Religoius Extremism + Conservative GOP Governors = Forced Pregnancy Slavery

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you holding yourself up as an example? Because it is pretty evident that you are inventing a scientific fact and invoking scientific knowledge that does not exist.

Actually, I've never done anything of the sort. Hopefully, you'll be able to understand that a little better here.

The honest doctors and scientists admit that they have no idea when life begins. There are 4 distinct moments that can be used to chart the beginning of human life.

This has been the crux of my arguments regarding the abortion debate. Many people will claim there is some kind of definitive evidence about this. One person I recall even going so far as to make the stupid claim that the medical field and scientists have "proven" that there is no difference between a cell, tissue, and an organism. My basic argument has always been that since there is no meaningful scientific answer provided, people must be free to draw their own conclusions. If one person seeks the guidance of their faith, that is their prerogative. If another person uses some other guide, then that is also their prerogative.



All of these guiding points, if you will, have their own merits and flaws. The SCOTUS relied on the viability point, and I find that a reasonable one for guiding legality issues, as it protects the rights of individuals to make their own decisions on the matter.



See, this is where the dishonesty comes in. When has anyone ever said that a woman should have the right to an abortion up to the moment before "natural" birth?

Most pro choice people do not know this, and are offended by the term pro abortion.

This is ludicrous. You claim that the whole "crowd" embraces a line of thinking, and then turn around and claim that most do not know they embrace it. That doesn't even make any sense.

that does not change the fact that this is the stance of the pro abortion crowd, and that they are the ones that are ignoring science.

Like I said, an honest discussion cannot be had about the subject, because most people will insist on framing the discussion in terms that presume their own view to be accurate. You profess to know what every pro-choice person thinks. You've put those words into my mouth, even, when I have never made such statements and in fact have consistently explained my position otherwise. But you're going to always start off with the presumption that fuels your own position, and will never be able to have an honest discussion, unless you eventually put aside your dogma.

I do not have to lie to make my point. I would also like to point out, again, that I specifically differentiated between pro choice and pro abortion. That means that you are the one that is insisting on changing the terms of the discussion.

Abortion on demand is something that some pro abortions activists insist on, and NARAL routinely opposes late term (post viability) abortions. They strongly support the woman's right to get an abortion even if there is no threat to her health in the third trimester.

Abortion on Demand - Feminism Definition of Abortion on Demand

Schauer, Mark :: NARAL Pro-Choice America

I would also like to point out that you are completely wrong about the law, and what SCOTUS has said,

Judge Sotomayor and Abortion on Demand: A Tutorial « Public Discourse

Current precedent require states to allow abortions at any point during the pregnancy if it affects a woman's health. States have been trying to eat away at that since Roe v Wade, and have repeatedly been shot down. The fact that you are completely unaware of this simple fact shows just how successful the pro abortion crowd has been at obscuring the facts and shaping the debate.

Open you eyes and look at the real world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

it cant protect an individual by suspending ot violating someone elses right

if a baby has SEPARATE rights from the mother the mothers "right" to do her body as she is wont to do is not superceeded by the baby " wanting" to be born - ie the baby cant insist the mother birth it - noone can do that not even the govt not the dad not the grandparents not the ice-cream man - noone

no person no govt no entity no body other than a woman whose pregnant gets to say " hey you gotta have this kid because although you may not want him/her , i do "- no person including the baby has such a right

you wanna kid give birth to em yourself - and if you are a baby in a womb you dont get to demand someone birth you.

It can't?

I am pretty sure that if I were committing a murder somewhere the government could ignore my right to privacy, my Fourth Amendment right to a warrant, and even my right to live in order to prevent it. Or did police suddenly lose the right to use deadly force in the defense of others at some point?

Your argument needs to be refined a bit, it does not hold up to reality.

getting an abortion ISNT murder

murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of someone elses life

so for your little scenario to exist

first the law would have to recognize a fetus or baby inutero as separate from the mother ( which it doesnt )

then youd have to get the court to believe that
a) a fetuses or in utero babies "wants" can be presumed by someone other than the mother
b) that the court recognize extended and limiting the motehrs "rights" at the expense of the other person ( or baby)
c) that some kind of structure to inform on pregnant women will be in place to actually enforce such a "ban"

i mean really what are you gonna do if a woman gets an abortion?

shoot her?

kill her?

how about if she goes to another country and gets an abortion?

ah i could go on but already the ridiculousness of anti abortioninsts is apparent

its setting up a system so intrusive no one who belives in indivudal freedom could have any truck with it

I did not say that abortion is murder, I pointed out that the state has the power to infringe on my rights to protect someone else. That was solely to refute your argument that they could not do that.

By the way, even if we are talking about abortion, the state has the power to infringe on a woman's rights, as long as it does not place an undue burden on her. Requiring counseling is perfectly legal, even though it infringes on her constitutional rights.

Like I said, your argument does not mesh with reality. You need to refine it, not get mad at me because I actually understand the applicable law.

 

[newpolitics]

I've come to see that there is little point is having a discussion on this board about abortion, as most people on this board on either side of the issue are incapable of discussing the matter honestly. They'll just try to frame the issue in terms that presume their perspective to be right, and then try to invent scientific facts or invoke scientific knowledge and understand to which they are not actually privy.

Are you holding yourself up as an example? Because it is pretty evident that you are inventing a scientific fact and invoking scientific knowledge that does not exist.

The honest doctors and scientists admit that they have no idea when life begins. There are 4 distinct moments that can be used to chart the beginning of human life.

The first is conception. This is not generally accepted, but there is nothing we can point to to disprove it.

The second is the point of gastrulation, which occurs about 14 days after conception. This is the point where twinning can no longer occur.

The third is when an EEG is detectable, and occurs about 24 to 27 weeks after conception. This is the one that I believe most doctors are comfortable with.

The fourth is at or near birth, and is fetal viability. This is the one that SCOTUS came down with in Roe v Wade.

The strange thing is that the pro abortion crowd has chosen to ignore all of these possibilities and unilaterally decided that life begins after birth. They insist that every woman has a right to abortion on demand at any point during their pregnancy, even during labor.

Most pro choice people do not know this, and are offended by the term pro abortion. that does not change the fact that this is the stance of the pro abortion crowd, and that they are the ones that are ignoring science.

I literally don't know a single pro-choicer who thinks late-term abortions are okay. I don't know where you are getting your information from. It doesn't make sense to think that baby isn't a person all the way up until birth, and I doubt anyone actually believes that, but you seem to know that all 'pro-abortioners' do think this. Provide a link or something before saying such ridiculous things.

 

[FreeWorld]

I hear and read the "baby killing" term from anti-abortionists a lot - but it is totally wrong!

It is not a "baby".

A fertilized egg is not "a baby"... no more than an apple blossom is an apple.


It may have the potential to become that but it is not certain - it can always be miscarried (GOD's abortion).

Nor is a zygote-(1-2 weeks), an embryo-(2-8 weeks) or a fetus-(9-22 weeks) actually "a baby" because they are not viable as human beings yet.

After all, the state only issues "Birth Certificates" not conception certificates or pregnancy certificates.

Even the church does not baptise a fertilized egg or a fetus because it is not a person yet.

So if it's not "a person" it can't be murder or have "rights" as a person.


A woman won't figure out she is pregnant till about 4 weeks (embryo stage) - about the time of a missed period.

An embryo looks nothing like a human and is only the size of a sesame seed. >

At 8 weeks — it's only about the size of a kidney bean.

So between 4 to 8 weeks if a woman who knows she is pregnant and did not plan the pregnancy and does not want to be pregnant -- she will typically decide to get an elective abortion at this early stage of an embryo which does not even look like "a baby" or have a defined sex yet as oppose to wait till a later stage letting it get bigger.


But here's the big reality check...


Most abortions are performed during the Embryo Stage at 4 to 8 weeks!

So all those oversized pictures of near-term baby-fetuses anti-abortionists use are deceptive and false because most woman don't wait months so they can abort huge nearly term fetuses unless it has already died inside their womb.

Anti-abortionist know this happens and take false photos of "still births" and pass them off as typical abortions when they are not.


The women who chooses to abort closer to 22 weeks usually do so for health reasons:

* The fetus has already died inside the womb and has to be removed to preserve the health of the woman.

* Save the life of the pregnant woman or preserve the woman's physical health
due to complications such as:

Cervical insufficiency
Chronic hypertension during pregnancy
Ectopic pregnancy
Excessive amniotic fluid (hydramnios or polyhydramnios)
Gestational diabetes
Gestational hypertension (pregnancy-induced hypertension)
Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR)
Iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy
Low amniotic fluid (oligohydramnios)
Placenta previa
Placental abruption
Preeclampsia


* Terminate pregnancy that would result in a child born with a congenital disorder that would be fatal or associated with significant morbidity
or
selectively reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy.

Even at 22 weeks a fetus is not considered a person or viable as a human able to live outside the womb.

 

[Wingsofwind]

FreeWord, some people actually believe that once a woman conceives the fertile egg is a living thing separate from the mother. Though it needs the mother to survive, it is not part of her. It is it's own being. An undeveloped being, but still a being.

The father's sperm is alive to themselves and once one enters the egg it begins to grow inside the egg. The start of life could be argued to begin when the sperm is made in the father's loins.

The father's sperm gives the baby it's sex. Thus the sex of the 'zygote' HAS already been determined. Just because WE can not tell yet don't mean it is not already determined.

There has been children that were prematurely born and survived. Would you say that all babies that are not yet born during the same time these babies were are not 'babies' yet? Please, also, keep in mind that the Gestational age is the number of weeks that the baby has been in the uterus and is counted from the last menstrual period NOT consumption.

Jill Stanek - World's youngest surviving baby born in Miami

James Elgin Gill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This one is heart breaking:
Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Mail Online

... they are not viable as human beings yet.

Who dictates this? The government? A Judge? The Doctor? You?
Just because the 'Government' does not give out a piece of paper for 'consumption' or 'pregnancy' does not mean anything. BTW, they give out birth certificates for babies that were "surgically' removed from the mother.

FreeWord:

"The women who chooses to abort closer to 22 weeks usually do so for health reasons"

Not many have abortions because of health reasons. And only 5% of women have an abortion closer to 22 weeks:

At what gestational ages are abortions performed:
52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Abortion Statistics

The very few that do it due to health reasons or even rape or incest should not be the basis of the argument on keeping abortion legal. These are situations that can be determined by a Doctor or health specialist and should be an option ONLY based on these three and what can come from them. This could be kept legal without too much objection.

If a child is unwanted or an inconvenience to the mother then the mother should keep herself from getting pregnant in the first place whether it be by birthcontrol, condom, or keeping from having sex at all. If she is so irresponsible for not doing so then she should have to deal with the outcome of her actions. Same as if she is too irresponsible to keep a job, she would have to deal with being without income which is an unwanted or inconvenience situation also. Should she get a free ride in life just because keeping a job is too inconvenient to her?

 

[editec]

Don't like abortions?

Don't have one.​

Pretty easy, really.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Personally I'm pro choice, but I don't want my pro choice view forced on others. I want it to be a state issue and let each state determine it.

The only part of the debate I don't like are when those on the other side play the "holier than thou" card. Typically these are people who couldn't care less how many babies are killed by wars they approve of, but all of a sudden care deeply when it comes to the abortion issue. With that thought in mind it leaves me cynical that many people aren't overly worried about the saving the baby stuff they say, it's more about forcing a religious view on an entire population that matters most.

 

[misteroboto]

It can't?

I am pretty sure that if I were committing a murder somewhere the government could ignore my right to privacy, my Fourth Amendment right to a warrant, and even my right to live in order to prevent it. Or did police suddenly lose the right to use deadly force in the defense of others at some point?

Your argument needs to be refined a bit, it does not hold up to reality.

getting an abortion ISNT murder

murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of someone elses life

so for your little scenario to exist

first the law would have to recognize a fetus or baby inutero as separate from the mother ( which it doesnt )

then youd have to get the court to believe that
a) a fetuses or in utero babies "wants" can be presumed by someone other than the mother
b) that the court recognize extended and limiting the motehrs "rights" at the expense of the other person ( or baby)
c) that some kind of structure to inform on pregnant women will be in place to actually enforce such a "ban"

i mean really what are you gonna do if a woman gets an abortion?

shoot her?

kill her?

how about if she goes to another country and gets an abortion?

ah i could go on but already the ridiculousness of anti abortioninsts is apparent

its setting up a system so intrusive no one who belives in indivudal freedom could have any truck with it

I did not say that abortion is murder, I pointed out that the state has the power to infringe on my rights to protect someone else. That was solely to refute your argument that they could not do that.

By the way, even if we are talking about abortion, the state has the power to infringe on a woman's rights, as long as it does not place an undue burden on her. Requiring counseling is perfectly legal, even though it infringes on her constitutional rights.

Like I said, your argument does not mesh with reality. You need to refine it, not get mad at me because I actually understand the applicable law.

the state can do that - but the statelaw and govt doesnt view a fetus/infant in utero as "someone else"

also you offered up an illegal act murder( illegal ) isnt the same as abortion ( legal ) - so your comparison of what the state can or cant do is way off the mark -

the court has said that were a fetus to have an actual "right" separate from the mother - it ( the fetus) still couldnt limit or impinge on the right of a woman decide to terminate a pregnancy - a woman doesnt have LESS rights simply because she is pregnant.

additionally acting in any interest ( of the fetus) in contravention of the mother is a presumption that the state has no precedent for - the state cant come in a say you have to get an voluntary operation ( ie compel you ) because its acting in the interest of what it thinks some other person may want.

abortion is a volutary procedure - its the act of terminating a pregnancy and regardless of what others may feel or think about it its the sole decision of the person making it- noone is compelling a woman to get an abortion -

this is all stated in Blackmuns commentary in Roe

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've come to see that there is little point is having a discussion on this board about abortion, as most people on this board on either side of the issue are incapable of discussing the matter honestly. They'll just try to frame the issue in terms that presume their perspective to be right, and then try to invent scientific facts or invoke scientific knowledge and understand to which they are not actually privy.

Are you holding yourself up as an example? Because it is pretty evident that you are inventing a scientific fact and invoking scientific knowledge that does not exist.

The honest doctors and scientists admit that they have no idea when life begins. There are 4 distinct moments that can be used to chart the beginning of human life.

The first is conception. This is not generally accepted, but there is nothing we can point to to disprove it.

The second is the point of gastrulation, which occurs about 14 days after conception. This is the point where twinning can no longer occur.

The third is when an EEG is detectable, and occurs about 24 to 27 weeks after conception. This is the one that I believe most doctors are comfortable with.

The fourth is at or near birth, and is fetal viability. This is the one that SCOTUS came down with in Roe v Wade.

The strange thing is that the pro abortion crowd has chosen to ignore all of these possibilities and unilaterally decided that life begins after birth. They insist that every woman has a right to abortion on demand at any point during their pregnancy, even during labor.

Most pro choice people do not know this, and are offended by the term pro abortion. that does not change the fact that this is the stance of the pro abortion crowd, and that they are the ones that are ignoring science.

I literally don't know a single pro-choicer who thinks late-term abortions are okay. I don't know where you are getting your information from. It doesn't make sense to think that baby isn't a person all the way up until birth, and I doubt anyone actually believes that, but you seem to know that all 'pro-abortioners' do think this. Provide a link or something before saying such ridiculous things.

I got my information from the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) website. The fact that you do not look around and see the world as it is does not make it into something it isn't, there are people who are pro abortion, and putting the words into quotes does not change the facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the state can do that - but the statelaw and govt doesnt view a fetus/infant in utero as "someone else"

And state laws used to determine civil rights based on the color of a person's skin. That was wrong, yet legal. I feel the same way about abortion as you do about slavery. Just because it is legal does not mean it is right.

also you offered up an illegal act murder( illegal ) isnt the same as abortion ( legal ) - so your comparison of what the state can or cant do is way off the mark -

You flat out stated that the government cannot infringe on constitutional rights to protect someone's life. You were wrong, just admit it, trying to parse your position in an attempt to prove that I do not know what I am talking about, when I clearly do, makes you look both petty and stupid.

the court has said that were a fetus to have an actual "right" separate from the mother - it ( the fetus) still couldnt limit or impinge on the right of a woman decide to terminate a pregnancy - a woman doesnt have LESS rights simply because she is pregnant.

additionally acting in any interest ( of the fetus) in contravention of the mother is a presumption that the state has no precedent for - the state cant come in a say you have to get an voluntary operation ( ie compel you ) because its acting in the interest of what it thinks some other person may want.

No it did not. In fact, the court specifically allowed states to criminalize abortions in the third trimester, thus giving the states the power to give a fetus separate legal standing from the mother.

abortion is a volutary procedure - its the act of terminating a pregnancy and regardless of what others may feel or think about it its the sole decision of the person making it- noone is compelling a woman to get an abortion -

this is all stated in Blackmuns commentary in Roe

All of which is irrelevant to the points we are actually discussing. You are trying to convince me that forcing a woman to get an abortion is illegal when I have never said that it was legal. Are you just incredibly confused, or do you think that I will be confused by you changing the subject and start arguing about the states power to force people to do things they do not want to?

 

[High_Gravity]

You know what, if a man or woman leads a life style that revolves around drugs, alcohol, sex and constant partying and has absolutely no desire to have a child, maybe they should just go in and get a vasectomy or get their tubes tied?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Has anyone here defined "life"?

 

[newpolitics]

Are you holding yourself up as an example? Because it is pretty evident that you are inventing a scientific fact and invoking scientific knowledge that does not exist.

The honest doctors and scientists admit that they have no idea when life begins. There are 4 distinct moments that can be used to chart the beginning of human life.

The first is conception. This is not generally accepted, but there is nothing we can point to to disprove it.

The second is the point of gastrulation, which occurs about 14 days after conception. This is the point where twinning can no longer occur.

The third is when an EEG is detectable, and occurs about 24 to 27 weeks after conception. This is the one that I believe most doctors are comfortable with.

The fourth is at or near birth, and is fetal viability. This is the one that SCOTUS came down with in Roe v Wade.

The strange thing is that the pro abortion crowd has chosen to ignore all of these possibilities and unilaterally decided that life begins after birth. They insist that every woman has a right to abortion on demand at any point during their pregnancy, even during labor.

Most pro choice people do not know this, and are offended by the term pro abortion. that does not change the fact that this is the stance of the pro abortion crowd, and that they are the ones that are ignoring science.

I literally don't know a single pro-choicer who thinks late-term abortions are okay. I don't know where you are getting your information from. It doesn't make sense to think that baby isn't a person all the way up until birth, and I doubt anyone actually believes that, but you seem to know that all 'pro-abortioners' do think this. Provide a link or something before saying such ridiculous things.

I got my information from the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) website. The fact that you do not look around and see the world as it is does not make it into something it isn't, there are people who are pro abortion, and putting the words into quotes does not change the facts.

You are looking at facts gotten from the NARAL as gospel and as the 'way the world is around us.' Because I do not see the NARAL view of the world, I am not seeing the world clearly? you are using statistics from an organization that is trying to make a case for pro-life, of course their information is biased, just a little...

It's common sense man. Nobody actually belives that magically, once the baby comes out, it is alive, but before that, it is not. I am pretty sure most everyone on this planet would consider it murder to abort a late-term fetus that is practically fully formed. A bunch of cells formed together is not a baby, or a conscious thing. Sorry. That is different. Can we just be fucking real for a second, and stop being so fake and corny about this shit?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I literally don't know a single pro-choicer who thinks late-term abortions are okay. I don't know where you are getting your information from. It doesn't make sense to think that baby isn't a person all the way up until birth, and I doubt anyone actually believes that, but you seem to know that all 'pro-abortioners' do think this. Provide a link or something before saying such ridiculous things.

I got my information from the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) website. The fact that you do not look around and see the world as it is does not make it into something it isn't, there are people who are pro abortion, and putting the words into quotes does not change the facts.

You are looking at facts gotten from the NARAL as gospel and as the 'way the world is around us.' Because I do not see the NARAL view of the world, I am not seeing the world clearly? you are using statistics from an organization that is trying to make a case for pro-life, of course their information is biased, just a little...

It's common sense man. Nobody actually belives that magically, once the baby comes out, it is alive, but before that, it is not. I am pretty sure most everyone on this planet would consider it murder to abort a late-term fetus that is practically fully formed. A bunch of cells formed together is not a baby, or a conscious thing. Sorry. That is different. Can we just be fucking real for a second, and stop being so fake and corny about this shit?

Most scientists would argue that a newborn baby is not a conscious thing. That actually brings up a point that I was going to avoid, but I think you need to learn that the world is a lot more complicated than you think it is.

There are people that argue that life does not begin until a child is about 18 months old.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Awareness View
There is a sixth view of life promoted by some philosophers. They believe that neither a fetus nor an infant is a human being because it does not possess a consciousness of itself. In the article "Abortion and Infanticide," Michael Tooley argues that abortion and infanticide are both acceptable because life does not begin until the human child gains self-awareness. This generally occurs around 18 months after birth.[/FONT]

When Life Begins

Your fucking idea of common sense is irrelevant to the truth.

The truth is that some people do say exactly what I said they say, and that some go even further. I am not trying to paint everyone with the same brush. If I were I would make everyone that supports abortion into supporters of infanticide.

Yes, NARAL is biased, that was my point from the beginning.

No, I am not being corny, you are. You are the one that is trying to argue that no one says life begins at conception.

https://misanthropicscott.wordpress...ds-christians-unanimous-life-begins-at-birth/

What She Said!: MediaGirl: Life begins at Birth - duh!

You are the one that is embarrassing yourself.

Science cannot answer the question about when life begins, and may never be able to do so. All arguments about when it begins, of even what it is, are equally valid scientifically. The question can only be answered through an individuals morals and through societies laws. I have a strong opinion on when that is, and am not ashamed to state my belief that life begins at conception, just like others have a strong opinion about it and are not ashamed to state that life begins at birth.

If your opinion is that it actually happens somewhere in between those two points, that is fine with me. I won't try to tell you your position is invalid.

Do me a favor and do not tell me that everyone I have ever met who told me that life begins at birth do not exist. You need to meet more people.

 

[misteroboto]

the state can do that - but the statelaw and govt doesnt view a fetus/infant in utero as "someone else"

And state laws used to determine civil rights based on the color of a person's skin. That was wrong, yet legal. I feel the same way about abortion as you do about slavery. Just because it is legal does not mean it is right.

also you offered up an illegal act murder( illegal ) isnt the same as abortion ( legal ) - so your comparison of what the state can or cant do is way off the mark -

You flat out stated that the government cannot infringe on constitutional rights to protect someone's life. You were wrong, just admit it, trying to parse your position in an attempt to prove that I do not know what I am talking about, when I clearly do, makes you look both petty and stupid.

the court has said that were a fetus to have an actual "right" separate from the mother - it ( the fetus) still couldnt limit or impinge on the right of a woman decide to terminate a pregnancy - a woman doesnt have LESS rights simply because she is pregnant.

additionally acting in any interest ( of the fetus) in contravention of the mother is a presumption that the state has no precedent for - the state cant come in a say you have to get an voluntary operation ( ie compel you ) because its acting in the interest of what it thinks some other person may want.

No it did not. In fact, the court specifically allowed states to criminalize abortions in the third trimester, thus giving the states the power to give a fetus separate legal standing from the mother.

abortion is a volutary procedure - its the act of terminating a pregnancy and regardless of what others may feel or think about it its the sole decision of the person making it- noone is compelling a woman to get an abortion -

this is all stated in Blackmuns commentary in Roe

All of which is irrelevant to the points we are actually discussing. You are trying to convince me that forcing a woman to get an abortion is illegal when I have never said that it was legal. Are you just incredibly confused, or do you think that I will be confused by you changing the subject and start arguing about the states power to force people to do things they do not want to?

states dont determine civil rights - federal law covers civil rights - so while thrid trimester abortions may be illegal in SOME states abortion cant be made illegal by a state because federal law states a woman must be able to get one. the reason she is able to get one is because the states interest has been determined to be insignifigant compared to the individuals real interest.

the federal court has said that it cant ( and wont) suspend someone elses Constitutional right in the ASSUMPTION that it is protecting some other persons Constitutional right. you keep involking real actual deprivations as if they are comparable to the supposed deprivation which is what you are alleging- that a fetus

a) has separate rights ( which the court has not recognized at all yet and would have to happen before..)

b) has a "right to be born" , a right which the court has not recognized at all, let alone given to another person or entity to have sway over someone elses Constitutionally protected decision.

i wasnt trying to convince you that the state forcing a women to get an abortion is illegal -
we all know that - but the same reason the state ( and some other person ) cannot force someone to get an abortion is the same reason it cant force someone to remain pregnant- it deprives the individual of their liberty to make decisions for themselves

you can CLAIM a fetus has a Right like any other individual but at best is JUST a claim, federal law would have to recognize the fetus as a individual ( which it doesnt ) thats the current reality

as for what MIGHT happen IF that recognition ever did occur the precedent for the court has been to side with the person giving birth; the court has said that giving birth is an individual decision and that the individual who is giving birth can decide to not give birth despite what some other entity may desire.

the supposition and substitution of desire about what a fetus wants isnt enough to deprive the mother who can definitely state what she wants...so again you wind right back up where you started - the woman still gets to decide to terminate and thats protected.

lastly comparing birth to race is like comparing horses to playing a game of tag - ie there isnt any comparison

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the state can do that - but the statelaw and govt doesnt view a fetus/infant in utero as "someone else"

And state laws used to determine civil rights based on the color of a person's skin. That was wrong, yet legal. I feel the same way about abortion as you do about slavery. Just because it is legal does not mean it is right.



You flat out stated that the government cannot infringe on constitutional rights to protect someone's life. You were wrong, just admit it, trying to parse your position in an attempt to prove that I do not know what I am talking about, when I clearly do, makes you look both petty and stupid.



No it did not. In fact, the court specifically allowed states to criminalize abortions in the third trimester, thus giving the states the power to give a fetus separate legal standing from the mother.

abortion is a volutary procedure - its the act of terminating a pregnancy and regardless of what others may feel or think about it its the sole decision of the person making it- noone is compelling a woman to get an abortion -

this is all stated in Blackmuns commentary in Roe

All of which is irrelevant to the points we are actually discussing. You are trying to convince me that forcing a woman to get an abortion is illegal when I have never said that it was legal. Are you just incredibly confused, or do you think that I will be confused by you changing the subject and start arguing about the states power to force people to do things they do not want to?

states dont determine civil rights - federal law covers civil rights - so while thrid trimester abortions may be illegal in SOME states abortion cant be made illegal by a state because federal law states a woman must be able to get one. the reason she is able to get one is because the states interest has been determined to be insignifigant compared to the individuals real interest.

the federal court has said that it cant ( and wont) suspend someone elses Constitutional right in the ASSUMPTION that it is protecting some other persons Constitutional right. you keep involking real actual deprivations as if they are comparable to the supposed deprivation which is what you are alleging- that a fetus

a) has separate rights ( which the court has not recognized at all yet and would have to happen before..)

b) has a "right to be born" , a right which the court has not recognized at all, let alone given to another person or entity to have sway over someone elses Constitutionally protected decision.

i wasnt trying to convince you that the state forcing a women to get an abortion is illegal -
we all know that - but the same reason the state ( and some other person ) cannot force someone to get an abortion is the same reason it cant force someone to remain pregnant- it deprives the individual of their liberty to make decisions for themselves

you can CLAIM a fetus has a Right like any other individual but at best is JUST a claim, federal law would have to recognize the fetus as a individual ( which it doesnt ) thats the current reality

as for what MIGHT happen IF that recognition ever did occur the precedent for the court has been to side with the person giving birth; the court has said that giving birth is an individual decision and that the individual who is giving birth can decide to not give birth despite what some other entity may desire.

the supposition and substitution of desire about what a fetus wants isnt enough to deprive the mother who can definitely state what she wants...so again you wind right back up where you started - the woman still gets to decide to terminate and thats protected.

lastly comparing birth to race is like comparing horses to playing a game of tag - ie there isnt any comparison

The state cannot force me to get medical treatment. It can, however, force a parent to provide medical treatment for a child, even if that treatment violates their religious beliefs.

The rest of your post is meaningless blather because you completely miss the point.