Abortion is not a “reproductive right”….change my mind.

[Rambunctious]

Why are Hispanic Catholics pro-life? What politics can’t explain.

A new survey finds that most U.S. Hispanics generally oppose abortion, writes J.D. Long-García, but the community’s complex, pro-family attitudes do not easily fit the two-party political structure.

www.americamagazine.org

 

[Rambunctious]

Thanks for boosting our pro life numbers Joe.....

 

[Rambunctious]

Telemundo Host Tells the Truth about Latinos and Abortion | National Review

Myrka Dellanos bravely represents the pro-life view — a rarity in Spanish media, but commonplace among Latinos as a whole.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Votto]

In the proper perspective, humans are animals too.

For more normal countries' that question is irrelevant to the abortion issue.

That is EXACTLY it!!

Thank you!!

Secular atheists see nothing wrong with treating us as animals because they see humans as merely glorified animals

And so what do we do to animals? We lock them in zoos, use them as beasts of burden, and kill and eat them.

That is the difference between a secular humanist and a person of faith. Not only does the person of faith believe man is made in the image of God, thus being treated better, but they also believe they will be held accountable for how they treat their fellow beings and behave accordingly.

Well done.

 

[surada]

The left keep calling abortion a “reproductive right”, and any restriction on abortion an attack on “reproductive rights”.

The definition of reproduction is as follows:

Definition of reproduction​

1: the act or process of reproducingspecifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual
2: something reproduced : COPY
3: young seedling trees in a forest

So as you can clearly see, reproduction is the act of making offspring.

Conception of a new human is reproduction, the creation of life is reproduction.

Abortion is the exact opposite of that. It is the intentional killing of the life that has already been created. Ending life is not reproduction. Thus, abortion is not a “reproductive right”.

No one is disputing that women have a “reproductive rights”. In other words, no one is outlawing or persecuting women for creating life. But abortion is not a reproductive act, thus it is not a “reproductive right”.

A woman who has gotten pregnant has already exercised her “reproductive rights”. She does not have “the right” to end that life.

Do you have to get permission from the state to go to the doctor?

 

[Calypso Jones]

The left tells gov't..'stay out my bedroom, stay out my vajayjay' and then they proceed to allow the feds into their bedrooms and vajayjays.

THIS is constitutional what just happened. YOU CAN STILL KILL YOUR UNBORN. RELAX. It's the right of each state to make thisdetermination. You'll no doubt get to vote on it soon enough and you can change that state depending on the governor every 2 to 4 years until you're too old to give birth, ya ghouls.

 

[BlindBoo]

They are always free to do with their body what they wish. Pregnancy is now two bodies, not one.

Yes, one is dependent upon the other for a period of time for everything, but that does not give the mother any right to kill it, any more than anyone has a right to use their body to kill anything.

It's not two bodies until the baby is born according to one major religion.

Do women own their own bodies or does the Nanny State own part of their bodies now. Forcing women to be baby factories against their will. Help! It's the Nanny State.

 

[Darkwind]

It's not two bodies until the baby is born according to one major religion.

Do women own their own bodies or does the Nanny State own part of their bodies now. Forcing women to be baby factories against their will. Help! It's the Nanny State.

I don't really care. It is interesting that religion is bad until you need it for an argument.

No one is being forced to be a 'baby factory'. I have to ask, does your side employ people to make up phrases and terms that have no real meaning?

There are always ample opportunities to make choices about reproduction. The very best ones are BEFORE the pregnancy begins. People need to be taught, I guess, that the proper place to decide if you are ready for a baby is in the bedroom, not the operation table.

Besides, abortion isn't even illegal in many places.

 

[BlindBoo]

I don't really care. It is interesting that religion is bad until you need it for an argument.

No one is being forced to be a 'baby factory'. I have to ask, does your side employ people to make up phrases and terms that have no real meaning?

There are always ample opportunities to make choices about reproduction. The very best ones are BEFORE the pregnancy begins. People need to be taught, I guess, that the proper place to decide if you are ready for a baby is in the bedroom, not the operation table.

Besides, abortion isn't even illegal in many places.

Who said religion is bad?

So the term Baby Factory has no meaning to you? How about the term Bun in the Oven? Anything come to mind?

I asked Mother Nature once why TF she made pleasure valley so central to reproduction, she smiled like a whore and said "you already know the answer".

When Southern Baptists Were Pro-Choice | BillMoyers.com

Before the rise of the religious right, Southern Baptists believed that "religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced" by Roe v. Wade.

billmoyers.com

"Shortly after the decision was handed down, The Baptist Press, a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention — the biggest Evangelical organization in the US — ran an op-ed praising the ruling. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” read the January 31, 1973, piece by W. Barry Garrett, The Baptist Press’s Washington bureau chief.

Religious bodies and religious persons can continue to teach their own particular views to their constituents with all the vigor they desire. People whose conscience forbids abortion are not compelled by law to have abortions. They are free to practice their religion according to the tenets of their personal or corporate faith.
The reverse is also now true since the Supreme Court decision. Those whose conscience or religious convictions are not violated by abortion may not now be forbidden by a religious law to obtain an abortion if they so choose.

Garrett reassured his readers that the decision had been made not by “a Warren type or ‘liberal’ Supreme Court,” but “a ‘strict constructionist’ court, most of whose members have been appointed by President Nixon.”

Two days earlier, The Baptist Press profiled Linda Coffee, a Southern Baptist who was one of the two Texas attorneys who argued Roe before the Supreme Court. She told the paper that “the ruling does not relieve each individual of standing firmly behind his or her moral or religious viewpoint about what a person is or when life begins,” and worried that an “emotional reaction to the ruling will result in failure to distinguish between the legal principle of the decision and the moral implications now left to the doctor patient relationship.”

 

[theHawk]

Do you have to get permission from the state to go to the doctor?

Pretty much. Since in order to be a licensed doctor you need state approval.

 

[theHawk]

It's not two bodies until the baby is born according to one major religion.

Do women own their own bodies or does the Nanny State own part of their bodies now. Forcing women to be baby factories against their will. Help! It's the Nanny State.

Who is forcing them to get pregnant?

I‘ve noticed the usual suspects on social media blaming men for all their pregnancies. As if they had no choice in having sex? As if the woman doesn’t have the ability to use birth control?

 

[BlindBoo]

Who is forcing them to get pregnant?

I‘ve noticed the usual suspects on social media blaming men for all their pregnancies. As if they had no choice in having sex? As if the woman doesn’t have the ability to use birth control?

I blame that bitch, Mother Nature.

I had no choice in the sex. It was all up to her......maybe I'm wrong but I think that was the norm way back when.....

 

[MarathonMike]

The issue is not that the unborn are not the same as what the mother is, the question is, is the mother human?

For many on the Left, they are just animals, not human. They even admit as much

View attachment 662918

Wow that's says it all.

 

[peacefan]

The left keep calling abortion a “reproductive right”, and any restriction on abortion an attack on “reproductive rights”.

The definition of reproduction is as follows:

Definition of reproduction​

1: the act or process of reproducingspecifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual
2: something reproduced : COPY
3: young seedling trees in a forest

So as you can clearly see, reproduction is the act of making offspring.

Conception of a new human is reproduction, the creation of life is reproduction.

Abortion is the exact opposite of that. It is the intentional killing of the life that has already been created. Ending life is not reproduction. Thus, abortion is not a “reproductive right”.

No one is disputing that women have a “reproductive rights”. In other words, no one is outlawing or persecuting women for creating life. But abortion is not a reproductive act, thus it is not a “reproductive right”.

A woman who has gotten pregnant has already exercised her “reproductive rights”. She does not have “the right” to end that life.

with all respect, not everyone has the right or the luck to prevent a human baby growing in her womb.

some have real reason to need or want an abortion.

it is an infriction of their female human rights, specifically the part of their reproductive rights involving the raising and cost associated with that raising, OF a human child.

and fetusses or babies in the womb don't feel a thing about an abortion.
they will be recycled as souls by God, and put into a dream state in Heaven, from which they can try another incarnation, either at random, or as adult Angel or Spirit or Demon, deciding on who their next parents will be.

have faith in the Lord's wisdom and the realness of re-incarnation as a Divine concept, and your views on abortive rights (female human reproductive rights, raising of the offspring section) changes entirely, almost automatically, in favor of freedom of choice. The Ultimate Divine And Human Law.

 

[theHawk]

and fetusses or babies in the womb don't feel a thing about an abortion.

Absolute lie. They recoil when they get poked and pulled at. Abortion butchers literally tear them limb to limb until they die.

 

[flan327]

Of course you ignore the other "body" in the equation. Oh wait, it's just a parasite to you "Liberals", never mind.

Until it is BORN

It fits the definition of parasite

Capisch?

 

[flan327]

Absolute lie. They recoil when they get poked and pulled at. Abortion butchers literally tear them limb to limb until they die.

Nope

Saline injection

 

[theHawk]

Until it is BORN

It fits the definition of parasite

Capisch?

No it does not.

A parasite lives in or on a different species as it’s host.

 

[Missourian]

the decision did in the original intent was the liberty to do with one's body as one wishes

You can do with your body as you wish.

Abortion is a medical procedure... someone else is doing something to your body.

You couldn't have your health heart removed...and you can't have a healthy limb amputated.

How is this any different from that?

 

[buttercup]

Until it is BORN

It fits the definition of parasite

Capisch?

Demonstrably false, and a horrible thing to say about the most innocent among us.

Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite

1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
   
   
2. a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
   
   
3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite
   .
   b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
   
   
4. a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.)
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
   
   
5. a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
   
   b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
   
   
6. a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
   
   
7. b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
   
   
8. a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
   
   
9. a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

(This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.)

Source: http://www.l4l.org/l