Liberals On Abortion

[Chuz Life]

No equivocation, I clearly stated my position and provided an analogy. You don't agree but you do understand me if not:

A fertilized egg is NOT a PERSON. IMHO of course.

So, a person in the zygote stage of their life is not a person in the zygote stage of their life. . . In YOUR OPINION.

Got it.

You have a right to be wrong, I suppose.

Thanks for helping me illustrate it

 

[pknopp]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are thos ite with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.





I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.




4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."




Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

The left has misrepresented Roe v Wade, the landmark case on abortion. The Sup Ct did not say all abortions are legal. They said no state may ban abortion for the 1st 3 months of pregnancy. After that, the states may regulate abortion as they see fit.

That's not what it says either. It states that regulations may be put in place during the 2nd trimester in the interest of the woman. The third allowed restrictions in the interest of the fetus.

The Supreme Court said that States have the authority (I would add the responsibility) to regulate abortions when it (any State) has a compelling interest in the preservation of the child's life.

They said the state may in the third trimester.

 

[MarcATL]

Liberals on abortion: "Safe, legal and rare"

That's it. It is that simple.

This renders the OP useless.

 

[Chuz Life]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are thos ite with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.





I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.




4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."




Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

The left has misrepresented Roe v Wade, the landmark case on abortion. The Sup Ct did not say all abortions are legal. They said no state may ban abortion for the 1st 3 months of pregnancy. After that, the states may regulate abortion as they see fit.

That's not what it says either. It states that regulations may be put in place during the 2nd trimester in the interest of the woman. The third allowed restrictions in the interest of the fetus.

The Supreme Court said that States have the authority (I would add the responsibility) to regulate abortions when it (any State) has a compelling interest in the preservation of the child's life.

They said the state may in the third trimester.

Quote it in full context

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals on abortion: "Safe, legal and rare"

That's it. It is that simple.

This renders the OP useless.

Stop lying.

Liberals are in favor of infanticide.



Hussein Obama supported infanticide...wouldn't vote to support the baby.

Obama named Peter Singer, champion of infanticide, as his 'science adviser.'
The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.

The Democrat governor of Virginia actually agreed with the bill for infanticide.

"New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"
New York abortion law changes allow infanticide

"Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"
Senate Democrats block Republicans’ anti-infanticide bill

 

[pknopp]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are thos ite with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.





I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.




4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."




Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

The left has misrepresented Roe v Wade, the landmark case on abortion. The Sup Ct did not say all abortions are legal. They said no state may ban abortion for the 1st 3 months of pregnancy. After that, the states may regulate abortion as they see fit.

That's not what it says either. It states that regulations may be put in place during the 2nd trimester in the interest of the woman. The third allowed restrictions in the interest of the fetus.

The Supreme Court said that States have the authority (I would add the responsibility) to regulate abortions when it (any State) has a compelling interest in the preservation of the child's life.

They said the state may in the third trimester.

Quote it in full context

It's been 47 years. If you are not aware of what it says by now.............................

 

[Chuz Life]

It's been 47 years. If you are not aware of what it says by now.............................

Do you want to quote the full context? Or do you want me to?

 

[pknopp]

It's been 47 years. If you are not aware of what it says by now.............................

Do you want to quote the full context? Or do you want me to?

That does nothing to back what you said. RvW decided that the state had an interest after viability. IMO that has become earlier than it was in 1973 but a state didn't have to do anything.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's been 47 years. If you are not aware of what it says by now.............................

Do you want to quote the full context? Or do you want me to?

That does nothing to back what you said. RvW decided that the state had an interest after viability. IMO that has become earlier than it was in 1973 but a state didn't have to do anything.

The Justices AND the pro aborts said otherwise, during oral arguments.

 

[pknopp]

It's been 47 years. If you are not aware of what it says by now.............................

Do you want to quote the full context? Or do you want me to?

That does nothing to back what you said. RvW decided that the state had an interest after viability. IMO that has become earlier than it was in 1973 but a state didn't have to do anything.

The Justices AND the pro aborts said otherwise, during oral arguments.

Arguments argue during the oral arguments. RvW laid out the trimester law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

None of this $hit matters in the slightest...

Abortion is a side-show compared to other issues at-stake here...

The vacuum of leadership by Rump during multiple national crises is enough to sideline a great many issues that would figure more prominently in normal times.

He's toast on November 3rd, and we'll be well-rid of the critter on January 20, 2021...

All the whining and kvetching about abortion and illegal aliens and foreign trade and jobs isn't going to do you the slightest bit of good this year...

Your boy is genuinely unfit for the high office which he presently occupies, and the Republic is preparing to make a Market Correction in that context.

I just heard, "This is an abortion thread, but how DARE anyone talk about anything besides ORANGE MAN BAAAAAAAD!!!"

Just because your sad existence revolves around your obsessive, pathological hatred of Trump does not require anyone else to think your mental problems are any more important than we think you are, ie. not one single damned bit.

If you don't want to talk about abortion, I suggest you rally your two brain cells enough to realize that an abortion thread is not the best place for you, and that no one will miss you when you go scream at the sky somewhere else.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm a lefty that agrees with much of what you say. However, you should save some of your anger for the Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby.

One cannot have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn because they don't recognize a set of chromosomes as being any different from an adult human being.

Free your mind.

This is a mighty oak tree in the first days of it's life.

THIS is a human being / a person in the first days of THEIR human life.

The difference is: any laws regulating trees from being cut and killed
do not affect women only while the male partners aren't held responsible for
having sex if they don't want pregnancy or children.

Abortion actually REWARDS the men for not having to take any responsibility,
even if they were the partner that forced sex and/or pregnancy on the other
partner against that's person's will and consent.

Until this is addressed, that's why the laws as written cause problems
with ENFORCEMENT. Roe V Wade struck down abortion bans because of
"substantive due process". The process of investigation by govt, prosecution
and defense would already impose on the WOMEN, in the PROCESS of proving
violation and conviction; thus depriving them of rights and liberty without
due process "to prove a conviction FIRST" or prove "mitigating circumstances"
as with other types of violations.

The place where BOTH partners could be treated equally by law
is to bar ALL PEOPLE from having sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy,
unwanted children or abortion. So that would likely requiring creating
a DIFFERENT level of law, apart from civil or criminal, where "health and safety"
ordinances could be used to police ABUSIVE behavior. And qualify "relationship abuse"
"relationship fraud" and "sexual abuse" to include abusing relationships
to result in unwanted sex or pregnancy, or unwanted children or abortion.

Any such nonconsensual actions or relations could be counted as "abuse"
and create a separate set of laws for states or districts to define a standard
policy and process that all their residents agree to follow in order to enforce
WITHOUT GOVT IMPOSING OR INFRINGING as long as the governed residents
AGREE to implement and comply with their own local policy.

People who cannot agree on the same policy should refrain from interacting,
similar to people of different religious beliefs and practices respecting each other
and not imposing or coercing people to follow policies against their beliefs.

We need to have the same respect for political beliefs that the law
protects for religious free choice. Prochoice and Prolife beliefs need
to be respected the same, let each person or group fund and follow
their own policies, and keep these out of govt unless everyone agrees
on a public policy.

 

[Kondor3]

...I just heard, "This is an abortion thread, but how DARE anyone talk about anything besides ORANGE MAN BAAAAAAAD!!!"...

Incorrect. What you heard was "Nice try, attempting to deflect attention away from Rump's deteriorating political prospects."

...Just because your sad existence revolves around your obsessive, pathological hatred of Trump does not require anyone else to think your mental problems are any more important than we think you are, ie. not one single damned bit...

Thank you for your feedback.

...If you don't want to talk about abortion, I suggest you rally your two brain cells enough to realize that an abortion thread is not the best place for you, and that no one will miss you when you go scream at the sky somewhere else.

Oh, but I DID talk about abortion... I suggested that it was a mere distraction and has lost importance in light of Rump's recent misfortunes and missteps.

Abortion loses its place as a premier Con Talking Point when the Cons slavishly obey and defend their Orange Cult Master; making Rump's defeat imperative.

 

[Cecilie1200]

...I just heard, "This is an abortion thread, but how DARE anyone talk about anything besides ORANGE MAN BAAAAAAAD!!!"...

Incorrect. What you heard was "Nice try, attempting to deflect attention away from Rump's deteriorating political prospects."

...Just because your sad existence revolves around your obsessive, pathological hatred of Trump does not require anyone else to think your mental problems are any more important than we think you are, ie. not one single damned bit...

Thank you for your feedback.

...If you don't want to talk about abortion, I suggest you rally your two brain cells enough to realize that an abortion thread is not the best place for you, and that no one will miss you when you go scream at the sky somewhere else.

Oh, but I DID talk about abortion... I suggested that it was a mere distraction and has lost importance in light of Rump's recent misfortunes and missteps.

Abortion loses its place as a premier Con Talking Point when the Cons slavishly obey and defend their Orange Cult Master; making Rump's defeat imperative.

No, I was correct in what I heard, because I just heard it again.

You don't get to decide what other people are and aren't allowed to talk about, Giggles, no matter how hard you pound your head against the padded wall of your cell. And talking about things other than your obsessive hatred of Trump is not a "deflection" from anything, because you and your mental illness are not the sum total of the rest of the world, no matter what the voices in your head say.

Now either stop trying to hijack the thread and address the topic, or have the orderlies take you off for some quiet time. I don't care which.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm a lefty that agrees with much of what you say. However, you should save some of your anger for the Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby.

One cannot have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn because they don't recognize a set of chromosomes as being any different from an adult human being.

Free your mind.

This is a mighty oak tree in the first days of it's life.

THIS is a human being / a person in the first days of THEIR human life.

The difference is: any laws regulating trees from being cut and killed
do not affect women only while the male partners aren't held responsible for
having sex if they don't want pregnancy or children.

Abortion actually REWARDS the men for not having to take any responsibility,
even if they were the partner that forced sex and/or pregnancy on the other
partner against that's person's will and consent.

Until this is addressed, that's why the laws as written cause problems
with ENFORCEMENT. Roe V Wade struck down abortion bans because of
"substantive due process". The process of investigation by govt, prosecution
and defense would already impose on the WOMEN, in the PROCESS of proving
violation and conviction; thus depriving them of rights and liberty without
due process "to prove a conviction FIRST" or prove "mitigating circumstances"
as with other types of violations.

The place where BOTH partners could be treated equally by law
is to bar ALL PEOPLE from having sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy,
unwanted children or abortion. So that would likely requiring creating
a DIFFERENT level of law, apart from civil or criminal, where "health and safety"
ordinances could be used to police ABUSIVE behavior. And qualify "relationship abuse"
"relationship fraud" and "sexual abuse" to include abusing relationships
to result in unwanted sex or pregnancy, or unwanted children or abortion.

Any such nonconsensual actions or relations could be counted as "abuse"
and create a separate set of laws for states or districts to define a standard
policy and process that all their residents agree to follow in order to enforce
WITHOUT GOVT IMPOSING OR INFRINGING as long as the governed residents
AGREE to implement and comply with their own local policy.

People who cannot agree on the same policy should refrain from interacting,
similar to people of different religious beliefs and practices respecting each other
and not imposing or coercing people to follow policies against their beliefs.

We need to have the same respect for political beliefs that the law
protects for religious free choice. Prochoice and Prolife beliefs need
to be respected the same, let each person or group fund and follow
their own policies, and keep these out of govt unless everyone agrees
on a public policy.

Ummmm.

Do Children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

Yes or no?

 

[alang1216]

I'm a lefty that agrees with much of what you say. However, you should save some of your anger for the Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby.

One cannot have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn because they don't recognize a set of chromosomes as being any different from an adult human being.

Free your mind.

This is a mighty oak tree in the first days of it's life.

THIS is a human being / a person in the first days of THEIR human life.

The difference is: any laws regulating trees from being cut and killed
do not affect women only while the male partners aren't held responsible for
having sex if they don't want pregnancy or children.

Abortion actually REWARDS the men for not having to take any responsibility,
even if they were the partner that forced sex and/or pregnancy on the other
partner against that's person's will and consent.

Until this is addressed, that's why the laws as written cause problems
with ENFORCEMENT. Roe V Wade struck down abortion bans because of
"substantive due process". The process of investigation by govt, prosecution
and defense would already impose on the WOMEN, in the PROCESS of proving
violation and conviction; thus depriving them of rights and liberty without
due process "to prove a conviction FIRST" or prove "mitigating circumstances"
as with other types of violations.

The place where BOTH partners could be treated equally by law
is to bar ALL PEOPLE from having sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy,
unwanted children or abortion. So that would likely requiring creating
a DIFFERENT level of law, apart from civil or criminal, where "health and safety"
ordinances could be used to police ABUSIVE behavior. And qualify "relationship abuse"
"relationship fraud" and "sexual abuse" to include abusing relationships
to result in unwanted sex or pregnancy, or unwanted children or abortion.

Any such nonconsensual actions or relations could be counted as "abuse"
and create a separate set of laws for states or districts to define a standard
policy and process that all their residents agree to follow in order to enforce
WITHOUT GOVT IMPOSING OR INFRINGING as long as the governed residents
AGREE to implement and comply with their own local policy.

People who cannot agree on the same policy should refrain from interacting,
similar to people of different religious beliefs and practices respecting each other
and not imposing or coercing people to follow policies against their beliefs.

We need to have the same respect for political beliefs that the law
protects for religious free choice. Prochoice and Prolife beliefs need
to be respected the same, let each person or group fund and follow
their own policies, and keep these out of govt unless everyone agrees
on a public policy.

Ummmm.

Do Children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

Yes or no?

I'm no Constitutional scholar but I suspect it only applies to adults so the answer would be no. As a kid, I certainly had no freedom of speech when my parents were around.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm a lefty that agrees with much of what you say. However, you should save some of your anger for the Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby.

One cannot have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn because they don't recognize a set of chromosomes as being any different from an adult human being.

Free your mind.

This is a mighty oak tree in the first days of it's life.

THIS is a human being / a person in the first days of THEIR human life.

The difference is: any laws regulating trees from being cut and killed
do not affect women only while the male partners aren't held responsible for
having sex if they don't want pregnancy or children.

Abortion actually REWARDS the men for not having to take any responsibility,
even if they were the partner that forced sex and/or pregnancy on the other
partner against that's person's will and consent.

Until this is addressed, that's why the laws as written cause problems
with ENFORCEMENT. Roe V Wade struck down abortion bans because of
"substantive due process". The process of investigation by govt, prosecution
and defense would already impose on the WOMEN, in the PROCESS of proving
violation and conviction; thus depriving them of rights and liberty without
due process "to prove a conviction FIRST" or prove "mitigating circumstances"
as with other types of violations.

The place where BOTH partners could be treated equally by law
is to bar ALL PEOPLE from having sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy,
unwanted children or abortion. So that would likely requiring creating
a DIFFERENT level of law, apart from civil or criminal, where "health and safety"
ordinances could be used to police ABUSIVE behavior. And qualify "relationship abuse"
"relationship fraud" and "sexual abuse" to include abusing relationships
to result in unwanted sex or pregnancy, or unwanted children or abortion.

Any such nonconsensual actions or relations could be counted as "abuse"
and create a separate set of laws for states or districts to define a standard
policy and process that all their residents agree to follow in order to enforce
WITHOUT GOVT IMPOSING OR INFRINGING as long as the governed residents
AGREE to implement and comply with their own local policy.

People who cannot agree on the same policy should refrain from interacting,
similar to people of different religious beliefs and practices respecting each other
and not imposing or coercing people to follow policies against their beliefs.

We need to have the same respect for political beliefs that the law
protects for religious free choice. Prochoice and Prolife beliefs need
to be respected the same, let each person or group fund and follow
their own policies, and keep these out of govt unless everyone agrees
on a public policy.

Ummmm.

Do Children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

Yes or no?

I'm no Constitutional scholar but I suspect it only applies to adults so the answer would be no. As a kid, I certainly had no freedom of speech when my parents were around.

Child rights and why they matter

Discover the reasons for singling out children's rights in its own human rights Convention

www.unicef.org

"Children and young people have the same general human rights as adults and also specific rights that recognize their special needs. Children are neither the property of their parents nor are they helpless objects of charity. They are human beings and are the subject of their own rights. "

 

[JoeB131]

The point that YOU will never fucking get is that BIOLOGICALLY, a person in the first days of their life is "a PERSON" even in the first days of their life and BIOLOGICALLY, a chicken in the first days of it's life is in fact a CHICKEN, even in the first days of its life.

Your incessant denial of the biological facts is not going to change those facts.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm a lefty that agrees with much of what you say. However, you should save some of your anger for the Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby.

One cannot have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn because they don't recognize a set of chromosomes as being any different from an adult human being.

Free your mind.

This is a mighty oak tree in the first days of it's life.

THIS is a human being / a person in the first days of THEIR human life.

The difference is: any laws regulating trees from being cut and killed
do not affect women only while the male partners aren't held responsible for
having sex if they don't want pregnancy or children.

Abortion actually REWARDS the men for not having to take any responsibility,
even if they were the partner that forced sex and/or pregnancy on the other
partner against that's person's will and consent.

Until this is addressed, that's why the laws as written cause problems
with ENFORCEMENT. Roe V Wade struck down abortion bans because of
"substantive due process". The process of investigation by govt, prosecution
and defense would already impose on the WOMEN, in the PROCESS of proving
violation and conviction; thus depriving them of rights and liberty without
due process "to prove a conviction FIRST" or prove "mitigating circumstances"
as with other types of violations.

The place where BOTH partners could be treated equally by law
is to bar ALL PEOPLE from having sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy,
unwanted children or abortion. So that would likely requiring creating
a DIFFERENT level of law, apart from civil or criminal, where "health and safety"
ordinances could be used to police ABUSIVE behavior. And qualify "relationship abuse"
"relationship fraud" and "sexual abuse" to include abusing relationships
to result in unwanted sex or pregnancy, or unwanted children or abortion.

Any such nonconsensual actions or relations could be counted as "abuse"
and create a separate set of laws for states or districts to define a standard
policy and process that all their residents agree to follow in order to enforce
WITHOUT GOVT IMPOSING OR INFRINGING as long as the governed residents
AGREE to implement and comply with their own local policy.

People who cannot agree on the same policy should refrain from interacting,
similar to people of different religious beliefs and practices respecting each other
and not imposing or coercing people to follow policies against their beliefs.

We need to have the same respect for political beliefs that the law
protects for religious free choice. Prochoice and Prolife beliefs need
to be respected the same, let each person or group fund and follow
their own policies, and keep these out of govt unless everyone agrees
on a public policy.

Ummmm.

Do Children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

Yes or no?

Yes Chuz Life But no law can be poorly written and passed where it disparages other rights in the same Constitution.
Such as not abusing the 2nd Amendment, or right to bear arms, and violate people's rights to security in their persons
houses or affect; their right life, liberty or property without due process; and their equal protection of the laws.

The laws protecting the unborn from abortion STILL NEED to meet other Constitutional standards as well.

So to prevent unequal discrimination against the women partners and prevent violating substantive due process,
the best way to do that is PREVENTING the unwanted pregnancy to begin with.

So the best way I can see to do that, equally affecting and policing BOTH partners not just the woman,
is for DISTRICTS to agree to a policy banning sex where pregnancy or children are not wanted
by declaring this a form of "sexual abuse" or "relationship abuse."

And instead of criminalizing it, or trying to sue under civil laws for such abuses,
I would further recommend a third level of law for health and safety that districts
can work out by consensus, democratically for their own taxpayers and community residents
that only affects the people who agree to that policy.

I would resolve similar subjective policy issues under such a health and safety ordinance:
drug use, masks and pandemic mandates, health care including reproductive health and abortion policies,
elderly and assisted care, mental and relationship counseling, and other social programs that are
better off decided locally and individually instead of trying to abuse federal govt to mandate these decisions for the masses.

 

[alang1216]

Child rights and why they matter

Discover the reasons for singling out children's rights in its own human rights Convention

www.unicef.org

"Children and young people have the same general human rights as adults and also specific rights that recognize their special needs. Children are neither the property of their parents nor are they helpless objects of charity. They are human beings and are the subject of their own rights. "

I applaud your devotion to the UN but I didn't see fetuses mentioned.

I do have a hypothetical if you care to hear it. If a woman asks for an abortion and promises to have 2 children in a few years would you give her your blessing? For the purposes of this scenario, she guarantees the 2 children (and you can trust her) but says if she has no abortion, that is the only child she'll ever have (and again you can trust her word).