baby is definitely not a fully developed human either. This argument you presented seems to lack substance.

 

Here is a better picture:


(source: http://www.baby2see.com/development/week12.html )

Here is a 12 week old fetus still in it's amniotic sac:
http://www.solutionsphc.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/12-week-fetal-fetus-B.jpg

If you want to see what an abortion does to a 12 week old fetus... (WARNING: disturbing graphic image)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr...97&Signature=7DTKmFM3tV6EmohWln1zQQl1QAk=#_=_

 

Then surgically remove them where they attach to the woman. What happens to the fetus then? Where is the dividing line between the woman and the fetus because there has to be a clear delineation between the two.

As I've noted there is a paradox when it comes to trying to separate the woman from the fetus because they occupy the same body and the fetus is imposing an involuntary obligation on the woman that violates the Rights of the Woman as a Person.

We should use, by comparison, an infant born to a woman. She doesn't have a mandatory obligation to care for the child at birth She can walk out of the hospital leaving the new born infant behind and she is not responsible for it. Only if she voluntarily takes the new born infant from the hospital does she voluntarily assume responsibility for that infant. It is a voluntary obligation assumed by the woman when she removes the child from the hospital and not an involuntary obligation placed upon her. The Rights of the Woman as a Person are protected upon the birth of the infant.

The same Rights of the Woman as a Person must be considered prior to birth when she's pregnant. If she didn't voluntarily become pregnant (most pregnancies are unplanned), and we assume that a woman wanting an abortion didn't plan her pregnancy, then logically she has a Right to be able to "walk away from the pregnancy" just as she has a Right to "walk away from an infant" at birth.

But as we can also note there can be pragmatic limitations related to either. The woman under the laws I'm aware of can only "walk away from the infant" at the hospital during the first two weeks after birth. Currently we also have pragmatic limitations related to abortion as well where the woman can only "electively" on her own obtain an abortion during the first trimester. After that point the conditions allowing an abortion become more stringent and it's not solely an elective decision by the woman. By the third trimester she basically has no elective options related to an abortion because it requires a medical diagnosis that the continuation of the pregnancy presents a significant risk to her health or life if it's allowed to continue. Her real choice, by the third trimester, isn't related to "having an abortion" but instead is a choice to "not have an abortion" because her life can literally be on the line if she allows the pregnancy to continue.

 

What is the difference if we just surgically remove where the uterus attaches to the woman?

 

No your original premise.

by assuming that consent to sex is also consent to pregnancy .. or if you prefer, assuming your conclusion is right based on a assumed premise.

So you are saying that the person in the car is not there and in the state (condition and relationship) that they are in because of the actions that the passenger and driver took to be there .. interesting .. was the passenger forced to be in the car.
You are trying to distance the core point, which is that consent to an action can lead to further actions ie consent to sex can lead to pregnancy or consent to get into a car can lead to injuries.

Even if I were to connect myself to another person of my own choice (remember a unwanted pregnancy is not a choice made) there is still nothing to stop me disconnecting myself at any time I choose to .. I can change my mind at any time.

Yep, and I also have the right to terminate that relationship at any time.

If that is the case then you have created a conflict of rights situation, who decides who has the greater rights .. doctors, lawyers, judges, the state or should it be the woman.
If the decision is that the fetus has the greater rights then regardless of how it is said the woman is deemed to be of lesser standing than the fetus, and vice-versa if a fetus was ever to be seen as equal.

Fair enough, though the moral viewpoint is one of the mainstay arguments of the pro-life campaign.

 

Here is the image of a coffin containing a woman that was denied an abortion after 21 weeks under the law even though her doctor told her that she would die if she allowed the pregnancy to continue.



Should our laws condemn a woman to death by denying her a life-saving abortion after 21 weeks? Only about 1.5% of all abortions fall into this category where it is necessitated because the pregnancy can kill the woman so why do people want to condemn a woman to death by denying her the Right to have an abortion to save her own life?

BTW The fetus also died when she did.

 

More posting of the late-term abortion red herring, trying to associate medically necessary abortions with elective ones even though it has been proven often enough that late-term abortions are not elective.

does a newborn have higher brain functions - Yes
Does a pre-24 weeks fetus have higher brain functions - No
Does a newborn require a physical attachment to a single entity in order to survive - No
Does a pre-24 week fetus require a physical attachment to a single entity to survive - in most cases yes
Can a newborn be cared for by any member of society - Yes
Can a pre-24 week fetus be cared for by any member of society - no, it requires specialists people and machinery in order to survive.

 

The uterus belongs to the woman and not to the fetus. The woman has a Right of Self as a person related to her own body. As also noted under the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, the preborn is not a person and doesn't have the Right of Self. That, of course, can be changed by a Constitutional Amendment but until that happens our laws of the land all fall under the Constitutional definition of personhood as only Persons have Rights in the United States.

Please remember that I advocate this Constitutional Amendment but it must be pragmatic because it's going to require approval by 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and requires ratification by 3/4ths of the States. The problem for the "anti-abortionists" is that they want to ignore the law and the US Constitution and instead believe that personal opinion predominately based upon emotion should override the Constitutionally protected Rights of the Woman. That is a non-starter from my perspective. We have a Constitution that can enumerate protections so let's use it. A pragmatic Constitutional Amendment is doable so let's do it rather than the continued attempts by the "anti-abortionists" to ignore the Constitution and the Rule of Law in the United States.

 

I would dispute that your final link is in fact a picture of an aborted 12 week fetus, the source of that picture does not adhere to your assumption.

Picture source - http://ikeymikey.tumblr.com/post/408960365/so-close-yet-so-far-distinctly-human-yet

I have no idea what the OB refers to in the comment.

 

Really the only "elective choice" of a woman related to a late term abortion is to risk her life by not having the abortion. The medical necessity is driving the abortion and the woman really has to go against the doctor's advice to not have the abortion. How many people would keep a kidney, for example, if the doctor told them that not having it removed would kill them? They could choose to not have the surgery, and probably die because of that decision, but a rational person would say that they should have the surgery to save their own life. Why is a late term abortion any different? It's basically a life and death decision for the woman and we really need to understand that fact.

 

And here is the coffin of a woman that died because she got an abortion.



http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/13/funeral-held-for-woman-who-died-from-33-week-abortion/


This isn't just all about the woman, you know...
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ph...aby-lies-in-open-casket-at-city-hall-funeral/

 

This is a problem with the anti-abortionists arguments. They resort to lying. A woman cannot die from an abortion until she reaches puberty and can become pregnant. The image is obviously not of a woman that died because of having an abortion so why lie about it?

 

Out of sight, out of mind, huh?