Why those who are pro-life shouldn't support personhood bills

[AmyNation]

Soraya Chemaly: Three Videos Everyone Should See Before Voting

Yes I know, it's HP. However watch the vids anyway.

 

[AmyNation]

Now I'm wondering what the odds are of people actually watching those videos....

 

[courseofhistory]

I rarely watch vids because I'm hearing impaired. A synopsis of the video with the link would be great for people like me!

 

[Dick Tuck]

The extremist concept that legal personhood begins with conception, as Paul Ryan supports, means that anyone who uses fertility clinics, and in-vitro fertilization, and does not put those zygots up for adoption, is a criminal. Considering the amount of zygots that are simply flushed away, pales the number of abortions, that makes people who really want to have and raise a child, but can't quite build that on their own, murderers.

Will the GOP platform demand an icebox for all these unwanted "babies"?

 

[AmyNation]

I rarely watch vids because I'm hearing impaired. A synopsis of the video with the link would be great for people like me!

I didn't think of that, you're right

The 1st vid, to me says it all. It showcases women, each pregnant and how the hospitals attempted to use personhood like laws to force unwanted medical treatment on them because the rights of the fetus superseded that of the mother. Forced c-sections when the woman wanted a vaginal birth, forced hospital birth when at home deliver was wanted, even charging a woman with murder after her child was still-born because she didn't have the c-section the hospital wanted.

 

[Noomi]

I rarely watch vids because I'm hearing impaired. A synopsis of the video with the link would be great for people like me!

Same here. But I have the sound on super loud, lol.

 

[whitehall]

The extremist concept that legal personhood begins with conception, as Paul Ryan supports, means that anyone who uses fertility clinics, and in-vitro fertilization, and does not put those zygots up for adoption, is a criminal. Considering the amount of zygots that are simply flushed away, pales the number of abortions, that makes people who really want to have and raise a child, but can't quite build that on their own, murderers.

Will the GOP platform demand an icebox for all these unwanted "babies"?

You gotta wonder about the eugenic nazis who think it's fine to kill a full term baby as long as about three inches of his/her head is still in the birth canal. There is a special place in hell for people who promote monsters who make a living by turning the bodies of full term babies around in the birth canal causing a breach birth so that the radical left's concept of killing remains legal.

 

[AmyNation]

I think the most disturbing thing to me is that if the fetus has full rights, then who says the mothers rights supersede that of the child? Clearly in theses cases, the state felt the fetus came 1st.

 

[AmyNation]

The extremist concept that legal personhood begins with conception, as Paul Ryan supports, means that anyone who uses fertility clinics, and in-vitro fertilization, and does not put those zygots up for adoption, is a criminal. Considering the amount of zygots that are simply flushed away, pales the number of abortions, that makes people who really want to have and raise a child, but can't quite build that on their own, murderers.

Will the GOP platform demand an icebox for all these unwanted "babies"?

You gotta wonder about the eugenic nazis who think it's fine to kill a full term baby as long as about three inches of his/her head is still in the birth canal. There is a special place in hell for people who promote monsters who make a living by turning the bodies of full term babies around in the birth canal causing a breach birth so that the radical left's concept of killing remains legal.

That, is illegal in the united states, and yes, it's monstrous.

 

[Shelzin]

The extremist concept that legal personhood begins with conception, as Paul Ryan supports, means that anyone who uses fertility clinics, and in-vitro fertilization, and does not put those zygots up for adoption, is a criminal. Considering the amount of zygots that are simply flushed away, pales the number of abortions, that makes people who really want to have and raise a child, but can't quite build that on their own, murderers.

Will the GOP platform demand an icebox for all these unwanted "babies"?

You gotta wonder about the eugenic nazis who think it's fine to kill a full term baby as long as about three inches of his/her head is still in the birth canal. There is a special place in hell for people who promote monsters who make a living by turning the bodies of full term babies around in the birth canal causing a breach birth so that the radical left's concept of killing remains legal.

That, is illegal in the united states, and yes, it's monstrous.

Agreed.

 

[tinydancer]

Tiller could and he had his own crematorium. He was Sebelius's biggest donor.

 

[tinydancer]

I think the most disturbing thing to me is that if the fetus has full rights, then who says the mothers rights supersede that of the child? Clearly in theses cases, the state felt the fetus came 1st.

There is a case right now in Britain where the mother offed pardon me aborted her child within 2 weeks of the delivery date.

Tell me where are we allowed to draw the line? Are we allowed to draw the line at any given time because I'll tell you straight out there were freaking moments around 15 and 16 years where I would have fucking gone for it.

And my children knew it.

Seriously though, where do we draw the line?

 

[tinydancer]

Come on pro choicers.

You tell me.

When do you draw the line?

 

[AmyNation]

Come on pro choicers.

You tell me.

When do you draw the line?

The line has been pointed out, repeatedly. No one is advocating that a fetus past the 25th week should be aborted.

It is not a baby until it has gone through rapid brain development.


Now, would you like to comment on the videos? On the personhood movement? Which I think it's very separate from the pro-life movement.


Edit to add - I would even be comfortable reassessing the laws and drawing the line to sometime around the 14th week. However you can't have compromise on the issue, because both sides become too entrenched in their own feelings to see the others point of view.

 

[Shelzin]

I think the most disturbing thing to me is that if the fetus has full rights, then who says the mothers rights supersede that of the child? Clearly in theses cases, the state felt the fetus came 1st.

There is a case right now in Britain where the mother offed pardon me aborted her child within 2 weeks of the delivery date.

I'm pro-choice... but that is bullshit.

Tell me where are we allowed to draw the line? Are we allowed to draw the line at any given time because I'll tell you straight out there were freaking moments around 15 and 16 years where I would have fucking gone for it.

And my children knew it.

Seriously though, where do we draw the line?

LOL

I personally draw the line at the Rapid Brain Development stage... It's the first sign, in my opinion, of a person being born. Which is right about 25 weeks. The body was there the first six months, then a person was born in that body. That's my hard line you cannot abort after that. You can get it removed for whatever reason... But the person must be given every opportunity to survive.

 

[Shelzin]

Come on pro choicers.

You tell me.

When do you draw the line?

Give me minute darlin... I was typing... LOL

 

[martybegan]

Come on pro choicers.

You tell me.

When do you draw the line?

The line has been pointed out, repeatedly. No one is advocating that a fetus past the 25th week should be aborted.

It is not a baby until it has gone through rapid brain development.


Now, would you like to comment on the videos? On the personhood movement? Which I think it's very separate from the pro-life movement.


Edit to add - I would even be comfortable reassessing the laws and drawing the line to sometime around the 14th week. However you can't have compromise on the issue, because both sides become too entrenched in their own feelings to see the others point of view.

its only the parts of each side that are the most vocal that are not able to compromise.

I still think we need to throw this back to the legislatures, both state (preferred) and federal (not preferred). Roe v. Wade has kept this crap festering with no real solution to the conflict.

I always find it amazing how books on war can relate to general politics. Clauswitz always talked about a resolution to the conflict being the only real peace. Peace without resolution just leads to a breather where both sides gear up for the next round.

Roe V. Wade was a victory for the abortion rights side, but it did not resolve the conflict.

 

[Shelzin]

Come on pro choicers.

You tell me.

When do you draw the line?

The line has been pointed out, repeatedly. No one is advocating that a fetus past the 25th week should be aborted.

It is not a baby until it has gone through rapid brain development.


Now, would you like to comment on the videos? On the personhood movement? Which I think it's very separate from the pro-life movement.


Edit to add - I would even be comfortable reassessing the laws and drawing the line to sometime around the 14th week. However you can't have compromise on the issue, because both sides become too entrenched in their own feelings to see the others point of view.

Same here... Although I usually use 16 week. I don't have a problem with it up to the 25th week... But for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would need more than 4 months to figure it out if it's not a medical problem.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 1st vid, to me says it all. It showcases women, each pregnant and how the hospitals attempted to use personhood like laws to force unwanted medical treatment on them because the rights of the fetus superseded that of the mother. Forced c-sections when the woman wanted a vaginal birth, forced hospital birth when at home deliver was wanted, even charging a woman with murder after her child was still-born because she didn't have the c-section the hospital wanted.

And the above is why ‘personhood laws’ are invalidated by the courts, because they clearly violate the woman’s right to privacy and choice.

Come on pro choicers.

You tell me.

When do you draw the line?

It’s not the place of those ‘pro-choice’ or ‘anti-choice’ to make such a decision, the private citizen herself makes the decision as to where to draw the line based upon her beliefs and situation – she certainly knows better than the state.

I still think we need to throw this back to the legislatures, both state (preferred) and federal (not preferred). Roe v. Wade has kept this crap festering with no real solution to the conflict.

One’s civil liberties are not determined by majority rule; the United States is a Republic, not a democracy, its citizens subject only to the rule of law. The above would also be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as citizens in some states or jurisdictions would have their privacy rights and some not; whether or not one has his civil liberties is not determined by his state of residence.

Roe V. Wade was a victory for the abortion rights side, but it did not resolve the conflict.

Roe was a victory for all Americans, it placed restrictions on government excess and reaffirmed the individual’s right to privacy.

 

[AmyNation]

Come on pro choicers.

You tell me.

When do you draw the line?

The line has been pointed out, repeatedly. No one is advocating that a fetus past the 25th week should be aborted.

It is not a baby until it has gone through rapid brain development.


Now, would you like to comment on the videos? On the personhood movement? Which I think it's very separate from the pro-life movement.


Edit to add - I would even be comfortable reassessing the laws and drawing the line to sometime around the 14th week. However you can't have compromise on the issue, because both sides become too entrenched in their own feelings to see the others point of view.

its only the parts of each side that are the most vocal that are not able to compromise.

I still think we need to throw this back to the legislatures, both state (preferred) and federal (not preferred). Roe v. Wade has kept this crap festering with no real solution to the conflict.

I always find it amazing how books on war can relate to general politics. Clauswitz always talked about a resolution to the conflict being the only real peace. Peace without resolution just leads to a breather where both sides gear up for the next round.

Roe V. Wade was a victory for the abortion rights side, but it did not resolve the conflict.

I can't say I think that would solve the issue. I think we'd end up with more conflict. There are states right now that have all but banned abortion, Mississippi is the 1st that comes to mind.

Allowing states to decide what's human and what's not? Pandoras box IMO.