CDZ Abortion Perspective

[Damaged Eagle]

The state can impose the death penalty

The president can assassinate anyone he choose to

The president can drop atomic bombs on civilian population for the sake of the country

yet a woman cannot choose to have an abortion

The state does not need to regulate it, its only purpose is to support an individual rights to happiness whatever that may be

not the happiness of person A over person B as defined by whomever

everyone wants to play God but he is the only one who will have the final say

I support your right so long as it's legal.

However you can exercise your right without government funding.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Notice how angry & unhinged the pro-abortionists get.

They can't even use rational debate...they become unglued & start name calling & set up straw man arguments.

When people have no rational counterpoint to the logic of the arguments presented them, they either just double down on their authoritarian talking points or try create the illusion that the other person is advocating something they are most certainly not advocating. We have seen both, here.

I think much of this is a result of their not wanting to look at a new life for what it is - a new life. The mere act of trying to get them to considered it as such sends them over the edge as they cannot possibly think of the new life as a new life - otherwise, they could not be so strident about ending it.

 

[Kilroy2]

The state can impose the death penalty

The president can assassinate anyone he choose to

The president can drop atomic bombs on civilian population for the sake of the country

yet a woman cannot choose to have an abortion

The state does not need to regulate it, its only purpose is to support an individual rights to happiness whatever that may be

not the happiness of person A over person B as defined by whomever

everyone wants to play God but he is the only one who will have the final say

I support your right so long as it's legal.

However you can exercise your right without government funding.

*****SMILE*****

government funds a lot of things and some things I do not agree with but hey whats the use of complaining

If the US can give foreign countries money then why not spread a little of it to the natives

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Pay Your Own Way "

* Nature Of The Game *

If you wish to say the male incurs debt by providing the means to the end then the male should have a say in the decision also.
*****SMILE*****

The male lost control of a decision over the private property of the mother when he provided his gametes for insemination .

When a child is born as a consequence , the child is no longer the private property of the mother and the biological father incurs an additional obligation by the state .

 

[Syriusly]

And THERE is the debate we should have on a national level!

Is it a womans right to do what she wants with her own body? YES!

Is abortion the murder of a human being? YES!

Now we should put those 2 things on a balance-scale & see which one weighs heavier.

And beyond that; women already DO have the right to determine what they want to do with theier own body,sice THEY are dertermining whether oe not they are having sex and whether or not they are taking measures to prevent pregnancy. Setting aside the tiny number of pregnancies caused by involuntary sex or failed birth control, this isnt a matter of deciding what to do with ones own body, but deciding what to do with ones own body and then wanting to negate the results when such decisions create a brand new body.

Yet the anti-choice crowd now want to tell a 12 year old raped by her father that no she doesn't have the choice to take the morning after pill. And if she does- she will be a criminal.

Once the anti-choice crowd stopped pretending like they were willing to make exceptions for rape and incest, it became very clear that this is all about insisting that the State should decide what a woman- or girl- can do with her body- not herself.

Just like you pro abortion people wish to wrench a baby from the womb minutes before birth, squish its head in you hands until its brains pop out and stare into its eyes as the life drains out of it, right?

I mean, I can play this same game as you, right?

I do appreciate you playing along. Part of the very reason I point out that the laws your side are proposing now would indeed make a 12 year old rape victim a criminal for taking the morning after pill is because of the extreme rhetoric being used by those of you who want to control women.

I have stated earlier in this thread that I generally agree with Roe- that for the first trimester, that there should be no restrictions on a woman's right of choice, and during the third trimester there should be some valid medical reason for an abortion.

I don't think that a clump of 4 cells is a human being. But I also think that a viable 8.5 month old fetus is. Your side wants to scream "They are doing abortions on children after they are born" but of course that would be murder. The extremists on the other side goes for radical measures also.

I don't claim to know when a fetus becomes a human being. Certainly not at 4 cells. But in the end, the woman is the one who takes all of the risks- with her life and health- and she is absolutely the most invested person to make that decision- not you, not me, and not the State.

You keep talking about my "side" while trying to tar me via assosiating me with extemism. This is dishonest and cowardly.

Try being honest instead of uderhanded by responding to what i have actually said instead of inventing points of view and ascribing them to my "side".

I do not support forcing 12 year old rape victims to carry children, and your repeated accusations that this represents my "side" is just a particularly slimy form of personal attack.

Yet your side- those who want to tell a woman what she can do with her body is saying that.

If you want to point out that you don't agree with that particular point of your side- then that is fine- but it isn't dishonest to point out that your side has in the last couple of years specifically changed their tactics from agreeing to protections for the victims of rape and incest to now arguing that those victims of rape and incest cannot be allowed to have abortions.

And that your side has moved from trying to shut down abortion clinics to making it a crime for the pregnant woman to get an abortion.

I went back and looked- none of my comments were targeted at you other than 'I do appreciate you playing along'. I specifically reference 'your side'- which was accurate in describing sufficient enough of the anti-choice base to actually pass a law. Nor did I accuse you being 'dishonest or cowardly' for your remarks.

And by the way- I am glad you don't support forcing a 12 year old rape victim to stay pregnant- and I am hoping that you feel the same way about a 21 year old rape victim. But the rising tide of the anti-choice movement is to do just that.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Mutually Exclusive Categories "

* Ewe Are Missing The Point *

I've heard this argument before...
KKK member: "Blacks aren't people therefor killing them is not murder".
Hitler: "Jews are not people therefor killing them is not murder".

Blacks have a physical capacity for sentience , whereas depending upon its stage of development , a fetus has not acquired a physical capacity for sentience .

Intervening on behalf of another based upon empathy must have a valid basis and a physical capacity for sentience would be a prerequisite .

It is known by histology that thalamocortical radiations are required for sentience and that they do not onset any earlier than the 23rd week of gestation that is also coincident with the onset of viability .

The meaning of an after life , a chance for eternal life , reincarnation , transmutation of soles , is to pass on ones genetic identity through ones offspring .

Late term abortions are by and large elected for reasons of health and fitness when individuals are unexpectedly challenged with complications and individuals , not the state , are accountable for their own fate for a chance of eternal life .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Cognitive Objection Requires Sentience "

* Self Ownership And Self Determination *

The dogged repitition of your authoritarian female supremaciat views is not debate. Debate involves providing the reason for your views, not merely the aggressive insistance upon them.

What is the reasoning behind your repeated authoritarian declaration that it is your right to dispense with a life you have created due to your own actions simply because this new entirely separate life begins in yours? You say it is your body. It isnt. It is a separate body just as surely as your own body is separate from your mother's.

The question of " When does life begin ? " is not the issue , the issue is " When does a state interest begin ? " and facts are that a state is comprise of and for citizens and a state interest begins when one is capable of becoming a citizen and that is at birth .

Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

Prior to entering into a social civil contract as a citizen according to a constitution , one is subject to natural freedoms and at its inception , any not a member of that social civil contract is also subject to natural freedoms .

Now us 14th amendment stipulates equal protection with a citizen , but that does not occur until a requirement of birth has been met ; and , because the fetus does not have constitutional protections it is the private property of the mother and is subject to natural freedoms of the mother .

A " wright to privacy " and " it is my body " are incidental with the fetus being the private property of the mother .

 

[Markle]

Yet the anti-choice crowd now want to tell a 12 year old raped by her father that no she doesn't have the choice to take the morning after pill. And if she does- she will be a criminal.

Sigh- why are you always lying?
a) Abortion opponents until recently typically exempted the victims of rape and incest- now they insist those victims must risk their own lives and health to go through pregnancy and birth.
b) States and abortion opponents are indeed looking to throw women in prison who have abortions- see HB-481.
c) The 12 year old rape victim luckily will be too young to go to prison, but could still be criminally prosecuted like any other juvenile for murder.

The New York Times: The End Of The Rape And Incest ExceptionAll of a sudden, abortion opponents have abandoned rape and incest exceptions to abortion bans. Louisiana became the latest state to do so last month, following Ohio, Mississippi and, most notoriously, Alabama. That same month, younger abortion foes in groups like Students for Life of America fired off a letter asking the Republican Party to stop supporting exceptions that before this year had long been standard components of anti-abortion legislation. (Mary Ziegler, 6/11)

Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Be Subject to Life in Prison.

On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a “fetal heartbeat” bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country—not just because it would impose severe limitations on women’s reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty.

The primary purpose of HB 481 is to prohibit doctors from terminating any pregnancy after they can detect “embryonic or fetal cardiac activity,” which typically occurs at six weeks’ gestation. But the bill does far more than that. In one sweeping provision, it declares that “unborn children are a class of living, distinct person” that deserves “full legal recognition.” Thus, Georgia law must “recognize unborn children as natural persons”—not just for the purposes of abortion, but as a legal rule.

But the most startling effect of HB 481 may be its criminalization of women who seek out unlawful abortions or terminate their own pregnancies. An earlier Georgia law imposing criminal penalties for illegal abortions does not apply to women who self-terminate; the new measure, by contrast, conspicuously lacks such a limitation. It can, and would, be used to prosecute women. Misoprostol, a drug that treats stomach ulcers but also induces abortions, is extremely easy to obtain on the internet, and American women routinely use it to self-terminate. It is highly effective in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Anti-abortion advocates generally insist that they do not want to punish women who undergo abortions. But HB 481 does exactly that. Once it takes effect, a woman who self-terminates will have, as a matter of law, killed a human—thereby committing murder. The penalty for that crime in Georgia is life imprisonment or capital punishment.


Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law.

For now, Supreme Court precedent protecting women’s reproductive rights should bar such prosecutions—and indeed, require the invalidation of HB 481. But the court’s conservative majority may be on the verge of dismantling Roe v. Wade. If that happens, Georgia and other conservative states will be free to outlaw abortion, and to imprison women who self-terminate.

Abortion is a states rights issue. I'm talking about the Federal Government who should have nothing to say about it whatsoever.

Show me the list of women who have been sent to prison for having an abortion.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

" Pay Your Own Way "

* Nature Of The Game *

If you wish to say the male incurs debt by providing the means to the end then the male should have a say in the decision also.
*****SMILE*****

The male lost control of a decision over the private property of the mother when he provided his gametes for insemination .

When a child is born as a consequence , the child is no longer the private property of the mother and the biological father incurs an additional obligation by the state .

I have a better idea. Since you don't want to allow the male to have a decision at all. If you choose to keep the child and male decides they want no part of it then you have one of two choices.

1. Raise the child yourself.

2. The state puts you in the military or peace corps until the child is of age as it is raised in a creche because you're incapable of raising it yourself.

Now about Planned Parenthood supposedly not telling people what to do...

*****SMILE*****

 

[Markle]

When you're lying on the ground after an accident, or in a hospital bed, someone checks your pulse to see if you're heart is beating to determine if you are dead or alive.

Why are the same criteria not used for determining if an infant is dead or alive?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Blubbering Because The Ninth Amendment Precedes The Tenth Amendment "

* Anti-Federalist Meats An Anti-Statist And Individualist *

Abortion is a states rights issue. I'm talking about the Federal Government who should have nothing to say about it whatsoever.
Show me the list of women who have been sent to prison for having an abortion.

Birth is a requirement for citizenship whether that citizenship is in a state or in the united states , and that is the basis of roe v wade .

 

[Syriusly]

Yet the anti-choice crowd now want to tell a 12 year old raped by her father that no she doesn't have the choice to take the morning after pill. And if she does- she will be a criminal.

Once the anti-choice crowd stopped pretending like they were willing to make exceptions for rape and incest, it became very clear that this is all about insisting that the State should decide what a woman- or girl- can do with her body- not herself.

Just like you pro abortion people wish to wrench a baby from the womb minutes before birth, squish its head in you hands until its brains pop out and stare into its eyes as the life drains out of it, right?

I mean, I can play this same game as you, right?

I do appreciate you playing along. Part of the very reason I point out that the laws your side are proposing now would indeed make a 12 year old rape victim a criminal for taking the morning after pill is because of the extreme rhetoric being used by those of you who want to control women.

I have stated earlier in this thread that I generally agree with Roe- that for the first trimester, that there should be no restrictions on a woman's right of choice, and during the third trimester there should be some valid medical reason for an abortion.

I don't think that a clump of 4 cells is a human being. But I also think that a viable 8.5 month old fetus is. Your side wants to scream "They are doing abortions on children after they are born" but of course that would be murder. The extremists on the other side goes for radical measures also.

I don't claim to know when a fetus becomes a human being. Certainly not at 4 cells. But in the end, the woman is the one who takes all of the risks- with her life and health- and she is absolutely the most invested person to make that decision- not you, not me, and not the State.

You keep talking about my "side" while trying to tar me via assosiating me with extemism. This is dishonest and cowardly.

Try being honest instead of uderhanded by responding to what i have actually said instead of inventing points of view and ascribing them to my "side".

I do not support forcing 12 year old rape victims to carry children, and your repeated accusations that this represents my "side" is just a particularly slimy form of personal attack.

Yet your side- those who want to tell a woman what she can do with her body is saying that.

If you want to point out that you don't agree with that particular point of your side- then that is fine- but it isn't dishonest to point out that your side has in the last couple of years specifically changed their tactics from agreeing to protections for the victims of rape and incest to now arguing that those victims of rape and incest cannot be allowed to have abortions.

And that your side has moved from trying to shut down abortion clinics to making it a crime for the pregnant woman to get an abortion.

I went back and looked- none of my comments were targeted at you other than 'I do appreciate you playing along'. I specifically reference 'your side'- which was accurate in describing sufficient enough of the anti-choice base to actually pass a law. Nor did I accuse you being 'dishonest or cowardly' for your remarks.

And by the way- I am glad you don't support forcing a 12 year old rape victim to stay pregnant- and I am hoping that you feel the same way about a 21 year old rape victim. But the rising tide of the anti-choice movement is to do just that.

My post to you was not really an invitation to double down on the slime.


Enough with this crap about my "side", please.

I have not told any women what they can do with their body, either. Please stop lying.

I have told you now MANY times that I am not on the side of those who force child rape victims to carry children. now, I know you are being protected here in this thread, but I will say this for others - these repeated claims of yours are nasty, they are insulting, they are VERY deliberate and they have no business being in a clean debate.

Where did I make any specific accusations about you- other than you are on the side that thinks women should not have the choice to have a legal abortion?

If I misunderstood and you do not believe that abortion should be illegal- then my apologies for lumping you with those who do. But if you do believe abortion should be illegal- then yes you are on that side.

And you apparently didn't read what I wrote- so I will post that part again:

And by the way- I am glad you don't support forcing a 12 year old rape victim to stay pregnant- and I am hoping that you feel the same way about a 21 year old rape victim

If you feel like that is 'doubling down on the slime'- well I can't help you with that.

 

[Markle]

" Blubbering Because The Ninth Amendment Precedes The Tenth Amendment "

* Anti-Federalist Meats An Anti-Statist And Individualist *

Abortion is a states rights issue. I'm talking about the Federal Government who should have nothing to say about it whatsoever.
Show me the list of women who have been sent to prison for having an abortion.

Birth is a requirement for citizenship whether that citizenship is in a state or in the united states , and that is the basis of roe v wade .

Roe v Wade was a gross overreach by the Supreme Court. Unquestionably, it was a state's rights issue. That being said, it is what it is.

 

[Syriusly]

Yet the anti-choice crowd now want to tell a 12 year old raped by her father that no she doesn't have the choice to take the morning after pill. And if she does- she will be a criminal.

Sigh- why are you always lying?
a) Abortion opponents until recently typically exempted the victims of rape and incest- now they insist those victims must risk their own lives and health to go through pregnancy and birth.
b) States and abortion opponents are indeed looking to throw women in prison who have abortions- see HB-481.
c) The 12 year old rape victim luckily will be too young to go to prison, but could still be criminally prosecuted like any other juvenile for murder.

The New York Times: The End Of The Rape And Incest ExceptionAll of a sudden, abortion opponents have abandoned rape and incest exceptions to abortion bans. Louisiana became the latest state to do so last month, following Ohio, Mississippi and, most notoriously, Alabama. That same month, younger abortion foes in groups like Students for Life of America fired off a letter asking the Republican Party to stop supporting exceptions that before this year had long been standard components of anti-abortion legislation. (Mary Ziegler, 6/11)

Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Be Subject to Life in Prison.

On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a “fetal heartbeat” bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country—not just because it would impose severe limitations on women’s reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty.

The primary purpose of HB 481 is to prohibit doctors from terminating any pregnancy after they can detect “embryonic or fetal cardiac activity,” which typically occurs at six weeks’ gestation. But the bill does far more than that. In one sweeping provision, it declares that “unborn children are a class of living, distinct person” that deserves “full legal recognition.” Thus, Georgia law must “recognize unborn children as natural persons”—not just for the purposes of abortion, but as a legal rule.

But the most startling effect of HB 481 may be its criminalization of women who seek out unlawful abortions or terminate their own pregnancies. An earlier Georgia law imposing criminal penalties for illegal abortions does not apply to women who self-terminate; the new measure, by contrast, conspicuously lacks such a limitation. It can, and would, be used to prosecute women. Misoprostol, a drug that treats stomach ulcers but also induces abortions, is extremely easy to obtain on the internet, and American women routinely use it to self-terminate. It is highly effective in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Anti-abortion advocates generally insist that they do not want to punish women who undergo abortions. But HB 481 does exactly that. Once it takes effect, a woman who self-terminates will have, as a matter of law, killed a human—thereby committing murder. The penalty for that crime in Georgia is life imprisonment or capital punishment.


Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law.

For now, Supreme Court precedent protecting women’s reproductive rights should bar such prosecutions—and indeed, require the invalidation of HB 481. But the court’s conservative majority may be on the verge of dismantling Roe v. Wade. If that happens, Georgia and other conservative states will be free to outlaw abortion, and to imprison women who self-terminate.

Abortion is a states rights issue. I'm talking about the Federal Government who should have nothing to say about it whatsoever.

Show me the list of women who have been sent to prison for having an abortion.

Your opinion is that the Federal government should have no say on abortion- does that mean if Roe v. Wade was overturned- you would oppose any federal legislation to outlaw abortion nationally?

No woman has been sent to prison for decades thanks to Roe v. Wade- and that is the only reason.

Once again- the law Georgia passed that will go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned:


Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Be Subject to Life in Prison.

On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a “fetal heartbeat” bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country—not just because it would impose severe limitations on women’s reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty.

The primary purpose of HB 481 is to prohibit doctors from terminating any pregnancy after they can detect “embryonic or fetal cardiac activity,” which typically occurs at six weeks’ gestation. But the bill does far more than that. In one sweeping provision, it declares that “unborn children are a class of living, distinct person” that deserves “full legal recognition.” Thus, Georgia law must “recognize unborn children as natural persons”—not just for the purposes of abortion, but as a legal rule.

But the most startling effect of HB 481 may be its criminalization of women who seek out unlawful abortions or terminate their own pregnancies. An earlier Georgia law imposing criminal penalties for illegal abortions does not apply to women who self-terminate; the new measure, by contrast, conspicuously lacks such a limitation. It can, and would, be used to prosecute women. Misoprostol, a drug that treats stomach ulcers but also induces abortions, is extremely easy to obtain on the internet, and American women routinely use it to self-terminate. It is highly effective in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Anti-abortion advocates generally insist that they do not want to punish women who undergo abortions. But HB 481 does exactly that. Once it takes effect, a woman who self-terminates will have, as a matter of law, killed a human—thereby committing murder. The penalty for that crime in Georgia is life imprisonment or capital punishment.


Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law.

For now, Supreme Court precedent protecting women’s reproductive rights should bar such prosecutions—and indeed, require the invalidation of HB 481. But the court’s conservative majority may

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Terminal Conditions "

* Developmental Stages *

When you're lying on the ground after an accident, or in a hospital bed, someone checks your pulse to see if you're heart is beating to determine if you are dead or alive.
Why are the same criteria not used for determining if an infant is dead or alive?

Brain death - Wikipedia

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Tyranny By Majority Cedes To Individualism "

* Perfect Reach *

Roe v Wade was a gross overreach by the Supreme Court. Unquestionably, it was a state's rights issue. That being said, it is what it is.

The 9th amendment precedes the 10th amendment that makes it an individual issue not to be decided by the state or the federal government .

Roe v wade is an excellent judgment .

 

[Syriusly]

When you're lying on the ground after an accident, or in a hospital bed, someone checks your pulse to see if you're heart is beating to determine if you are dead or alive.

Why are the same criteria not used for determining if an infant is dead or alive?

A couple of issues with your post.

First of all- no heart beat doesn't necessarily mean that a person is not alive. And a heart beat doesn't necessarily mean that a person is alive.

Medical diagnosis of death follows either the common law standard of total cessation of cardiac and respiratory function or the medically accepted standards of brain death, the latter being based on irreversible loss of brain function. Cessation of cardiorespiratory function inevitably causes brain death; similarly, brain death inevitably causes cessation of cardiac function. The common law definition of death has been redefined: death is brain death which inevitably causes cessation of the cardiorespiratory functions. Legal determination of death, since the advent of cadaver organ transplantation, has been made by case law, which is briefly summarized, or by statute in most jurisdictions

Second: A fetus doesn't have an actual heart even at 6 weeks- there is no actual heartbeat as there is in a living, breathing human being- it is just an electric impulse- there is no heart beating.

Finally, a heartbeat itself doesn't distinguish whether a fetus is a living person or not- otherwise any heart being kept pumping by itself would be a person by your 'definition'

Heart in a Box 'gave me a new life'

 

[Coyote]

Just a reminder that this thread is in CDZ. That means discuss the topic, stay civil. Thank you.

 

[Chuz Life]

When you're lying on the ground after an accident, or in a hospital bed, someone checks your pulse to see if you're heart is beating to determine if you are dead or alive.

Why are the same criteria not used for determining if an infant is dead or alive?

Because biology.

And prognosis.

Among several other things.

 

[Chuz Life]

Just a reminder that this thread is in CDZ. That means discuss the topic, stay civil. Thank you.

Thanks for reminder. Not always easy to see on my phone.