Who Does The Government Think They Are Prohibiting Intentional killing?

Fair enough - it's your thread, you can discuss whatever you like, but it seems that if you want to refute their position, as you attempt in the OP, you ought to address their actual position.

 

Don't understand what you are getting at,the OP addressed the personhood of the child in utero.

 

As this hosting is a reality in the life of every human being, and in the overwhelming majority of the cases the woman took the known risk and pregnancy is the outcome, her regretting taking that risk does not outweigh the basic right to life of the child.

The fact that he veered off into a ditch trying once again to assign sinister motives to those who have proven him wrong on this, is yet another indication that his position has no merit.

 

So the basic right to life includes being able to use another persons body to sustain it, please do produce the legal standings on that.

It has nothing to do with regret, it has to do with consent where as you well know one person cannot use another persons body without their consent, or are you suggesting that the fetus is not the same as any other person?

You cannot have it all ways, either the fetus is a person and as such is held to the restrictions of that status as all person are, or it is not a person at all, or you want it to have a right that no other person has which you will then remove upon birth.

Which is it Whaler?

If it is a) the fetus is a person and as such is held to the restrictions of that status as all person are, then it simply CANNOT use another persons body to sustain it's life without their consent.

b) it is not a person at all, then it really does not matter how, when or why a woman gets an abortion.

c) You want it to have a right that no other person has which you will then remove upon birth. You want it to have the right to use another persons body without their consent, a right no other person has, but then you are going to say upon it's birth, oh it doesn't have that right anymore . .why are you so free and easy with other peoples rights?

Really, then why don't you explain EXACTLY how you are going to give the fetus personhood rights WITHOUT giving it the right to use another persons body without their consent?

 

Nope, you reported it, no worries I am asking for the majority of the comment to be re-instated as it clearly shows how you are in error (as usual). apparently saying you talk crap is flamebaiting

As is known that is your goal with all who don't agree with you and can clearly show how ignorant you are of the subject.

 

sure as soon as you post where I said abortion is illegal

it has everything to do with regret, it is dishonest to suggest otherwise.

The fetus is a person, undeniably. the law is currently at conflict with itself with the UVVA and fetal homicide laws clearly recognizing the personhood of children in utero, and the antiquated and errant Roe decision opposing that. It isn't a matter of having it both ways, unless you suggest that all people of all ages have identical rights. If you do, I need to take my elementary schools kids to the voting polls.

It is that your position is illogical and irrational and, consequently, irrelevant.

 

So you don't want abortion illegal then, and I notice you evade answering the question.

You would know all about dishonesty as you use it so often.

Only for those who have no understanding how the law works.

It is so, so sad that you continue this line of erroneous thinking, what you fail to understand is that the UVVA cannot give personhood to a fetus in any context outside of this law, if it did it would be unconstitutional and struck down .. in fact it would not even have got passed into law in the first place. UVVA type laws have been around for sometime now, if as you assert it defines the fetus as a person in all circumstances then explain WHY it has NEVER been used in an attempt to over turn Roe?

SCOTUS could define a piece of wood as a person for the purpose of a specific law if they so wished, just as they did define a business as a person for the purpose of the laws pertaining to them, that designation has absolutely NO impact on any other laws.

I have not said that, so you can stop trying to put words into my mouth, if anything the younger the person the LESS rights they have, which is EXACTLY what Roe determines.

Nice evasion, try answering the question or if it does not fit then explain EXACTLY what you want.

 

you do realise that there is no Federal law banning late-term abortions at all, if you read and understood Roe you would see that it was left up to the states to decide, in theory ANY state could remove any and all restrictions to abortion at any time and they would not be in violation of any Federal law. Oh late term abortions are not illegal, only elective late-term abortions are illegal . .so wrong again on your part, becoming quite a habit of yours being wrong.

The "famed" UVVA that does nothing but create quasi-rights for the fetus for the sole purpose of that specific law .. but nevermind you keep on living in la la land.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Bahahahahahahahaha! Surely, you jest.

Abortion is not and never has been homicide in the USA or Canada.

 

He's doing that? How pathetic.

 

Oh yes, we wouldn't want the government to protect people's rights by taking away the rights of other people, would we?

Choicers are such hypocrites.

 

"""we wouldn't want the government to protect people's rights by taking away the rights of other people, would we?"""

No, and women's right to their own bodies doesn't take away the rights of anyone else so I don't know what you're talking about...

 

No problem with protecting peoples rights at all, guess what that includes the right to not have your body used by another person without your consent .. shame rights and the law are not on your side isn't it.

You can wail and make as many pointless posts as you want at the end of the day REGARDLESS of the situation one person cannot force another person to use their body in order to sustain that persons life without their consent to do so.

 

What if the law orders it and its required?

 

If you are OK with such laws, you won't mind being ordered by law to give up one of your kidneys, a part of your liver, pancreas, one of your lungs, etc. to sustain another person's life? Remember, a surgery to remove one of those organs has a recovery time much shorter than the duration of pregnancy, and the damage to the rest of your body is minimal, whereas pregnancy damage extends throughout the body.

 

Kidneys, lungs, or a pancreas do not regrow. In contrast, pregnancy, for the most part, is not a permanent thing. Also most pregnancies do not leave any scars (unless it is a C-section, but even then most C-sections that are performed are not absolutely necessary)

And it's not just any person we're talking about there; it's her own child.

Pregnancy is also completely natural. Can you think of an organ removal process that is completely natural? That the human body is designed to handle?

 

You have been shown numerous times the damage pregnancy does to women , some of it permanent....your denial does not make you right, and your complete and total lack of proof of your allegation certainly proves you wrong.


So what if pregnancy is completely natural (abortion is , too, for that matter) ?

That doesn't mean women should be forced to give birth.

 

Repeat (for the umpteenth time): damage from pregnancy childbirth is often a permanent thing. That means there are scars ALWAYS. As far as C-sections being unnecessary, if the doctor advises the woman to have it, it's necessary. Talk to doctors if you think they advise them too often.

Once more: it's NOT a child. It's potentially a child. It's HER OWN life that a child will affect. It's HER OWN body that will be affected.

It's not completely natural, otherwise medical care would not be necessary. And medical care is advised from the earliest prenatal time. Once again: you are attempting to minimize the effects of pregnancy/childbirth to women. Just recognize that the effects of pregnancy/childbirth are greater than the "unnatural" organ transplants. IF it is saving lives that is important to you, you should be willing to make the sacrifice of organ donation; IF you are not, you are telling the whole world that it is punishment of women that is your goal.

 

May I also remind you that the woman put the fetus into that position, where it is totally reliant on the mother for sustenance?

 

fine if that is the case you won't have any problem with being ordered to give up a kidney, or lung, or an eye etc. will you.

- - - Updated - - -

May I remind you that the above is a crock of crap that you have no evidence to support, but never mind keep repeating the lie.

 

So here we go again, advocating laws that target only a very specific group of people .. I'd be interested to see where any law says something like "you are protected unless you happen to be ...."

Natural means with no influence from mankind, so do try again with your flawed comments.

 

IF the woman "put" the fetus there, she can certainly remove it and "put" it someplace else. A woman is NOT a "mother" unless she has born children. Being pregnant does not make her a mother.

 

pro-aborts have no problem removing someone's organs without their permission:
Organ Harvesting in Abortion Clinics

You mean like in the trash can?

 

Right wing scare tactics. Where do they get these weird ideas?

There are strict procedures for disposing of medical waste.