If abortion were banned on the state or national level, would "pro-lifers" support...

He's already denied that accusation.

 

They wouldn't. But I would. (*)(*)(*)(*) it, why not.

Be responsible or contribute I say.

If I can be responsible as I have, anyone can. We have to stop babying these brutes.

 

Then you wouldn't need to keep posting whether YOU are on topic or off topic.....quit blaming "the other guy" , take RESPONSIBILITY for your own actions

 

Listen to mr Igivelecturestoselectiveindividualswhichareofftopic.

 

considering the fact you didn't even understand the assertion in the first place I have to assume that your disagreement is based on nothing.

 

I have been sitting back and watching the rancor and animosity fly with some degree of astonishment at how poor the actual communication is. Abortion is a difficult and emotional issue, but sticking to ridged and dogmatic views is not going to help to resolve it. Let me try to put it into perspective.

I am pro-choice but sympathetic to those who fervently believe that human life begins at conception. That is not to say that I personally believe that human life begins at conception. However, amidst the renewed controversy over abortion stemming in large part from the Planned Parenthood controversy I found myself think more about the issue and what it is that I myself believe.

I have seen persuasive, scientific arguments for life beginning at conception. In fact, so persuasive that I am willing to concede that there are indeed all of the elements that are required to form a human being at conception. However, is the fact that it has the potential to become a human being, make it an actual human being at that point? There are a number of ways that we can approach that question.

The first approach is strictly secular and scientific. If a human being-or any being for that matter is sentient we have to ask ourselves- based on what we know from medical science-at what stage of development is the organism self-aware?

Science tells us that it is fairly late in pregnancy:

The second approach delves into the realm of the spiritual, a place where I will be the first to admit that I am not comfortable. However, while I soundly reject religious dogma and religious doctrine, I am not a hard core secularist who rejects any notion of there being life beyond the confines of our bodies.

Now I have noticed that religious people will frequently make reference to eternal life. “Life everlasting” is a common refrain which I am decidedly not hostile to. The main difference between religious people and myself in that regard is that I am comfortable living with the uncertainty of what lies beyond life, while the religious are (*)(*)(*)(*) sure and rely on their scriptures to tell them what is truth and what they believe.

To come to my point and to relate it to the question of when life begins, it occurred to me that if there is no end to life, than there is no beginning either. Rather than linear-conception, birth, life, death- the concept of it being circular is more in keeping with the beliefs of many religious people, and not necessarily at odds with my own-or at least with what I can accept as a possibility. It would follow then, that what we call conception, birth and death are points of transition, and if one believes in the human soul, that soul will live on regardless of the physical state. It seems sometimes that religious people only believe that life begins at conception when it comes to the issue of abortion and that life is eternal when it comes to the end of physical life. I will stop short of saying that is hypocritical but perhaps it is something that needs to be reconciled.

A related question that religious people need to consider what is the relative importance of the physical being to that soul or spiritual self? I think that they would agree that we can kill the physical body but that we cannot kill the soul. Yes, to kill a physical body at whatever point we determine that it is in fact a human being is considered murder, as it should be. Killing a person at any point during life is to separate that person those who they love and who loves them. It changes the world for all who knew them. But does it make any sense to call the termination of a zygote before the dawn of awareness “murder” also? Are they really equivalent? Can religious people at least consider the possibility that to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages is actually providing an opportunity for that soul to come into the physical world later at a better time and place?

Also, when we speak of the rights of the unborn, whatever they are considered to be, we must consider them in relation to the rights of the fully formed and functioning human being who is carrying that organism. That is especially true when the pregnancy was no fault of the woman, or if the woman’s life is at risk.

Lastly, let’s take a look at how the issue of the soul was viewed historically

On balance, I remain an adamant pro choice advocate. While abortion is not a pleasant or desirable thing, it is necessary and should be available to all women. In addition, our laws and policies should support any and all means of preventing unwanted pregnancies as well as providing comprehensive programs to assist women and families who choose to have a child . Altogether , that will be a lot more effective at reducing abortion than an outright ban on it.

 

I have given ample proof, or do you not believe that laws, case decisions etc can be used in other cases?

In the end neither argument can be 100% proven until such time that it arises in the courts and a decision is made. I fully understand your arguments in dispute .. however they do not IMO render the argument I am using as moot or wrong. All of the things I have stated can be found in American Law and when applied to abortion give the result that should a fertilized ovum be deemed legally a person then the case in favour of abortion becomes stronger, it takes the argument away from what the unborn are to what they do.

When using existing legal precedence and current laws there are a number of logical conclusions that can be arrived at, that is not to say that it is 100% settled, only that the research I have done leads to the conclusions stated.

for the sake of this debate then yes fertilization is the point that persnhood starts.

Whether the fertilized ovum is brought to the uterine wall by coercion or not isn't really relevant, it is what happens after it's contact with the uterine wall that is relevant. If the fertilized ovum were to continue on it's journey without invading the uterine wall then it would eventually be expelled from the females body, no infringement of her rights would happen, there would be no injuries incurred by the woman.

The medical definition of invasion is -

1. Beginning or incursion of disease.
2. Local spread of a malignant neoplasm by infiltration or destruction of adjacent tissue.
3. Entrance of foreign cells into tissue.

The highlighted one is the one being applied here as the fertilized ovum cannot be seen as a disease or a malignant neoplasm, it is however a foreign cell.

I do deal with implicit consent or implied consent, which are both the same.

Implied Consent

The law recognizes the idea of implied consent as involving "an inference arising from a course of conduct or relationship between the parties, in which there is a mutual acquiescence or a lack of objection under circumstances signifying assent" - Source : Allstate Insurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. : Page 713 - If a woman does not explicitly say no to sexual intercourse, for example, her lack of objection can signify her implicit consent to sexual intercourse. So, too, with pregnancy. If a woman acquiesces to the way in which a fetus makes her pregnant and expresses no objection, one can infer her implicit consent to that pregnancy relationship.
Yet once a woman does say no to sexual intercourse, it is no longer possible to infer her implicit consent - Source : Prosser v Keeton Page 114 - Once people indicate their lack of consent, even when on might reasonably infer consent, the law no longer recognizes consent as being present. Once a woman indicates her lack of consent to engage in a sexual relationship with a man, one can no longer infer from her behavior an implicit consent to do so. Even though a "continued course of practical joking" between people, for example, "may permit the inference that there is leave to continue it further ... once notice is given that all such conduct will no longer be tolerated," people are "no longer free to assume consent." - Source : Prosser v Keeton : Page 114 - To the contrary "no means no" and at that point a man imposing sexual intercourse on her is committing the felony of rape. So, too, with pregnancy. A woman who seeks an abortion by definition is seeking the termination of the pregnant condition imposed on her body by the fetus. Such a woman explicitly is saying no to pregnancy; she does not consent to be made pregnant by a fertilized ovum, and just as "no means no" in relation to sexual intercourse, so, too, does "no mean no" in relation to a pregnancy. - Source : The law recognizes that "conditional or limited consent is no consent at all beyond the terms of the condition or the boundries indicated" : Rolland M. Perkins and Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law, 3rd Ed. Page 1076
As there are two relationships, the sexual relationship with the man and the pregnancy relationship with the fetus, consent to one does not stand for consent to the other - Source : Consent to one thing does not necessarily signify implied consent to a "different or additional thing," for this reason, "consent to prolonged kissing and hugging is not consent to sexual intercourse," particularly when a woman explicitly indicates her lack of consent, "If a man forces sex upon an unwilling female, it is no defense to rape that she did not object to his lesser advances." : Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law Pages 1076-1077, citing as an example State v Myers, holding that a woman who engaged in "necking" with the defendant before he raped her did not "consent" to the rape. - Each relationship requires a woman's specific consent; the woman must explicitly consent to engage in sexual intercourse with a man, and she must explicitly consent to engage in pregnancy with the fertilized ovum. A woman's consent to pregnancy means she agrees to allow the fetus to invade her interests as represented by her body and liberty, a woman who seeks an abortion gives explicit notice that she does not consent to engage in a pregnancy relationship with a fetus. By seeking an abortion, she is actively expressing her explicit objection, not her implicit assent. Once a woman objects to a relationship with the fetus, there is no longer any grounds for inferring from her conduct that she implicitly consents to that relationship. Quite the opposite is true; her conduct explicitly asserts that she dos not consent to a pregnancy relationship with the fetus.

The HIV virus has no stading under law, it is not being advocated personhood therefore it does not fall under the same laws as a fertilized ovum that has been deemed a person. The person infected with HIV does not have any restrictions on what treatment they pursue in order to eradicate the virus .. If you are suggesting that the fertilized ovum is not a person then the same applies to the female ie she can use what ever method and resources she requires in order to eradicate the fertilized ovum as it has no standing under law. Law only apply to persons, not viruses.

BTW: In some cases the fertilized ovum is legally treated as a serious injury, such as in negligence cases where sterilization has failed, which is what you are comparing to with your scenario.

I think you are missing the point, the virus is not or is even likely to be deemed legally a person, the fertilized ovum's personhood on the other hand is a subject of debate .. if (or when) the fertilized ovum become legally recognized as a person then there are restrictions placed upon that status that all persons must abide by .. unless the fertilized ovum is going to be deemed as some sort of "other" person it must abide by the same laws and restrictions that all other persons do, if it does not then it is being deemed a greater person than all others and that violates the equal protection clause.

The baby in the house in Antarctica is not physically injuring another person against their consent . .the fertilized ovum, fetus etc is.

 

No, but they may still end up getting pregnant when they don't want or can't afford a child. Unwanted pregnancies isn't going to stop just because abortion is banned.

 

Which is why it is important for women to take responsibilities over their own body. They need to learn to control themselves. They need to learn how to use birth control. They need to learn how to prevent pregnancies.

 

Abortion is a woman taking responsibility over her own body.

Just women of course, no mention of men taking control over themselves.

They do.

They do

 

Well obviously women don't have control over their own bodies or their wouldn't be so many unwanted pregnancies.

Abortion is a sign of irresponsibility. Taking care of your children is the responsible thing to do.

 

Well obviously they do, if they didn't there wouldn't be any abortions.

Abortion is a sign of responsibility, one you just don't agree with. Thankfully what you consider responsible or not has no relevance to any one else.

 

Thank you for you highly intelligent response Mr. Contradiction.

 

Yeah, great, but that still doesn't address the fact that some of them won't.

 

Then they should learn the consequences of their actions.

 

Thank you for once again showing that for Anti-Choicers it's all about punishing women for having sex.


Why do you think only women should learn the consequences of their actions?

That's misogyny.


Who are YOU to decide what the consequences should be?

 

But they won't. That's the reality that you refuse to face. They will find someone who will perform an illegal abortion, it will be far more risky, and more women will end up seriously injured.

Or maybe that's exactly what you mean? It's suddenly occurred to me that you might want all this to happen.

 

I am pro-choice. I believe the fetus should have a choice.

No one is punishing anyone. Male or female, everyone must face the consequences for their actions.

You just prefer that consequence to be a violent invasive procedure inside of her uterus which terminates her child.

That is more of a punishment than rewarding her with a beautiful life.

- - - Updated - - -

That doesn't deserve a response.

 

No, you don't. You believe you should choose for everyone.

If the consequence is a pregnancy, how everyone deals with that is their own business.

Try really hard to understand this. Pro-choice means the woman decides what happens to her body. Pro-choicers have no preference as long as it is her choice.

If I remember correctly, you said you had no sympathy for a woman who goes to a back alley butcher.

 

That's right why should I? Doesn't mean I want her to go to a butcher.

I believe that someone has to speak up for the innocent who don't have a voice.

I believe that someone needs to protect the helpless against those who would do them harm.

You don't.

 

If you don't want her to go to a butcher, then don't try to close down safe, legal providers, because desperate women WILL have abortions, wherever they have to get them.

I know that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, but you can't "protect" the unborn. All you can do is try to force women to risk their lives and health, suffer and pain and damage to their bodies, and change the course of their lives.

I believe you would harm pregnant women if you could, and that's why I speak up for them.

 

Legal abortions are every bit as unsafe for the fetus as are illegal abortions. They're not that much safer than illegal abortions for the mother as well.

I think that changing the course of their lives is not as bad as their child losing their lives.

And I believe that you would harm pregnant women by giving them and abortion.

http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

 

You'll need to provide some support for that statement.

You are not qualified, nor is it your place to decide whether forcing a woman to risk her health/life, suffer pain and damage to her body, and interfere with her chosen life path "is not as bad as" aborting a fetus.

I don't and I wouldn't tell women what to do with their bodies. That is their decision to make.

 

I'm wondering why you think that this is irrelevant, since it is you who argues that any action without consent is a coerced action. Is it now so, in your opinion, that the fertilized ovum is being coerced in the first moments of his existence and that this coercion persists until the baby is born, or not?

I am not quite able to follow the use of terminology in this case, as it seems very contradictive to me. Implied Consent means that there can be consent without choice and it also means that there can be consent without explicit approval. The court rulings show that in the example of sexual intercourse or rape respectively, implicit consent can not necessarily be assumed from actions of making out and that implicit consent can definitely not be assumed against explicit disapproval. I would strongly agree that also in the case of pregnancy, the choice of abortion is a clear indicator that implicit consent can not be assumed anymore. Three problems occur, however, which indicate that the situation of pregnancy is not comparable to the situation of rape: (1) as noted above, the baby itself is coerced by the female body and has never given explicit consent related to its own treatment nor has performed actions which indicate implicit consent [note], (2) disapproval can not be expressed towards the unborn life and that (3) the pregnancy can not be terminated by the unborn life without being either killed or born.

[note] It could be argued in this context that the fertilized ovum was coerced within the first days and then, by the action of 'invasion' gave implicit consent to its treatment during the pregnancy. This line is hard to argue, though, because the invasion itself is an action which, from the perspective of the fertilized ovum, occured during a situation of coercion, i.e. a situation in which the fertilized ovum had no choice but either to die or to 'invade'. If I jostle someone down a slope and he grabs my arm and breaks it, he can hardly be held responsible for grabbing it. Even less, I could argue that by grabbing my arm, he has given implicit consent for being dependant on my arm lifting him up.

This is not what I wanted to say. In the case of an HI-Virus infection, it is not the virus, which ultimately kills the infected, but in most cases, it is the fever. And fever, as you might know, is not caused by a virus, but it is caused by the body cells of the infected person in defense against the illness. That is why I was referring to an argument which claimed that not the infection is the legal cause, but the infected person.

Making unconscious parts of a legal person part of their "personhood" and defining actions of those parts as actions in the legal sense, the person who infects another person with a virus could state: "I didn't kill you. Neither did the virus. Legally, you killed yourself by heating up."

In the same way in any other example in which Person A inflicts pain upon Person B, it could be argued that not the action of Person A is the legal cause of the pain but that the pain would not have occured if the nerves of Person B hadn't transferred the reaction into the brain.

That would be the direction the "but for" test would be going if applied to the cellular level without acknowledging that the biological processes in our body which occur unrelated to our consciousness are indeed natural processes and not subjective actions in the legal sense.

I would agree that physical harm and violation of property rights are something essentially different. The law in several American States, however, doesn't make this distinction so clearly; there are several in which use of lethal force after unlawful entry is permitted even in the case that no imminent physical threat is obvious.

 

Yeah, it's wise to plead the fifth once someone has figured out your agenda.