CDZ From Pro-Choice to Pro-Life (what changed my mind)

[mamooth]

We're talking about the absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever possibly have life at all in this nation at the sole discretion of a specific gender

You seem to be talking about some imaginary mystical female group super-consciousness which making proclamations for the entire human race. But that's your problem. Most everyone just sees individual people making decisions for themselves. Liberty, in other words.

That's an easy fix, and no man will ever again be required to watch his child's life be terminated by such unequaled and absolute power.

I detect the philosophy of MRA's sneaking in. Mens' rights advocates. The "all women are evil" stuff gives it away.

 

[hortysir]

40 Days for Life - The Beginning of the End of Abortion

Founded by a former PP director that saw, first hand, what was really going on

 

[LoneLaugher]

How does the OP feel about birth control?

 

[Bfgrn]

40 Days for Life - The Beginning of the End of Abortion

Founded by a former PP director that saw, first hand, what was really going on

FALSE
40 Days for Life is an international group that campaigns against abortion, originally started in 2004 by a local group in Bryan-College Station, Texas, led by David Bereit.

 

[hortysir]

40 Days for Life - The Beginning of the End of Abortion

Founded by a former PP director that saw, first hand, what was really going on

FALSE
40 Days for Life is an international group that campaigns against abortion, originally started in 2004 by a local group in Bryan-College Station, Texas, led by David Bereit.

You're right

Had my sites confused


Abby Johnson is her name

Abby Johnson

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

"Never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right."

The Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The High Courts key admission:

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."


When a human egg is fertilized, that individual humans existence and personhood has been initiated and determined. Even its very genetic code has been determined. Everything that human will ever be is contained within that fertilized cell. Human life and individual personhood begins and is established when a human cell has been fertilized. Whether that cell implants to the uterus is another story. Human life and the personhood of that life begins and is determined at conception. The science behind this is undeniable with any validity at all. Each individual, and each already determined personhood of each individual are enabled to continue development once the fertilized cell implants to the uterus. The personhood has been determined and that persons individual existence will undergo further development just like the rest of us.


The facts are every human is still in developmental stages. I am still in developmental stages, you are still in developmental stages, babies, toddlers, teens, adults, seniors, etc. People discriminate against the personhood of unborn human lives based on the zygote and even the fetus not looking like us, not being able to think like us, not being able to breath like us, etc. It's PC standard to not even speak a discriminatory word much less take a human life based on discrimination. What you are looking at is possible future abortions being deemed discriminatory hate crimes against the personhood of unborn human lives.


Consider the fact that unwanted pregnancy can be prevented absolutely, the fact woman have been granted absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever potentially have life at all at their sole discretion in this nation, the fact that the entire cause of human rights is negated by the insistence that unborn human life has no true value until [insert answer here] when it has been proven that human life undeniably begins to develop and its personhood established the moment conception takes place, as well as the fact that many woman are undeniably abusing the power they've been granted, and you have a sure fire recipe for overturning Roe vs. Wade.


How many decades have woman been entrusted with this right? How often is this right being abused? How resistant are the pro choice crowd to cooperation? How often is the horror of abortion sugar coated for sake of pandering to PC sensitivities? The pro choice PC crowd has literally ensured they lose the right to choose and by their own selfish devises. I was completely pro choice up until 2 days ago. Yesterday I was on the fence. This morning I changed my stance entirely based on many variables already stated ad nauseam, but namely that abortion is unconstitutional.


If woman wish to retain even a small portion of their right to choose, something needs to be done by the pro choice crowd and cooperation needs to be pursued relentlessly by them (if this is even an option at all at this point). If not, there are going to be woman getting back alley abortions, more unnecessary deaths, and people possibly being charged with hate crimes because of, and all because they refuse to live responsible sex lives. As it is, unequaled power and absolute authority over every future unborn human life in this nation have been granted to even the most selfish, irresponsible, and haphazard woman among us. How does this not concern people?

In essence, the court did rule abortion "constitutional"...by ruling that banning abortion is unconstitutional.

Abortion
Abortion.—In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. In doing so, the Court dramatically increased judicial oversight of legislation under the privacy line of cases, striking down aspects of abortion-related laws in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review.558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."561

557 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973). A companion case was Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). The opinion by Justice Blackman was concurred in by Justices Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Powell, and Chief Justice Burger. Justices White and Rehnquist dissented, id. at 171, 221, arguing that the Court should follow the traditional due process test of determining whether a law has a rational relation to a valid state objective and that so judged the statute was valid. Justice Rehnquist was willing to consider an absolute ban on abortions even when the mother's life is in jeopardy to be a denial of due process, 410 U.S. at 173, while Justice White left the issue open. 410 U.S. at 223.

It was only ruled unconstitutional because human personhood could not be verified at that time. Times have changed.

Times haven't changed...the ruling and the law are not based on some dubious definition of "human personhood". The law is based on viability.

The fetus or baby is viable
This refers to the time in pregnancy when the baby, if born now and prematurely, has a reasonable chance of survival. For most hospitals in the United States the age of viability is about 24 weeks 0 days of the pregnancy. However, being born at 24 weeks does not mean that most babies will survive or that if they survive they will have no problems. The chances of survival increase with each day after 24 weeks, and the risks of complications decrease.

At 24 weeks is the cutoff point for when many doctors will use intensive medical intervention to attempt to save the life of a baby born prematurely including doing a cesarean section. Between 23 and 24 weeks is a "gray zone" where most doctors would not intervene. And below 23 weeks weeks doctors are unlikely to do a cesarean section for fetal reasons and most neonatologist will not resuscitate a baby born before 23 weeks, and many won't resuscitate a baby born between 23-24 weeks.

A baby born at 24 weeks would generally require a lot of intervention, potentially including mechanical ventilation and other invasive treatments followed by a lengthy stay in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Odds of survival increase as the pregnancy progresses, and even an extra week in the womb can make a difference. In general, premature babies born closer to 37 weeks will be much better off than those born before 28 weeks.

The law that gave woman unequaled and absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could possibly ever have life at all in this Nation at their sole discretion and whim does not follow the definition of viability on a baby website. It follows the definition of personhood YOU call dubious, which determines when life begins.and the personhood of each individual human life established. Lets talk about viability though. You seem to think it's a good argument. Lets explore it in contrast to personhood. Then lets talk about the 14th amendment.

 

[Bfgrn]

"Never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right."

The Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The High Courts key admission:

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."


When a human egg is fertilized, that individual humans existence and personhood has been initiated and determined. Even its very genetic code has been determined. Everything that human will ever be is contained within that fertilized cell. Human life and individual personhood begins and is established when a human cell has been fertilized. Whether that cell implants to the uterus is another story. Human life and the personhood of that life begins and is determined at conception. The science behind this is undeniable with any validity at all. Each individual, and each already determined personhood of each individual are enabled to continue development once the fertilized cell implants to the uterus. The personhood has been determined and that persons individual existence will undergo further development just like the rest of us.


The facts are every human is still in developmental stages. I am still in developmental stages, you are still in developmental stages, babies, toddlers, teens, adults, seniors, etc. People discriminate against the personhood of unborn human lives based on the zygote and even the fetus not looking like us, not being able to think like us, not being able to breath like us, etc. It's PC standard to not even speak a discriminatory word much less take a human life based on discrimination. What you are looking at is possible future abortions being deemed discriminatory hate crimes against the personhood of unborn human lives.


Consider the fact that unwanted pregnancy can be prevented absolutely, the fact woman have been granted absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever potentially have life at all at their sole discretion in this nation, the fact that the entire cause of human rights is negated by the insistence that unborn human life has no true value until [insert answer here] when it has been proven that human life undeniably begins to develop and its personhood established the moment conception takes place, as well as the fact that many woman are undeniably abusing the power they've been granted, and you have a sure fire recipe for overturning Roe vs. Wade.


How many decades have woman been entrusted with this right? How often is this right being abused? How resistant are the pro choice crowd to cooperation? How often is the horror of abortion sugar coated for sake of pandering to PC sensitivities? The pro choice PC crowd has literally ensured they lose the right to choose and by their own selfish devises. I was completely pro choice up until 2 days ago. Yesterday I was on the fence. This morning I changed my stance entirely based on many variables already stated ad nauseam, but namely that abortion is unconstitutional.


If woman wish to retain even a small portion of their right to choose, something needs to be done by the pro choice crowd and cooperation needs to be pursued relentlessly by them (if this is even an option at all at this point). If not, there are going to be woman getting back alley abortions, more unnecessary deaths, and people possibly being charged with hate crimes because of, and all because they refuse to live responsible sex lives. As it is, unequaled power and absolute authority over every future unborn human life in this nation have been granted to even the most selfish, irresponsible, and haphazard woman among us. How does this not concern people?

In essence, the court did rule abortion "constitutional"...by ruling that banning abortion is unconstitutional.

Abortion
Abortion.—In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. In doing so, the Court dramatically increased judicial oversight of legislation under the privacy line of cases, striking down aspects of abortion-related laws in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review.558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."561

557 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973). A companion case was Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). The opinion by Justice Blackman was concurred in by Justices Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Powell, and Chief Justice Burger. Justices White and Rehnquist dissented, id. at 171, 221, arguing that the Court should follow the traditional due process test of determining whether a law has a rational relation to a valid state objective and that so judged the statute was valid. Justice Rehnquist was willing to consider an absolute ban on abortions even when the mother's life is in jeopardy to be a denial of due process, 410 U.S. at 173, while Justice White left the issue open. 410 U.S. at 223.

It was only ruled unconstitutional because human personhood could not be verified at that time. Times have changed.

Times haven't changed...the ruling and the law are not based on some dubious definition of "human personhood". The law is based on viability.

The fetus or baby is viable
This refers to the time in pregnancy when the baby, if born now and prematurely, has a reasonable chance of survival. For most hospitals in the United States the age of viability is about 24 weeks 0 days of the pregnancy. However, being born at 24 weeks does not mean that most babies will survive or that if they survive they will have no problems. The chances of survival increase with each day after 24 weeks, and the risks of complications decrease.

At 24 weeks is the cutoff point for when many doctors will use intensive medical intervention to attempt to save the life of a baby born prematurely including doing a cesarean section. Between 23 and 24 weeks is a "gray zone" where most doctors would not intervene. And below 23 weeks weeks doctors are unlikely to do a cesarean section for fetal reasons and most neonatologist will not resuscitate a baby born before 23 weeks, and many won't resuscitate a baby born between 23-24 weeks.

A baby born at 24 weeks would generally require a lot of intervention, potentially including mechanical ventilation and other invasive treatments followed by a lengthy stay in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Odds of survival increase as the pregnancy progresses, and even an extra week in the womb can make a difference. In general, premature babies born closer to 37 weeks will be much better off than those born before 28 weeks.

The law that gave woman unequaled and absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could possibly ever have life at all in this Nation at their sole discretion and whim does not follow the definition of viability on a baby website. It follows the definition of personhood YOU call dubious, which determines when life begins.and the personhood of each individual human life established. Lets talk about viability though. You seem to think it's a good argument. Lets explore it in contrast to personhood. Then lets talk about the 14th amendment.

You are using EXTREME hyperbole, conspiracy theories and total nonsense. Abortion is not going to cause the extinction of mankind...

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

You seem to be talking about some imaginary mystical female group super-consciousness which making proclamations for the entire human race. But that's your problem. Most everyone just sees individual people making decisions for themselves. Liberty, in other words.

I'm speaking of very real and very dangerous power given to a specific gender. It is the absolute power held by every woman in this nation to terminate unborn human life at their sole discretion and whim. Every human life that could possibly have life at all are at risk because of this type of absolute power. This power is already being abused on a monumental scale. There are over 1,000,000 abortions being performed in this nation annually, ~ 850,000 of which are unnecessary.

I detect the philosophy of MRA's sneaking in. Mens' rights advocates. The "all women are evil" stuff gives it away.

Men's rights matter too, but woman being evil are your words, your thoughts, and your contributions to this discussion ... not my own. Woman aren't evil. They have just been granted far too much power not possessed by any other human entity in this nation. This power is unequaled, is absolute, and is extremely dangerous for any one human to possess, much less by over 500 million.

 

[Bfgrn]

The law that gave woman unequaled and absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could possibly ever have life at all in this Nation at their sole discretion and whim does not follow the definition of viability on a baby website. It follows the definition of personhood YOU call dubious, which determines when life begins.and the personhood of each individual human life established. Lets talk about viability though. You seem to think it's a good argument. Lets explore it in contrast to personhood. Then lets talk about the 14th amendment.

OK...

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:

"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 due process clause is emphasize

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

"Never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right."

The Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The High Courts key admission:

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."


When a human egg is fertilized, that individual humans existence and personhood has been initiated and determined. Even its very genetic code has been determined. Everything that human will ever be is contained within that fertilized cell. Human life and individual personhood begins and is established when a human cell has been fertilized. Whether that cell implants to the uterus is another story. Human life and the personhood of that life begins and is determined at conception. The science behind this is undeniable with any validity at all. Each individual, and each already determined personhood of each individual are enabled to continue development once the fertilized cell implants to the uterus. The personhood has been determined and that persons individual existence will undergo further development just like the rest of us.


The facts are every human is still in developmental stages. I am still in developmental stages, you are still in developmental stages, babies, toddlers, teens, adults, seniors, etc. People discriminate against the personhood of unborn human lives based on the zygote and even the fetus not looking like us, not being able to think like us, not being able to breath like us, etc. It's PC standard to not even speak a discriminatory word much less take a human life based on discrimination. What you are looking at is possible future abortions being deemed discriminatory hate crimes against the personhood of unborn human lives.


Consider the fact that unwanted pregnancy can be prevented absolutely, the fact woman have been granted absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever potentially have life at all at their sole discretion in this nation, the fact that the entire cause of human rights is negated by the insistence that unborn human life has no true value until [insert answer here] when it has been proven that human life undeniably begins to develop and its personhood established the moment conception takes place, as well as the fact that many woman are undeniably abusing the power they've been granted, and you have a sure fire recipe for overturning Roe vs. Wade.


How many decades have woman been entrusted with this right? How often is this right being abused? How resistant are the pro choice crowd to cooperation? How often is the horror of abortion sugar coated for sake of pandering to PC sensitivities? The pro choice PC crowd has literally ensured they lose the right to choose and by their own selfish devises. I was completely pro choice up until 2 days ago. Yesterday I was on the fence. This morning I changed my stance entirely based on many variables already stated ad nauseam, but namely that abortion is unconstitutional.


If woman wish to retain even a small portion of their right to choose, something needs to be done by the pro choice crowd and cooperation needs to be pursued relentlessly by them (if this is even an option at all at this point). If not, there are going to be woman getting back alley abortions, more unnecessary deaths, and people possibly being charged with hate crimes because of, and all because they refuse to live responsible sex lives. As it is, unequaled power and absolute authority over every future unborn human life in this nation have been granted to even the most selfish, irresponsible, and haphazard woman among us. How does this not concern people?

In essence, the court did rule abortion "constitutional"...by ruling that banning abortion is unconstitutional.

Abortion
Abortion.—In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. In doing so, the Court dramatically increased judicial oversight of legislation under the privacy line of cases, striking down aspects of abortion-related laws in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review.558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."561

557 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973). A companion case was Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). The opinion by Justice Blackman was concurred in by Justices Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Powell, and Chief Justice Burger. Justices White and Rehnquist dissented, id. at 171, 221, arguing that the Court should follow the traditional due process test of determining whether a law has a rational relation to a valid state objective and that so judged the statute was valid. Justice Rehnquist was willing to consider an absolute ban on abortions even when the mother's life is in jeopardy to be a denial of due process, 410 U.S. at 173, while Justice White left the issue open. 410 U.S. at 223.

It was only ruled unconstitutional because human personhood could not be verified at that time. Times have changed.

Times haven't changed...the ruling and the law are not based on some dubious definition of "human personhood". The law is based on viability.

The fetus or baby is viable
This refers to the time in pregnancy when the baby, if born now and prematurely, has a reasonable chance of survival. For most hospitals in the United States the age of viability is about 24 weeks 0 days of the pregnancy. However, being born at 24 weeks does not mean that most babies will survive or that if they survive they will have no problems. The chances of survival increase with each day after 24 weeks, and the risks of complications decrease.

At 24 weeks is the cutoff point for when many doctors will use intensive medical intervention to attempt to save the life of a baby born prematurely including doing a cesarean section. Between 23 and 24 weeks is a "gray zone" where most doctors would not intervene. And below 23 weeks weeks doctors are unlikely to do a cesarean section for fetal reasons and most neonatologist will not resuscitate a baby born before 23 weeks, and many won't resuscitate a baby born between 23-24 weeks.

A baby born at 24 weeks would generally require a lot of intervention, potentially including mechanical ventilation and other invasive treatments followed by a lengthy stay in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Odds of survival increase as the pregnancy progresses, and even an extra week in the womb can make a difference. In general, premature babies born closer to 37 weeks will be much better off than those born before 28 weeks.

The law that gave woman unequaled and absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could possibly ever have life at all in this Nation at their sole discretion and whim does not follow the definition of viability on a baby website. It follows the definition of personhood YOU call dubious, which determines when life begins.and the personhood of each individual human life established. Lets talk about viability though. You seem to think it's a good argument. Lets explore it in contrast to personhood. Then lets talk about the 14th amendment.

You are using EXTREME hyperbole, conspiracy theories and total nonsense. Abortion is not going to cause the extinction of mankind...

I never said it would. That is your contribution to this discussion, not my own. The fact remains that such absolute power over the life and death of every unborn human life and every human that could possibly ever have life at all in this Nation is dangerous, careless, and should be revoked indefinitely. Particularly when this absolute power is often evoked based on the whims and fancies of haphazard woman.

 

[Bfgrn]

JaggedZenMonkey...

Let's look at some real problems and consequences if your world would play out...

If YOU want a woman's uterus to become property of the state, then YOU have to accept THOSE consequences.

A pregnancy requires special care and services for a woman. Are YOU willing to PAY for her prenatal care? Are you willing to PAY for her numerous doctor visits, tests, vitamins and ultrsound? Are YOU willing to PAY for her special diet and make sure she eats healthy? Are YOU willing to make sure she doesn't smoke or drink to protect the health of the embryo?

Are you willing to PAY her prenatal care and delivery costs which can range from about $9,000 to over $250,000?

Are YOU willing to PAY for her maturity leave from her job?

What if the woman has medical complications that leave her permanently disabled? Are YOU willing to PAY to support her the rest of her life?

I really don't believe you even thought about consequences.

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

The law that gave woman unequaled and absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could possibly ever have life at all in this Nation at their sole discretion and whim does not follow the definition of viability on a baby website. It follows the definition of personhood YOU call dubious, which determines when life begins.and the personhood of each individual human life established. Lets talk about viability though. You seem to think it's a good argument. Lets explore it in contrast to personhood. Then lets talk about the 14th amendment.

OK...

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:

"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 due process clause is emphasize

Preamble of the U.S. Constitution - Posterity: Regarding the securing of rights to ourselves and our "posterity" this word means both the future generations of all of us collectively, and also the descendants and offspring of each of us as individuals. Since our descendants consist only of one or more individual persons, protection of the rights of our posterity has meaning only if it provides for the protection of the rights of those persons as individuals, including each of our unborn offspring.

Citizens Naturalized or Born: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.." This is not about inalienable rights but only about conferring citizenship. Thus the "born or naturalized" clause prevents those not born here, such as illegal aliens or foreign tourists, from obtaining citizenship without being naturalized. It is a non sequitur to claim that the Constitution does not require "equal protection" for everyone within the jurisdiction of the states. This Section goes on to demand just that, including of all non-citizens such as foreign tourists. It would be absurd if other countries denied American travelers protection under their murder statutes, because we were merely non-citizen tourists. Furthermore it is an egregiously immoral, and unconstitutional argument that if any person is not "born" here, the federal government must not enforce the 14th amendment requirement that the States provide "due process" and "equal protection" to such persons.

5th Amendment Protection: "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th Amendment Protection: "Section 1. 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."

 

[Bfgrn]

The law that gave woman unequaled and absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could possibly ever have life at all in this Nation at their sole discretion and whim does not follow the definition of viability on a baby website. It follows the definition of personhood YOU call dubious, which determines when life begins.and the personhood of each individual human life established. Lets talk about viability though. You seem to think it's a good argument. Lets explore it in contrast to personhood. Then lets talk about the 14th amendment.

OK...

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:

"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 due process clause is emphasize

Preamble of the U.S. Constitution - Posterity: Regarding the securing of rights to ourselves and our "posterity" this word means both the future generations of all of us collectively, and also the descendants and offspring of each of us as individuals. Since our descendants consist only of one or more individual persons, protection of the rights of our posterity has meaning only if it provides for the protection of the rights of those persons as individuals, including each of our unborn offspring.

Citizens Naturalized or Born: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.." This is not about inalienable rights but only about conferring citizenship. Thus the "born or naturalized" clause prevents those not born here, such as illegal aliens or foreign tourists, from obtaining citizenship without being naturalized.. This Section goes on to demand just that, including of all non-citizens such as foreign tourists. It would be absurd if other countries denied American travelers protection under their murder statutes, because we were merely non-citizen tourists. Furthermore it is an egregiously immoral, and unconstitutional argument that if any person is not "born" here, the federal government must not enforce the 14th amendment requirement that the States provide "due process" and "equal protection" to such persons.

5th Amendment Protection: "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th Amendment Protection: "Section 1. 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."

So your argument is to plagiarize a pro life website?

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

JaggedZenMonkey...

Let's look at some real problems and consequences if your world would play out...

If YOU want a woman's uterus to become property of the state, then YOU have to accept THOSE consequences.

A pregnancy requires special care and services for a woman. Are YOU willing to PAY for her prenatal care? Are you willing to PAY for her numerous doctor visits, tests, vitamins and ultrsound? Are YOU willing to PAY for her special diet and make sure she eats healthy? Are YOU willing to make sure she doesn't smoke or drink to protect the health of the embryo?

Are you willing to PAY her prenatal care and delivery costs which can range from about $9,000 to over $250,000?

Are YOU willing to PAY for her maturity leave from her job?

What if the woman has medical complications that leave her permanently disabled? Are YOU willing to PAY to support her the rest of her life?

I really don't believe you even thought about consequences.

Over 1,000,000 human lives are being deliberately terminated each and every year in this Nation. This is tragic! Pregnancy can be completely avoided by any woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, except for the reason of rape. Women who don't want to get pregnant who do something that can make them pregnant are not in control of themselves. That's simple reality, and you expect these woman who are unable to even control themselves have the absolute power to terminate any and all unborn human life at their sole discretion? Have you thought about the already present consequences and danger or the potential future dangers of any human entity holding such absolute power?


Woman seem to believe it's their right and sole authority to determine the value of unborn human life. They insist it is their right to terminate unborn human life at their sole discretion. Talk about a power trip. Woman are essentially playing God. God forbid anyone be honest about this issue. Many of these woman insist they should have the right to be irresponsible and selfish and not be held accountable for actions that result in the deliberate termination of human lives. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned abortion will no longer be safe, but by some (many) woman taking advantage of their liberties, they are forcing this very real threat on all woman indefinitely.


All that's needed to prevent pregnancies from happening is more responsible behavior by them and their partners. God forbid! At the rate it's going, Roe vs. Wade will be overturned much sooner than later. And all some people seem to want to do is play the victim card, be hostile (not here), throw about accusations of misogyny (not here), and try to appeal to emotion when overturning Roe vs. Wade doesn't need to happen at all. But no. These types insist on being irresponsible. They insist it's their right to be selfish and irresponsible, even when they would deliberately have a human life snuffed as a result of that irresponsible behavior.


What people do in the bedroom is not my business. However, if a couple do not want an unwanted pregnancy, it can be prevented. There are quite a few options that will never result in pregnancy. There are no contraceptives that offer 100% pregnancy prevention. That's an important thing to consider. However, prevent unwanted pregnancies destined to be terminated and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Imagine people being responsible for a change. That's all it takes. Mutual masturbation, anal sex, toys, oral sex, and a host of other possibilities other than typical vaginal sex are all very valid alternatives. Abstinence is just one method of preventing pregnancy. The others involve a willingness to explore human sexuality, which I fully support. As for rape, incest, med nec, I'd suggest the choice to terminate should not be pulled. We'll see how that plays out.

 

[Bfgrn]

JaggedZenMonkey...

Let's look at some real problems and consequences if your world would play out...

If YOU want a woman's uterus to become property of the state, then YOU have to accept THOSE consequences.

A pregnancy requires special care and services for a woman. Are YOU willing to PAY for her prenatal care? Are you willing to PAY for her numerous doctor visits, tests, vitamins and ultrsound? Are YOU willing to PAY for her special diet and make sure she eats healthy? Are YOU willing to make sure she doesn't smoke or drink to protect the health of the embryo?

Are you willing to PAY her prenatal care and delivery costs which can range from about $9,000 to over $250,000?

Are YOU willing to PAY for her maturity leave from her job?

What if the woman has medical complications that leave her permanently disabled? Are YOU willing to PAY to support her the rest of her life?

I really don't believe you even thought about consequences.

Over 1,000,000 human lives are being deliberately terminated each and every year in this Nation. This is tragic! Pregnancy can be completely avoided by any woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, except for the reason of rape. Women who don't want to get pregnant who do something that can make them pregnant are not in control of themselves. That's simple reality, and you expect these woman who are unable to even control themselves have the absolute power to terminate any and all unborn human life at their sole discretion? Have you thought about the already present consequences and danger or the potential future dangers of any human entity holding such absolute power?


Woman seem to believe it's their right and sole authority to determine the value of unborn human life. They insist it is their right to terminate unborn human life at their sole discretion. Talk about a power trip. Woman are essentially playing God. God forbid anyone be honest about this issue. Many of these woman insist they should have the right to be irresponsible and selfish and not be held accountable for actions that result in the deliberate termination of human lives. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned abortion will no longer be safe, but by some (many) woman taking advantage of their liberties, they are forcing this very real threat on all woman indefinitely.


All that's needed to prevent pregnancies from happening is more responsible behavior by them and their partners. God forbid! At the rate it's going, Roe vs. Wade will be overturned much sooner than later. And all some people seem to want to do is play the victim card, be hostile (not here), throw about accusations of misogyny (not here), and try to appeal to emotion when overturning Roe vs. Wade doesn't need to happen at all. But no. These types insist on being irresponsible. They insist it's their right to be selfish and irresponsible, even when they would deliberately have a human life snuffed as a result of that irresponsible behavior.


What people do in the bedroom is not my business. However, if a couple do not want an unwanted pregnancy, it can be prevented. There are quite a few options that will never result in pregnancy. There are no contraceptives that offer 100% pregnancy prevention. That's an important thing to consider. However, prevent unwanted pregnancies destined to be terminated and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Imagine people being responsible for a change. That's all it takes. Mutual masturbation, anal sex, toys, oral sex, and a host of other possibilities other than typical vaginal sex are all very valid alternatives. Abstinence is just one method of preventing pregnancy. The others involve a willingness to explore human sexuality, which I fully support. As for rape, incest, med nec, I'd suggest the choice to terminate should not be pulled. We'll see how that plays out.

I read it the first time...you are now firing blanks...

EXTREME hyperbole, conspiracy theories and total nonsense.

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

The law that gave woman unequaled and absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could possibly ever have life at all in this Nation at their sole discretion and whim does not follow the definition of viability on a baby website. It follows the definition of personhood YOU call dubious, which determines when life begins.and the personhood of each individual human life established. Lets talk about viability though. You seem to think it's a good argument. Lets explore it in contrast to personhood. Then lets talk about the 14th amendment.

OK...

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:

"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 due process clause is emphasize

Preamble of the U.S. Constitution - Posterity: Regarding the securing of rights to ourselves and our "posterity" this word means both the future generations of all of us collectively, and also the descendants and offspring of each of us as individuals. Since our descendants consist only of one or more individual persons, protection of the rights of our posterity has meaning only if it provides for the protection of the rights of those persons as individuals, including each of our unborn offspring.

Citizens Naturalized or Born: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.." This is not about inalienable rights but only about conferring citizenship. Thus the "born or naturalized" clause prevents those not born here, such as illegal aliens or foreign tourists, from obtaining citizenship without being naturalized.. This Section goes on to demand just that, including of all non-citizens such as foreign tourists. It would be absurd if other countries denied American travelers protection under their murder statutes, because we were merely non-citizen tourists. Furthermore it is an egregiously immoral, and unconstitutional argument that if any person is not "born" here, the federal government must not enforce the 14th amendment requirement that the States provide "due process" and "equal protection" to such persons.

5th Amendment Protection: "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th Amendment Protection: "Section 1. 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."

So your argument is to plagiarize a pro life website?

No, but to rather borrow from what is already readily available information in the public domain, but if you like I can certainly cite one of many sources that deal with this issue directly.

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

JaggedZenMonkey...

Let's look at some real problems and consequences if your world would play out...

If YOU want a woman's uterus to become property of the state, then YOU have to accept THOSE consequences.

A pregnancy requires special care and services for a woman. Are YOU willing to PAY for her prenatal care? Are you willing to PAY for her numerous doctor visits, tests, vitamins and ultrsound? Are YOU willing to PAY for her special diet and make sure she eats healthy? Are YOU willing to make sure she doesn't smoke or drink to protect the health of the embryo?

Are you willing to PAY her prenatal care and delivery costs which can range from about $9,000 to over $250,000?

Are YOU willing to PAY for her maturity leave from her job?

What if the woman has medical complications that leave her permanently disabled? Are YOU willing to PAY to support her the rest of her life?

I really don't believe you even thought about consequences.

Over 1,000,000 human lives are being deliberately terminated each and every year in this Nation. This is tragic! Pregnancy can be completely avoided by any woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, except for the reason of rape. Women who don't want to get pregnant who do something that can make them pregnant are not in control of themselves. That's simple reality, and you expect these woman who are unable to even control themselves have the absolute power to terminate any and all unborn human life at their sole discretion? Have you thought about the already present consequences and danger or the potential future dangers of any human entity holding such absolute power?


Woman seem to believe it's their right and sole authority to determine the value of unborn human life. They insist it is their right to terminate unborn human life at their sole discretion. Talk about a power trip. Woman are essentially playing God. God forbid anyone be honest about this issue. Many of these woman insist they should have the right to be irresponsible and selfish and not be held accountable for actions that result in the deliberate termination of human lives. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned abortion will no longer be safe, but by some (many) woman taking advantage of their liberties, they are forcing this very real threat on all woman indefinitely.


All that's needed to prevent pregnancies from happening is more responsible behavior by them and their partners. God forbid! At the rate it's going, Roe vs. Wade will be overturned much sooner than later. And all some people seem to want to do is play the victim card, be hostile (not here), throw about accusations of misogyny (not here), and try to appeal to emotion when overturning Roe vs. Wade doesn't need to happen at all. But no. These types insist on being irresponsible. They insist it's their right to be selfish and irresponsible, even when they would deliberately have a human life snuffed as a result of that irresponsible behavior.


What people do in the bedroom is not my business. However, if a couple do not want an unwanted pregnancy, it can be prevented. There are quite a few options that will never result in pregnancy. There are no contraceptives that offer 100% pregnancy prevention. That's an important thing to consider. However, prevent unwanted pregnancies destined to be terminated and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Imagine people being responsible for a change. That's all it takes. Mutual masturbation, anal sex, toys, oral sex, and a host of other possibilities other than typical vaginal sex are all very valid alternatives. Abstinence is just one method of preventing pregnancy. The others involve a willingness to explore human sexuality, which I fully support. As for rape, incest, med nec, I'd suggest the choice to terminate should not be pulled. We'll see how that plays out.

I read it the first time...you are now firing blanks...

EXTREME hyperbole, conspiracy theories and total nonsense.

Would you like to actually discuss this issue or are you content with just throwing about false accusation?

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

JaggedZenMonkey...

Let's look at some real problems and consequences if your world would play out...

If YOU want a woman's uterus to become property of the state, then YOU have to accept THOSE consequences.

A pregnancy requires special care and services for a woman. Are YOU willing to PAY for her prenatal care? Are you willing to PAY for her numerous doctor visits, tests, vitamins and ultrsound? Are YOU willing to PAY for her special diet and make sure she eats healthy? Are YOU willing to make sure she doesn't smoke or drink to protect the health of the embryo?

Are you willing to PAY her prenatal care and delivery costs which can range from about $9,000 to over $250,000?

Are YOU willing to PAY for her maturity leave from her job?

What if the woman has medical complications that leave her permanently disabled? Are YOU willing to PAY to support her the rest of her life?

I really don't believe you even thought about consequences.

Over 1,000,000 human lives are being deliberately terminated each and every year in this Nation. This is tragic! Pregnancy can be completely avoided by any woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, except for the reason of rape. Women who don't want to get pregnant who do something that can make them pregnant are not in control of themselves. That's simple reality, and you expect these woman who are unable to even control themselves have the absolute power to terminate any and all unborn human life at their sole discretion? Have you thought about the already present consequences and danger or the potential future dangers of any human entity holding such absolute power?


Woman seem to believe it's their right and sole authority to determine the value of unborn human life. They insist it is their right to terminate unborn human life at their sole discretion. Talk about a power trip. Woman are essentially playing God. God forbid anyone be honest about this issue. Many of these woman insist they should have the right to be irresponsible and selfish and not be held accountable for actions that result in the deliberate termination of human lives. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned abortion will no longer be safe, but by some (many) woman taking advantage of their liberties, they are forcing this very real threat on all woman indefinitely.


All that's needed to prevent pregnancies from happening is more responsible behavior by them and their partners. God forbid! At the rate it's going, Roe vs. Wade will be overturned much sooner than later. And all some people seem to want to do is play the victim card, be hostile (not here), throw about accusations of misogyny (not here), and try to appeal to emotion when overturning Roe vs. Wade doesn't need to happen at all. But no. These types insist on being irresponsible. They insist it's their right to be selfish and irresponsible, even when they would deliberately have a human life snuffed as a result of that irresponsible behavior.


What people do in the bedroom is not my business. However, if a couple do not want an unwanted pregnancy, it can be prevented. There are quite a few options that will never result in pregnancy. There are no contraceptives that offer 100% pregnancy prevention. That's an important thing to consider. However, prevent unwanted pregnancies destined to be terminated and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Imagine people being responsible for a change. That's all it takes. Mutual masturbation, anal sex, toys, oral sex, and a host of other possibilities other than typical vaginal sex are all very valid alternatives. Abstinence is just one method of preventing pregnancy. The others involve a willingness to explore human sexuality, which I fully support. As for rape, incest, med nec, I'd suggest the choice to terminate should not be pulled. We'll see how that plays out.

I read it the first time...you are now firing blanks...

EXTREME hyperbole, conspiracy theories and total nonsense.

Let's discuss this alone then. Women who don't want to get pregnant who do something that can make them pregnant are not in control of themselves. That's simple reality, and YOU expect these woman who are unable to even control themselves have the absolute power to terminate any and all unborn human life at their sole discretion?


Have you thought about the already present consequences and danger or the potential future dangers of any human entity holding such absolute power?

 

[Bfgrn]

No, but to rather borrow from what is already readily available information in the public domain, but if you like I can certainly cite one of many sources that deal with this issue directly.

"public domain" don't fly here...

USMB Rules and Guidelines

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source.

 

[Bfgrn]

JaggedZenMonkey...

Let's look at some real problems and consequences if your world would play out...

If YOU want a woman's uterus to become property of the state, then YOU have to accept THOSE consequences.

A pregnancy requires special care and services for a woman. Are YOU willing to PAY for her prenatal care? Are you willing to PAY for her numerous doctor visits, tests, vitamins and ultrsound? Are YOU willing to PAY for her special diet and make sure she eats healthy? Are YOU willing to make sure she doesn't smoke or drink to protect the health of the embryo?

Are you willing to PAY her prenatal care and delivery costs which can range from about $9,000 to over $250,000?

Are YOU willing to PAY for her maturity leave from her job?

What if the woman has medical complications that leave her permanently disabled? Are YOU willing to PAY to support her the rest of her life?

I really don't believe you even thought about consequences.

Over 1,000,000 human lives are being deliberately terminated each and every year in this Nation. This is tragic! Pregnancy can be completely avoided by any woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, except for the reason of rape. Women who don't want to get pregnant who do something that can make them pregnant are not in control of themselves. That's simple reality, and you expect these woman who are unable to even control themselves have the absolute power to terminate any and all unborn human life at their sole discretion? Have you thought about the already present consequences and danger or the potential future dangers of any human entity holding such absolute power?


Woman seem to believe it's their right and sole authority to determine the value of unborn human life. They insist it is their right to terminate unborn human life at their sole discretion. Talk about a power trip. Woman are essentially playing God. God forbid anyone be honest about this issue. Many of these woman insist they should have the right to be irresponsible and selfish and not be held accountable for actions that result in the deliberate termination of human lives. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned abortion will no longer be safe, but by some (many) woman taking advantage of their liberties, they are forcing this very real threat on all woman indefinitely.


All that's needed to prevent pregnancies from happening is more responsible behavior by them and their partners. God forbid! At the rate it's going, Roe vs. Wade will be overturned much sooner than later. And all some people seem to want to do is play the victim card, be hostile (not here), throw about accusations of misogyny (not here), and try to appeal to emotion when overturning Roe vs. Wade doesn't need to happen at all. But no. These types insist on being irresponsible. They insist it's their right to be selfish and irresponsible, even when they would deliberately have a human life snuffed as a result of that irresponsible behavior.


What people do in the bedroom is not my business. However, if a couple do not want an unwanted pregnancy, it can be prevented. There are quite a few options that will never result in pregnancy. There are no contraceptives that offer 100% pregnancy prevention. That's an important thing to consider. However, prevent unwanted pregnancies destined to be terminated and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Imagine people being responsible for a change. That's all it takes. Mutual masturbation, anal sex, toys, oral sex, and a host of other possibilities other than typical vaginal sex are all very valid alternatives. Abstinence is just one method of preventing pregnancy. The others involve a willingness to explore human sexuality, which I fully support. As for rape, incest, med nec, I'd suggest the choice to terminate should not be pulled. We'll see how that plays out.

I read it the first time...you are now firing blanks...

EXTREME hyperbole, conspiracy theories and total nonsense.

Let's discuss this alone then. Women who don't want to get pregnant who do something that can make them pregnant are not in control of themselves. That's simple reality, and YOU expect these woman who are unable to even control themselves have the absolute power to terminate any and all unborn human life at their sole discretion?


Have you thought about the already present consequences and danger or the potential future dangers of any human entity holding such absolute power?

Isn't it interesting that the "anti-abortion party" is also the anti-contraceptive party?

The Republican War on Contraception
Not satisfied with restricting abortion rights, the GOP is now coming after your birth control.