Zone1 Abortion is murder and I can't find any way to show otherwise.

[Zincwarrior]

B.S I am in Ohio and the mother receives all the help she needs

Not after.
Also Ohio ranks 36 in education and 44th for healthcare and 42nd for births to unwed mothers.

 

[Frankenstein]

Technology trumps biology.

If we followed biology, 10% of pregnant women would still die in childbirth and we'd have an infant mortality rate of 50%.

And? That has nothing to do with why she is pregnant, and why the father gets no say in the life of his child. Be damn sure he pays if she keeps it

 

[Frankenstein]

Not after.
Also Ohio ranks 36 in education and 44th for healthcare and 42nd for births to unwed mothers.

trust me I know what single mothers get in Ohio!

 

[JoeB131]

And? That has nothing to do with why she is pregnant, and why the father gets no say in the life of his child. Be damn sure he pays if she keeps it

As he should.

But it's still her body. She is the one accepting all the physical risks, so it's perfectly understandable if she chooses not to have the baby.

 

[initforme]

False news.
But even if it were true, THE RIGHT TO LIFE is not dependent on majority rule -- which is why we are not a democracy but a CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED REPUBLIC

It's now in the hands of the voters in each state since Roe was overturned. Let the majority in each state decide. I'm excellent with it.

 

[schmidlap]

I say none of this from a religious standpoint or from a political standpoint. I am simply looking at this from a very stark and realistic point of view.

I have tried to examine abortion, look at others points of view and so on but I honestly see no rational or reasonable way to show abortion is not murdering a human being. There is simply no way that abortion is not murdering a child regardless of how you try to spin it.

First of all, if you have an abortion that means you have a child inside you. If you do not have a child inside you then there is nothing to abort. You can't have abortion before there is a child.

Second, once the egg is fertilized and implanted it's a baby. Sure it's a little blob, but unforseen circumstances aside, if you simply leave that blob alone it will be born in 9 months. Once a fertilized egg is implanted it starts a growth period of many stages lasting 17 to 19 years to become an adult. It doesn't matter if it's 11 days after conception or 3 years after conception, it's still a human being in different growth stages. Aborting it 3 weeks is the same as aborting it at 8 months, you are prematurely stopping the life of the baby before it can be born.

This whole "but it doesn't have a heartbeat" doesn't mean it isn't still a human growing inside its mother that if you simply leave it alone it will be born. How is it any different than if as soon as it's born you say "well it can't talk or even stand up so it isn't a human being so I'll end it's life". The only difference is you're saying it's ok to end the babies life before it has grown it's heart and ending it's life before it can talk, both are just ways to justify ending a babies life.

What gives you the right to use the State to impose your belief upon a woman that a mindless, microscopic amalgam of cells in her womb should be under your control?

Your subjugation of women by an authoritarian government is the plight of women in El Salvador and Nicaragua, not in any advanced democracy.

 

[Frankenstein]

As he should.

But it's still her body. She is the one accepting all the physical risks, so it's perfectly understandable if she chooses not to have the baby.

She accepted the physical risk, when she agreed to have sex, therefore the father should get equal rights for the child, or assume no responsibility should she keep it, and he not want it. You have enumerated rights to women, that are not equally given to the father.

 

[JoeB131]

She accepted the physical risk, when she agreed to have sex, therefore the father should get equal rights for the child, or assume no responsibility should she keep it, and he not want it. You have enumerated rights to women, that are not equally given to the father.

when men start having the babies instead of just getting their jollies, they can have equal rights in determining the disposition of Globby the Fetus.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

when men start having the babies instead of just getting their jollies, they can have equal rights in determining the disposition of Globby the Fetus.

You're describing a privilege not a right globby.

 

[Frankenstein]

when men start having the babies instead of just getting their jollies, they can have equal rights in determining the disposition of Globby the Fetus.

B.S it is his child as well, and very well may have more of his traits than the mothers, and in humans women carry the child, that is science, tough shiite you are denying men the right to choose for their child to live.

 

[JoeB131]

B.S it is his child as well, and very well may have more of his traits than the mothers, and in humans women carry the child, that is science, tough shiite you are denying men the right to choose for their child to live.

When he can carry it from conception to birth, then he gets a say.

If birthing were left to the men, the population would drop.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

When he can carry it from conception to birth, then he gets a say.

Haven't many a male trapped in a womans body done this? or is that just some hokum cooked up for school children.?

If birthing were left to the men, the population would drop.

Yeah, they're like natures "planned parenthood"

 

[Frankenstein]

When he can carry it from conception to birth, then he gets a say.

If birthing were left to the men, the population would drop.

Deflection from reality the science is the female of the species carries it but it is equally part of the fathers, and he gets no say, it is wrong and yet you continue to vomit talking points

 

[JoeB131]

Deflection from reality the science is the female of the species carries it but it is equally part of the fathers, and he gets no say, it is wrong and yet you continue to vomit talking points

Now, it's just a reality that if a man has any stamina, his involvement in making Globby the Fetus takes about 10 minutes.

A woman's part in that is Nine months, or 275 days, or 6588 Hours, or 395,280 minutes.

That's why she gets more of a say.

 

[Dante]

There is simply no way that abortion is not murdering a child regardless of how you try to spin it.

A fetus is a child? A person?

The Development and Shaping of the Brain - Discovering the Brain - NCBI Bookshelf

When Does a Fetus Develop a Brain?

When does a fetus develop a brain? You may be surprised by the answer. Here's what happens in each trimester, and how you can nurture healthy brain development.

www.healthline.com

I think of people dying. When the heart stops and the brain is functioning I believe people are still alive.

when the brain ceases to function -- nobody home.

 

[Dante]

Deflection from reality the science is the female of the species carries it but it is equally part of the fathers, and he gets no say, it is wrong and yet you continue to vomit talking points

It's her body.

 

[Dante]

The issue is the Federal government making a determination regarding when natural rights begin.

Is it at birth only? Is it at viability in the womb?

What, and why?

Notice, no one ever talks about this when really it is the only issue that matters.

"Natural rights?" The government doesn't address philosophy.

LOL

Nature? What a heathen thing to suggest.


Does nature have a right to exist?

https://bioneers.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Bioneers-Rights-of-Nature-Guide-2023.pdf

The law states that “Nature is a unique, indivisible, self-regulating community of interrelated beings” and that nature has “the right to life and to exist.” The law also established the right to clean water, clean air, a habitable climate, and to be free from contamination, pollution, and toxic or radioactive waste.

 

[Votto]

"Natural rights?" The government doesn't address philosophy.

LOL

Nature? What a heathen thing to suggest.


Does nature have a right to exist?

https://bioneers.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Bioneers-Rights-of-Nature-Guide-2023.pdf

The law states that “Nature is a unique, indivisible, self-regulating community of interrelated beings” and that nature has “the right to life and to exist.” The law also established the right to clean water, clean air, a habitable climate, and to be free from contamination, pollution, and toxic or radioactive waste.

The Founders addressed natural rights

The DNC, however, only addresses government rights over everyone.

 

[Dante]

The Founders addressed natural rights

The DNC, however, only addresses government rights over everyone.

Philosophical questions and discussions.

You here have me thinking of an article I read earlier this morning. An excerpt:

Then, in mid-convention, came something wholly startling. During a particularly bitter June impasse, Franklin ventured to observe that five weeks’ work had yielded lamentably little. At that same Philadelphia address the Continental Congress had appealed for divine illumination. Should this new assembly do the same? The full Congress consisted of 53 Protestants, the majority of them Episcopalians. Two Catholics rounded out the ranks. Many of them were men of deep piety. If they were founding an American Christian nation when they wrote the Constitution it was not obvious: Franklin’s proposal met with a deafening silence. Hamilton gamely weighed in, to comment that an appeal to heaven would likely alarm the country. It reeked of desperation. A North Carolinian objected that Congress was without the funds to pay a cleric. Only three or four delegates, Franklin noted with what sounds like astonishment, thought prayer essential!

What jumps out at you?

Opinion | The Founders Saw This Insane Political Moment Coming 237 Years Ago

They were worried about what we would do with democracy. They had good reason to be.

www.nytimes.com

If natural rights exist, and America's founders addressed the philosophical concept of natural rights -- are they last word on what are and are not natural rights?

Were the framers (not the founders) vague in describing what natural rights actually are?

 

[Dante]

The Founders addressed natural rights

The DNC, however, only addresses government rights over everyone.

Oh wait! You tried sounding educated and informed, intelligent. The DNC? Is not the GOP asking states to address government rights over everyone in their respective states?