Abortion is NOT a woman's right

As usual your pro-life zealot link does not give the reason for Jennifer McKenna having an abortion at 33 weeks, however if one takes the time the reason can be found;

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

The abortion was done for medical reasons and was not elective .. so yet again Anders your usual procedure of posting unreliable, misleading things has been uncovered.
The fact that this is being investigated is certainly correct, just as any death from a medical procedure is .. however, pro-lifers grab this like a dog with a bone, twist the story to suit their own agenda and basically lie.
It is obvious that Jennifer wanted this baby and as Shiva-TD has stated her choice was not "do I want this baby", we do not even know the extent of the disability the fetus suffered from.

I find it distasteful that pro-lifers use cases such as this as propaganda without knowing the details.

 

I totally agree, however this will not stop pro-lifers using these tragic stories as pure propaganda, usually by selective reporting of the actual facts .. just take a look at the links posted and then do a proper search on the story, you will find as I did that there were medical reasons for this late-term abortion, as it is for all late-term ones.

 

They won't as they know they will never get the required support, instead they just chip away at the rights of the woman using spurious claims to justify it.

Can I ask, how the conflict of rights situation would be addressed, as far as I am aware there can be no law that is direct conflict with another law unless the conflicted law is repealed.
Would this not then incur a lessening of the rights of all women?

 

Why could they not just have had a public option without an insurance mandate??

 

The fetus is inside the woman's body, she has every right to evict it if she chooses.

 

We have seen in "Republican" controlled states the consistent approach of laws that result in the closure of abortion clinics but to date the federal courts have not yet addressed the fact that denial of access equates to the denial of the Constitutional Right of a Woman to have an abortion established in Roe v Wade. Denial of Access = Denial of Right

We've also seen the "Unborn Victims Laws" where they attempt to portray the pre-born as a "child" because the word "child" has no Constitutional meaning. These laws fundamentally go unchallenged because they're really based upon an attack on the woman where the woman suffers a greater harm as a Person if an attack upon her results in the termination of her pregnancy. None of these laws attempt to define the "preborn" as a "person" because they know this would be unconstitutional but they the "anti-abortionists" attempt to imply that the preborn is a "person with Rights" based upon them. This is a false proposition because they're based upon the violation of the Rights of the Woman that is a Person.

Basically what we see are nefarious attempts to circumvent the Constitutionally Protected Rights of the Woman and to that I really object. As I've noted repeatedly there are arguments for granting "personhood' to a limited extent by Constitutional Amendment based upon pragmatic considerations but in the end I don't see them being much different than the Roe v Wade decision which was a very "progressive' decision by the US Supreme Court where it did impose protections based upon the "potential personhood" of a fetus at viability. Anti-Abortionists seem to miss the point that Roe v Wade was really a huge victory for the anti-abortionists because a "conservative" Constitutional interpretation would have resulted in striking down ALL abortion laws in the United States because the "preborn" are not persons.

Today the fetus at natural viability is protected (except when the health/life of the woman is in serious jeopardy based upon a medical diagnosis) based upon "potential personhood" in the Roe v Wade decision because the Supreme Court was "progressive' in interpreting the US Constitution. That was a huge win for the Anti-Abortionists in 1973.

 

Denial of Access to the Womb = Denial of Fetus Rights

Roe v Wade was a nefarious attempt to circumvent Equal Rights protection in the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to recognize the "personhood" of the intended victim

she can evict her baby if she so chooses, but the womb is going to have to go too...

wouldn't want this little mishap to happen again, would we?

 

This is your focus on the fetus mentality. Whether it is a "life" isn't the only factor in this debate. You must acknowledge the woman's rights if you expect to have credibility in this argument. At viability, the fetus has achieved the ability to be separated from the woman. It is no longer dependent on her to sustain its life.

A newborn baby has completed its prenatal development. It is no longer INSIDE the woman, and physically connected to her. After nine months of development, it has achieved personhood status.

 

A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON under the US Constitution and ONLY PERSON'S have RIGHTS. The WOMAN IS A PERSON and has CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS under the US Constitution.

Don't like that then change the US Constitution as opposed to presenting arguments based upon falsehoods and lies.
.

 

The US Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, considered a fetus at natural viability to be a "potential person" as it could be a person on it's own outside of the womb. It provided protections of the fetus at natural viability based upon the "potential personhood" of the fetus at this point during pregnancy and only a medical diagnosis that establishes that the health/life of the woman is in serious jeopardy after natural viability can allow an abortion at this point during the pregnancy.

The US Constitution does not address "life" but instead addresses "personhood" so this is hugely important. Had the Supreme Court limited it decision to exclusively protecting the Rights of the Person then the "woman" was the only "person" that had Constitutionally protected Rights. Under this "conservative" interpretation of the US Constitution ALL abortion laws would have been struck down as unconstitutional

As it was the US Supreme Court was very progressive in infringing upon the Rights of the Person (i.e. the Woman) based upon the "potential personhood" of the fetus at viability.

Would "anti-abortionists" have preferred a "conservative" interpretation of the US Constitution where all abortion laws would have been struck down because they infringed upon the Rights of a Woman that is a Person?

Anti-Abortionists that oppose Roe v Wade don't seem to realize that it was "anti-abortion" by allowing any restrictions on abortion under the US Constitution based upon a progressive interpretation. It was the "potential personhood" of a fetus at viability that imposed an infringement upon the Rights of the Woman related to abortion in Roe v Wade.

 

Which you have not explained why exactly, without resorting to circular arguments.

 

Did you miss the sentence immediately preceding that one? Here's an idea. Why don't you explain why a fetus SHOULD have personhood status? You haven't even been able to adequately explain what a person is.

 

Lol so it's geographic location somehow makes it a subhuman.

 

I believe that personhood status begins when the zygote can no longer split into a twin. That's the only explanation that makes sense.

 

For your information most abortions take place before there is "someone else" there, a 2 week old fetus is not a person. Different day, same arguement

 

Human, subhuman, has no bearing on the issue because the thread is about the Rights of the Woman established by her Personhood.

The issue of the Rights of a Woman related to Abortion in the United States have been resolved based upon the US Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

There is no legal dispute based upon our current Constitution. If we want to affect the Rights of the Person then we require a change to the US Constitution.

 

That's your belief. It isn't support for your belief.

 

I disagree. If the fetus is a person, then abortion is murder.

 

All of the other explanations really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The fetus being a non-person, just because it's attached to another living human being, really doesn't explain why the fetus isn't a person. It's just some justification to abort it. Life beginning at conception brings up the "what about twins" scenario. So, the best explanation is that personhood begins when the zygote no longer has the ability to split into twins or triplets, etc.

 

How can you speculate about when personhood begins if you can't even articulate what a person is?

 

There's no need to articulate what a person is. It's very obvious what a person is. You are just trying to derail this discussion.

 

No, the discussion is about determining when personhood begins. It is impossible to do that without first determining what a person is. Just saying "it's obvious what a person is" doesn't cut it.

 

Well how would you define a person, Cady?

 

Yes there is a need since you have amply demonstrated that you are clueless just about everything and are unable to define anything to lament on

Then define it so we all might be on the same page.

No, you are just trying to hide your ignorance.