CDZ Abortion Perspective

[NotYourBody]

The right to make choices is not in question.

The question for you, is . . "Does ANYONE have the right to violate the rights and or lives of another*, with the choices they make?" *Namely, especially a child.

It's a simple yes or no question.

Either you feel that they do. Or you don't.

Fetuses aren't children. Therefore women have a right to end unwanted pregnancies.

Say it with me. . .

Fetal

HOMICIDE

Laws.

You really think words on paper will convince women to allow you to control their reproductive system?

No. The answer is No.

But explain to me please how the logistics of your plan will work. How will you force a woman to have a baby she does not want? How will you even keep track of all the pregnancies?

And what punishment will be meted out to the male who helped create the unwanted pregnancy? Needs to be potentially life-threatening and cause permanent and irreversible changes to a man's body, just to make things equally fair.

 

[NotYourBody]

If a man doesn't like abortion, he has to control his sperm. Because his control ends with his own reproductive system. It's as simple as that.

His control ends where his responsibility ends...and what happens if the man wants the abortion and the woman doesn't?

What happens when the man wants the abortion and the woman doesn't?

That generally results in a single mother who receives no child support.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point

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.

 

[Syriusly]

No one now is forcing any women in the U.S. to have abortions. Women choosing abortions is not 'genocide'- it is women making the choices that governments and men have claimed for years that they should be making for women, and that women shouldn't be trusted to make those decisions themselves.

You can frame the question anyway you choose from any perspective that you choose, but at the end of the day the question really is only, is the unborn infant human?

There are a myriad of different answers to this, some say not till so many weeks, some say not till they are viable in the womb, and then others say not till they exit the womb.

What say you?

I say I don't really know.
Getting past the extremist rhetoric on both sides, I don't believe that a newly implanted embryo is an infant.
But I also believe that a viable fetus probably is.

I also think that the woman who has to go through pregnancy and childbirth is the best person to decide the issue- not me or you- for her.

What about you?

What about. . .

When YOU were a newly implanted embryo?

Why are you afraid to answer the question?

I will gladly answer your question- after you answer the question I asked.

I do not fear this question at all.

Let's start with what should be some common ground between us.

I think we can both agree that no person has the Constitutional right to violate the Constitutional rights of another.

If we can not agree on that part. . . There is no point in a further response from me.

You are claiming that a woman has a Constitutional right to violate the rights of her prenatal child and you do so by using denials about the child and denials / dismissal of any idea about the child's rights.

The child continues to exist, despite your denials and the wording of the Constitution that declares that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the equal protections of our laws will continue to exist as well.

You still are afraid to answer the question. Look how you strung all of those words in a row- and still never answered the question.

I say I don't really know.
Getting past the extremist rhetoric on both sides, I don't believe that a newly implanted embryo is an infant.
But I also believe that a viable fetus probably is.

I also think that the woman who has to go through pregnancy and childbirth is the best person to decide the issue- not me or you or the State- for her.

What about you?

 

[Syriusly]

One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point

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.

 

[NotYourBody]

One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point

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.

To be clear as a bell - Women also have the right to determine what happens to our bodies during sex and after we have sex. Not just before.

 

[Syriusly]

The right to make choices is not in question.

The question for you, is . . "Does ANYONE have the right to violate the rights and or lives of another*, with the choices they make?" *Namely, especially a child.

It's a simple yes or no question.

Either you feel that they do. Or you don't.

Fetuses aren't children. Therefore women have a right to end unwanted pregnancies.

Say it with me. . .

Fetal

HOMICIDE

Laws.

So if a law says a fetus is a person for homicides sake- that makes it a reality?

You do realize then that any law which specifically defines a fetus as not a living human being would therefore have the exact same weight of law as 'fetal homicide laws'.

The reality is that 'fetal homicide laws' conflict with themselves- almost all fetal homicide laws also specifically exempt a woman who is voluntarily having an abortion.

Alaska. Stat. § 11.41.150 et seq., Alaska Stat. § 11.81.250, Alaska Stat. § 12.55.035, and Alaska Stat. § 12.55.125 (2005) relate to offenses against unborn children. The law provides that a defendant convicted of murder in the second degree or murder of an unborn child shall be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of at least 10 years but no more than 99 years. The law does not apply to acts that cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during a legal abortion to which the pregnant woman consented or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf consented, or for which such consent is implied by law. Alaska Stat. 11.81.900(b)(64) defines an unborn child as a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development.

If we really want to go constitutional- and I believe you would agree that the Constitution trumps state and federal laws- we can look to the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Constitution doesn't recognize citizenship until a child is born.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point

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.

To be clear as a bell - Women also have the right to determine what happens to our bodies during sex and after we have sex. Not just before.

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.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point

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?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

" Valid Proof Of Non Consent Absent "

* Given Freely *

His control ends where his responsibility ends...and what happens if the man wants the abortion and the woman doesn't?

A fetus is the private property of the mother and if a male does not want the debt incurred from facilitating the child then do not provide the means to that end .

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*****

 

[Thunk]

Fetuses aren't children. Therefore women have a right to end unwanted pregnancies.

I'm listening...Back that up with facts or logic.

When every living thing was once a fetus at some point...how can a fetus not be a life?

 

[Thunk]

Fetuses aren't children. Therefore women have a right to end unwanted pregnancies.

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".

 

[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.

 

[Syriusly]

Fetuses aren't children. Therefore women have a right to end unwanted pregnancies.

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".

I've heard this argument before:

Slaveowner: slave women are obligated to keep birthin my babies, otherwise I will punish them.

Anti-abortion advocate: women are obligated to keep birthin, otherwise I will punish them.

 

[Thunk]

Yet the anti-choice crowd now want to tell a 12 year old raped by her father

You discredit all that you say by using propaganda such as "anti-choice".

It would be just as easy for me to do the same and call you "Anti-life"...but you'll notice I don't use such deceit.

 

[Thunk]

I've heard this argument before:

Slaveowner: slave women are obligated to keep birthin my babies, otherwise I will punish them.

Anti-abortion advocate: women are obligated to keep birthin, otherwise I will punish them.

Just more lies from a lying liar!

I don't believe for an instant you've ever heard such statements! Unless it was in some lying liberal propaganda movie!

 

[Frankeneinstein]

A fetus is the private property of the mother

sounds like the language of the old south

and if a male does not want the debt incurred from facilitating the child then do not provide the means to that end .

No, the woman is responsible for what happens to her body

 

[Syriusly]

One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point

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.

 

[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

 

[Dogmaphobe]

One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point

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.