Abortion and the 14th Amendment - Just Who are Persons?

[schmidlap]

Abortion in Europe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Total ban or prohibited
Only available in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother
Legal to 10 weeks
Legal to 11 weeks
Legal to 12 weeks
Legal to 13 weeks (3 months)
Legal to 14 weeks
Legal to 18 weeks
Legal to 20 weeks
Legal to 24 weeks (5½ months)
Legal to 12–28 weeks
12 weeks, can be performed later if authorised
10 weeks, can be performed later if authorised
12 weeks, elective procedure
Must be approved by committee

95% of European women of reproductive age live in countries which allow elective abortions or for broad socioeconomic reasons.

[European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview | Center for Reproductive Rights]

 

[schmidlap]

​

1. I'm not talking about "the moment of conception".. Here in Florida abortion is allowed up until 12 weeks, and there are a few exceptions to this rule, including cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger. But leave it up to liberals to spin the issue into extremes that nobody here is talking about. Ho hum.

Near-total abortion ban in Indiana passes GOP-controlled Senate​

Whether you can honestly admit it, they're out there.

2. And no abortion should NOT be left to "the woman and her doctor".. They are only 2 players in the scenario. The 3rd player (and most important) is the fetus, represented by anti-abortion activists.

Your preference that authoritarian bureaucrats and politicians dictate is very unpopular in America. Self-appointed fetus guardians do not dictate, either.

3. Hardly matters what a laughable Democrat poll (ABC/Wapo), answered only by Democrats says.

Strike 1.....Strike 2.....Strike 3.

According to Gallup's May 2022 update on Americans' abortion views, 35% of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal "under any circumstances," 50% say it should be legal "only under certain circumstances" and 13% say it should be illegal in all circumstances.

You can contrive no survey of Americans in which your statist view is popular. The U.S. is not Iraq, Honduras, or Nicaragua.

 

[schmidlap]

Not only are they indifferent to the fetus...

Babies could be killed 28 days after birth under proposed Maryland law, attorney warns - LifeSite

Senate Bill 669 could be interpreted to allow for infanticide through the first month after the baby is born, a legal analyst says.

www.lifesitenews.com

California Bill Would Allow Killing Babies in Infanticide Up to 28 Days After Birth - LifeNews.com

California policymakers who make up the “Future of Abortion Council” just dropped a bombshell. They intend to not only codify the killing of unborn children throughout all nine months of pregnancy but to decriminalize killing newborns days or even weeks after birth. New language added to AB 2223...

www.lifenews.com

Your authoritarian propaganda is worthless, your nonsense that spiritual advisers are indifferent to fetuses silly. Your desire that authoritarian politians and bureaucrats seize control of wombs rather than respect women free to consult with medical and spiritual advisers and loved ones abhorrent to those who respect personal freedom.

Roe v Wade, supported by a large majority of Americans, did not dictate indifference to fetuses.

 

[Cassandro]

The right to life does NOT include being able to infringe upon the rights or desires of anyone else.
So if a fetus were a person and had full rights, the fetus would still have no right to be a parasite on a woman's body, if she does not want it.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Have you ever heard the phrase "Any port in a storm?" What do you think that refers to? How about "an inalienable right to life?" Every person has a right to defend his/her life, up to the point of killing or seriously injuring another person. Even killing in self-defense is justified under the law. Your legal reasoning is nonexistent.

 

[whitehall]

It's always been the argument of the baby killers and their minions in the democrat party that if a full term baby was three or four inches away from a successful birth and a portion of it's head was still in the birth canal it is "legal" to stab it in the back of the head and suck out it's brain because it is technically not a "person". Strangely enough the former democrat governor of Va. gave a rambling speech in support of abortion when he said "the baby would be made comfortable while the parents and the doctor decide". What does that mean? Use your imagination.

 

[Curried Goats]

Oh how sophisticated these liberals (think they) are. As the pattern continues, Curried goats again tosses out strawmen to attack, in case anybody here is dumb enough to fall for that.

Can you produce evidence of this strawman? If you can't this just an ad hominem.

I didn't say consent is a biological construct. I simply said (and say it again now) that "Consenting to sex IS consenting to pregnancy. They are linked to each other." From the consent, afterward comes the pregnancy. Duh!

You're too stupid to recognize that you're trying to use a biological argument to further a social construct, that's why I had to point it out to you. Consenting to sex is just that, consenting to sex. Just because pregnancy, like STDs can be a biological result of sex doesn't mean they are consenting to pregnancy anymore than anyone consents to STDs.

Liberals have a way of talking high horse, and expecting people to agree with them based on what they see as elaborate form, when, in their posts, CONTENT simply isnt there.

No, I don't expect morons like you to recognize rational arguments but I enjoy making them non the less.

As for the rest of the mish-mash of your first paragraph, nah! I don't respond to scrambled eggs.

Curried Oats: do you have any recognition of how idiotic your posts are? I see the need for a psychiatrist for you,..seriously. Maybe it is the delusion of liberals that they so much think they are correct, that they think they can say ANYTHING, and get away with it. Pheeew! (high-pitched whistle) It is not very often that I find myself talking to (IMO)a bona-fide nutcase, but here goes. >>

Don't strain yourself there Short Bus.

YES, CG, you DO need the force of law to enforce what people have consented to do. You need police to catch people who consent to commit murder, commit rape, commit robbery , etc. (this feels weird folks)

Let's this again you dipshit, you don't have to force people to do things they've consented to. You need the police to catch murderers because they don't consent to going to prison for murder. How ******* dumb are you?

No, my arguments are not just based on feelings, they are based on PROTECTION (notice my display name ?) of the public, which is essentially what all law is based on.

Right. So in States where abortion is legal they are protecting a woman's right to choose and that's a good thing simply because it's the law. That's a wonderful bit of logic by you.

In this case, it is PROTECTION of those people who are in development stage to be born, and then live their lives, while being threatened by cold-blooded killers, like you.

I think it should be legal to defend yourself from someone who is forcing themselves on you without your consent. The question is why don't you?

I said "a contradiction OF nature", which obviously, means the contradiction is coming from the pregnant woman and abortionist "doctor" (aka killer), not from nature itself,and isagainst nature, changing its natural course.

So you don't think doctors so should treat cancer patients because nature should be allowed to take its course? That's stupid.

You are trying very hard to twist my words into something that they are not, and which could then be easily attackable. You're trying to confuse all this, muddle it up, and then throw in what you think are cool words, that people will be impressed by.

No, I'm simply taking your arguments out to their obvious and hilarious conclusions, like nature being allowed to take its course as if we don't have the natural ability to build technology that subverts natures course.

Well, you are making an impression all right. That you're not the best con artist in town.

It is not about nature, with respect to INTENT. All the intent is coming from the pregnant woman and abortionist "doctor" (aka killer), which you know perfectly well.
Mabe you could try your con job talk on your local 3rd graders rather than posters in a computer forum. You might have better luck. Sheeesh!

Yeah. Women who don't consent to pregnancy (the natural and biological process by which one human gestates inside another) and their doctors intend to end pregnancies by means of abortion. So what fucktard? We're back to my original question, by what right do you have to live off or gestate off the body of another, unwilling human being? I don't care if you want to imagine that a fetus is a human life with the same equal rights as any one of us. By all means, let's imagine it. If you think one human being has a right to live off another do people in need of transplants have a right to organs you're not using or have duplicates of?

 

[protectionist]

No they do not.
Having sex is essential in order to remain sane, just as sleep it.
Your body will use chemicals to make you insane if you do not give into it.

You have a odd habit of presenting a post in answer to another post, that does NOT answer, or even begin to address that other post one bit.

Can you produce evidence of this strawman? If you can't this just an ad hominem.

You're too stupid to recognize that you're trying to use a biological argument to further a social construct, that's why I had to point it out to you. Consenting to sex is just that, consenting to sex. Just because pregnancy, like STDs can be a biological result of sex doesn't mean they are consenting to pregnancy anymore than anyone consents to STDs.

No, I don't expect morons like you to recognize rational arguments but I enjoy making them non the less.

Don't strain yourself there Short Bus.

Let's this again you dipshit, you don't have to force people to do things they've consented to. You need the police to catch murderers because they don't consent to going to prison for murder. How ******* dumb are you?

Right. So in States where abortion is legal they are protecting a woman's right to choose and that's a good thing simply because it's the law. That's a wonderful bit of logic by you.

I think it should be legal to defend yourself from someone who is forcing themselves on you without your consent. The question is why don't you?

So you don't think doctors so should treat cancer patients because nature should be allowed to take its course? That's stupid.

No, I'm simply taking your arguments out to their obvious and hilarious conclusions, like nature being allowed to take its course as if we don't have the natural ability to build technology that subverts natures course.

Yeah. Women who don't consent to pregnancy (the natural and biological process by which one human gestates inside another) and their doctors intend to end pregnancies by means of abortion. So what fucktard? We're back to my original question, by what right do you have to live off or gestate off the body of another, unwilling human being? I don't care if you want to imagine that a fetus is a human life with the same equal rights as any one of us. By all means, let's imagine it. If you think one human being has a right to live off another do people in need of transplants have a right to organs you're not using or have duplicates of?

Looks like this utter fool thought that I was going to lower myself, and waste time, responding to his idiot/nutjob posting. One can only wonder why he would think that.

 

[protectionist]

We routinely kill anyone who is nonviable, like when Teri Schiavo was brain dead.
Nothing wrong with that.
Age is irrelevant except that before birth only the mother gets to decide, and after birth others could also be involved.

A healthy fetus is not "nonviable", and leftist word invention has become a laughingstock in maturing 2022. Whatever this liberal loon is babbling about, it's irrelevance will be apparent to him, and other liberals come November, when voters restore sanity to the country.

 

[protectionist]

Wrong.
A fetus reacts to stimuli, that does NOT mean they feel pain or care if they live or die.
Nor does anyone really care about life that much.
{... suicide is the third leading cause of death among teens in the United States. ...}

Fetuses after 12 weeks have heartbeat, and can feel pain. You are a filthy, disgusting murderer.

 

[protectionist]

WRONG!
No one has to abide by the law.
The law is NOT the source of legal authority.
Individual rights are the only source of legal authority, and it is the law that has to abide by that.
An obvious example that proves you are wrong is that police routinely shoot and murder people.
So obviously murder is not illegal when it is necessary in order to defend the rights of someone else.

NO, police do NOT routinely shoot and murder people, you information-deprived, victim of leftist, OMISSION, media DUPE. They shoot and kill people in SELF-DEFENSE, a concept that liberals cannot seem to get a grip on, or even begin to comprehend.

And then airheads like you, in your profound ignorance of police procedure, then accuse the cops of murder, as you just did here, and send them to prison, for just defending themselves, and/or doing their jobs.

 

[protectionist]

Wrong.
The US is still committing mass murder, like by giving the Kyiv $40 billion in high tech weapons to murder Russians.
The reason this is murder is that the Ukraine committed multiple acts of war, like stealing oil, murdering ethnic Russians, and violating treaties against joining NATO.

So you're aligned with Russia against Ukraine, too. Don't get too many things right, do you ?

 

[protectionist]

A reaction to noise, light, sound, vibration, etc. is not an indication of awareness, sentience, consciousness, etc.

That has nothing to do with the post you quoted , Mr Deflection.

 

[protectionist]

Point being that no one has really achieved a true democratic republic yet, and we still have vestiges of monarchies and theocracies in our system.
We need to work on making our system much better than it is.

Again, your rambling scatterbrained post does not match the quote. You are as bonkers as Curried Oats, or whatever his name is.

 

[protectionist]

95% of European women of reproductive age live in countries which allow elective abortions or for broad socioeconomic reasons.

[European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview | Center for Reproductive Rights]

FALSE! As my map in Post # 129 clearly showed, almost all European countries have restriction on abortions, that have nothing to do with "broad socioeconomic reasons."

Instead, they restrict by cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother, and deformity of fetus. What a bonehead post.

 

[protectionist]

Your preference that authoritarian bureaucrats and politicians dictate is very unpopular in America. Self-appointed fetus guardians do not dictate, either.

So says the laughingstock Democrat polls, which are replied to by almost entirely only Democrats (so CNN" forgot" to tell you that Republicans don't answer polls ?) Should have learned that when the dopey things said Hillary Clinton was going to win in 2016.

And you are incorrect. Even in states (including Kansas) where SOME abortions are allowed, under SOME circumstances, there are severe restrictions. For example , in Kansas, the so-called "victory" only says the state level right to an abortion would remain. That level is only up to 20 weeks, and in cases of rape, incest, or necessity to save the life of the mother. This is the same policy that most Republicans & abortion opponents have. So abortion beyond 22 week, and without special circumstances, is still banned in Kansas. Ho hum.

 

[there4eyeM]

Only fertile women can conceive. Everyone conceived dies. In an ultimate sense, fertile women decide that those conceived die.

 

[protectionist]

You can contrive no survey of Americans in which your statist view is popular. The U.S. is not Iraq, Honduras, or Nicaragua.

I'm not quite sure what your "statist view" means, but as mentioned in the previous post, the "view" that abortion should be restricted to certain number of weeks, and banned except for a few certain extreme circumstances, is the view in America almost 100%.

And Gallup is just another lame Democrat poll.

 

[protectionist]

Your authoritarian propaganda is worthless, your nonsense that spiritual advisers are indifferent to fetuses silly. Your desire that authoritarian politians and bureaucrats seize control of wombs rather than respect women free to consult with medical and spiritual advisers and loved ones abhorrent to those who respect personal freedom.

Roe v Wade, supported by a large majority of Americans, did not dictate indifference to fetuses.

What is worthless and nonsense, is your blabbering here with such goofball blather as >> "spiritual advisers, authoritarian politians and bureaucrats, personal freedom".

EARTH TO SCHMIDLAP: at no time have women, or anyone , been give the "personal freedom" to MURDER human beings, and that includes abortion law, (nor should they ever have such a freedom)

 

[protectionist]

It's always been the argument of the baby killers and their minions in the democrat party that if a full term baby was three or four inches away from a successful birth and a portion of it's head was still in the birth canal it is "legal" to stab it in the back of the head and suck out it's brain because it is technically not a "person". Strangely enough the former democrat governor of Va. gave a rambling speech in support of abortion when he said "the baby would be made comfortable while the parents and the doctor decide". What does that mean? Use your imagination.

It means what I posted in Post # 13 , with links. >> INFANTICIDE. Screwball Democrat lunatics KILLING babies (up to 28 days old).

 

[schmidlap]

FALSE! As my map in Post # 129 clearly showed, almost all European countries have restriction on abortions, that have nothing to do with "broad socioeconomic reasons."

Like the United States for half-a-century under Roe v Wade, 95% of European women of reproductive age live in countries which allow elective abortions or for broad socioeconomic reasons.

[European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview | Center for Reproductive Rights]

Complete suppression of a woman's reproductive rights is the authoritarian plight of Iraq, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.

So says the laughingstock Democrat polls

No, your fake claim that only Democratic polls confirm Americans' respecting reproductive rights is nonsense. All major polls concur. You can cite none that fits your radical agenda.

About three-quarters of White evangelical Protestants (74%) think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.​

By contrast, 84% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do 66% of Black Protestants, 60% of White Protestants who are not evangelical, and 56% of Catholics.​

I'm not quite sure what your "statist view" means

It refers to regimes that deny women reproductive rights. E.g., Iraq, El Salvador, Nicaragua.

... at no time have women, or anyone , been give the "personal freedom" to MURDER human beings, and that includes abortion law, (nor should they ever have such a freedom)

Canada is entirely free from your radical statist politicians and bureaucrats dictating to women. There, a woman, in consultation with trusted medical and spiritual advisers, and loved ones, are free to make decisions free of government intrusion.

Your hyperbolic nonsense that arrogates control over women's bodies to your politicians and bureaucrats, insisting that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a person, is an extremist view that most Americans - and most advanced democratic nations - reject.