US signs anti-abortion declaration with group of largely authoritarian governments

[Correll]

abortion should stay legal up to the point of viability.

That seems to contradict your talk of a "woman's body" and "autonomy".

IF telling the woman what to do with "her body" is a violation of her "autonomy" why does that change when the "fetus" becomes viable?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Independent Actions "

* Choices Compelled By Conditions *

Do no harm? Like killing unborn babpies?

The choice of others is not bound by my own and neither is my choice bound by their choice .

Abortion does not violate non violence principles in my book .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Situational Boundaries Of Maternal Self Ownership "

* Advanced Analysis Of Birth Standard Applied *

That seems to contradict your talk of a "woman's body" and "autonomy".
IF telling the woman what to do with "her body" is a violation of her "autonomy" why does that change when the "fetus" becomes viable?

See the following for a technical answer .

" Not All Actions Deemed Vices By States Are Valid "

* Per Son Means Male And Countable By Census *

A state would not be determining that a fetus had constitutional protections , because logically of course they do not , rather a state determines when the practice of abortion in the third trimester would be restricted as a vice .

For example , the killing of a dog outside of prescribed methods may result in charges of animal cruelty , largely based upon empathy for suffering ; however , such a restriction as a vice does not mean that dogs have constitutional protections .

The decision of roe v wade directed that abortion was safe in the first trimester and between the doctor and patient , while statutes could be passed for the second trimester to ensure the safety of the procedures , while TRAP laws have been used to abuse the purpose .

 

[Correll]

" Situational Boundaries Of Maternal Self Ownership "

* Advanced Analysis Of Birth Standard Applied *

That seems to contradict your talk of a "woman's body" and "autonomy".
IF telling the woman what to do with "her body" is a violation of her "autonomy" why does that change when the "fetus" becomes viable?

See the following for a technical answer .

" Not All Actions Deemed Vices By States Are Valid "

* Per Son Means Male And Countable By Census *

A state would not be determining that a fetus had constitutional protections , because logically of course they do not , rather a state determines when the practice of abortion in the third trimester would be restricted as a vice .

For example , the killing of a dog outside of prescribed methods may result in charges of animal cruelty , largely based upon empathy for suffering ; however , such a restriction as a vice does not mean that dogs have constitutional protections .

The decision of roe v wade directed that abortion was safe in the first trimester and between the doctor and patient , while statutes could be passed for the second trimester to ensure the safety of the procedures , while TRAP laws have been used to abuse the purpose .

Penelope's talk of the woman having "autonomy" over her own body, if held as a serious principle, DENIES the US government the right to have a say in the decision at all.


My question to her, is why that changes when the fetus becomes viable.


I do not see an explanation to that question in your post.

 

[j-mac]

" Independent Actions "

* Choices Compelled By Conditions *

Do no harm? Like killing unborn babpies?

The choice of others is not bound by my own and neither is my choice bound by their choice .

Abortion does not violate non violence principles in my book .

Then your book is f'ed up.

 

[playtime]

abortion should stay legal up to the point of viability.

That seems to contradict your talk of a "woman's body" and "autonomy".

IF telling the woman what to do with "her body" is a violation of her "autonomy" why does that change when the "fetus" becomes viable?

because she is no longer an incubating host when it can survive on its own, but until then, if she is forced to remain pregnant - then that is all she is worth in the eyes of the pro birthers.

 

[playtime]

" Situational Boundaries Of Maternal Self Ownership "

* Advanced Analysis Of Birth Standard Applied *

That seems to contradict your talk of a "woman's body" and "autonomy".
IF telling the woman what to do with "her body" is a violation of her "autonomy" why does that change when the "fetus" becomes viable?

See the following for a technical answer .

" Not All Actions Deemed Vices By States Are Valid "

* Per Son Means Male And Countable By Census *

A state would not be determining that a fetus had constitutional protections , because logically of course they do not , rather a state determines when the practice of abortion in the third trimester would be restricted as a vice .

For example , the killing of a dog outside of prescribed methods may result in charges of animal cruelty , largely based upon empathy for suffering ; however , such a restriction as a vice does not mean that dogs have constitutional protections .

The decision of roe v wade directed that abortion was safe in the first trimester and between the doctor and patient , while statutes could be passed for the second trimester to ensure the safety of the procedures , while TRAP laws have been used to abuse the purpose .

Penelope's talk of the woman having "autonomy" over her own body, if held as a serious principle, DENIES the US government the right to have a say in the decision at all.


My question to her, is why that changes when the fetus becomes viable.


I do not see an explanation to that question in your post.

uh - i'm not penelope.

& i answered you quite clearly.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Further Digression Provided "

* Soft And Hard Limits Of Birth Requirement For Equal Protection *

Penelope's talk of the woman having "autonomy" over her own body, if held as a serious principle, DENIES the US government the right to have a say in the decision at all.
My question to her, is why that changes when the fetus becomes viable.
I do not see an explanation to that question in your post.

Consider parturition as a rigid standard entitling one constitutional protections and also consider a less rigid standard of post viability where parturition becomes increasingly more relative and consequently state interests also become increasingly more relative .

Clearly the rigid standard of birth means a fetus does not have constitutional protections until parturition and that does not change ; however , post-viability the standard of parturition becomes less rigid and state interests were allowed to proscribe abortion as a vice , except in certain circumstances .

In addition to the " logically , of course " statement blackmun included the following statement , " In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone. " .

Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE.

www.law.cornell.edu

* Loose But Strong Association *

As related numerous times , the pro-choice movement is content with its lexicon , just as the anti-choice movement is content with its lexicon, while the lexicon of neither the right nor the left are truly capable of relating the rigor necessary to explain the constitutional basis for abortion .

 

[Correll]

abortion should stay legal up to the point of viability.

That seems to contradict your talk of a "woman's body" and "autonomy".

IF telling the woman what to do with "her body" is a violation of her "autonomy" why does that change when the "fetus" becomes viable?

because she is no longer an incubating host when it can survive on its own, but until then, if she is forced to remain pregnant - then that is all she is worth in the eyes of the pro birthers.

But, she IS an "host" even after the child can survive on it's own. They don't remove the child early and put it in a incubator, they "force" the woman to carry the child to term.


My point is, that your arguments are of Absolute Principles.


YOu say, "A woman's body.... autonomy", that is an absolute, with no legitimacy to any other voice.


Then you change up, and say, well, not all the way to birth.


Once you admit that society has a valid interest in the unborn child, and/or protecting it, the debate becomes one of balancing cost/benefits and judgement calls.


Once you do that, you admit that your earlier point of "autonomy" was wrong.


You don't get to play Circular Debating games.


Well, you can, but I will call you on them.

 

[Correll]

" Further Digression Provided "

* Soft And Hard Limits Of Birth Requirement For Equal Protection *

Penelope's talk of the woman having "autonomy" over her own body, if held as a serious principle, DENIES the US government the right to have a say in the decision at all.
My question to her, is why that changes when the fetus becomes viable.
I do not see an explanation to that question in your post.

Consider parturition as a rigid standard entitling one constitutional protections and also consider a less rigid standard of post viability where parturition becomes increasingly more relative and consequently state interests also become increasingly more relative .

Clearly the rigid standard of birth means a fetus does not have constitutional protections until parturition and that does not change ; however , post-viability the standard of parturition becomes less rigid and state interests were allowed to proscribe abortion as a vice , except in certain circumstances .

In addition to the " logically , of course " statement blackmun included the following statement , " In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone. " .

Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE.

www.law.cornell.edu

* Loose But Strong Association *

As related numerous times , the pro-choice movement is content with its lexicon , just as the anti-choice movement is content with its lexicon, while the lexicon of neither the right nor the left are truly capable of relating the rigor necessary to explain the constitutional basis for abortion .

Which is the point that liberals like her play their circular debating game with. They make the point, then if you grill them, admit late term unborn are different, then later, return to their "autonomy arguments" that are great for recruiting stupid young women, but that even they cannot defend.

 

[playtime]

abortion should stay legal up to the point of viability.

That seems to contradict your talk of a "woman's body" and "autonomy".

IF telling the woman what to do with "her body" is a violation of her "autonomy" why does that change when the "fetus" becomes viable?

because she is no longer an incubating host when it can survive on its own, but until then, if she is forced to remain pregnant - then that is all she is worth in the eyes of the pro birthers.

But, she IS an "host" even after the child can survive on it's own. They don't remove the child early and put it in a incubator, they "force" the woman to carry the child to term.


My point is, that your arguments are of Absolute Principles.


YOu say, "A woman's body.... autonomy", that is an absolute, with no legitimacy to any other voice.


Then you change up, and say, well, not all the way to birth.


Once you admit that society has a valid interest in the unborn child, and/or protecting it, the debate becomes one of balancing cost/benefits and judgement calls.


Once you do that, you admit that your earlier point of "autonomy" was wrong.


You don't get to play Circular Debating games.


Well, you can, but I will call you on them.


View attachment 407339

only in yer mind, cartoon boy. i expand as a conversation goes along.... why?

it's the natural order. you're grasping.

answer me this:

should a woman be FORCED to carry & give birth against her will or be held criminally liable for seeking an abortion. you know - like going to prison?

that is a simple yes or no.

 

[Correll]

abortion should stay legal up to the point of viability.

That seems to contradict your talk of a "woman's body" and "autonomy".

IF telling the woman what to do with "her body" is a violation of her "autonomy" why does that change when the "fetus" becomes viable?

because she is no longer an incubating host when it can survive on its own, but until then, if she is forced to remain pregnant - then that is all she is worth in the eyes of the pro birthers.

But, she IS an "host" even after the child can survive on it's own. They don't remove the child early and put it in a incubator, they "force" the woman to carry the child to term.


My point is, that your arguments are of Absolute Principles.


YOu say, "A woman's body.... autonomy", that is an absolute, with no legitimacy to any other voice.


Then you change up, and say, well, not all the way to birth.


Once you admit that society has a valid interest in the unborn child, and/or protecting it, the debate becomes one of balancing cost/benefits and judgement calls.


Once you do that, you admit that your earlier point of "autonomy" was wrong.


You don't get to play Circular Debating games.


Well, you can, but I will call you on them.


View attachment 407339

only in yer mind, cartoon boy. i expand as a conversation goes along.... why?

it's the natural order. you're grasping.

answer me this:

should a woman be FORCED to carry & give birth against her will or be held criminally liable for seeking an abortion. you know - like going to prison?

that is a simple yes or no.

Sorry, we are past that. YOu admitted to the legitimacy of restrictions on late term abortions.


In doing so, you agreed that the State has a valid interest greater than the woman's "autonomy".


Backtracking now, is you doing what I said you would do, ie, playing the circular debating game.

 

[playtime]

abortion should stay legal up to the point of viability.

That seems to contradict your talk of a "woman's body" and "autonomy".

IF telling the woman what to do with "her body" is a violation of her "autonomy" why does that change when the "fetus" becomes viable?

because she is no longer an incubating host when it can survive on its own, but until then, if she is forced to remain pregnant - then that is all she is worth in the eyes of the pro birthers.

But, she IS an "host" even after the child can survive on it's own. They don't remove the child early and put it in a incubator, they "force" the woman to carry the child to term.


My point is, that your arguments are of Absolute Principles.


YOu say, "A woman's body.... autonomy", that is an absolute, with no legitimacy to any other voice.


Then you change up, and say, well, not all the way to birth.


Once you admit that society has a valid interest in the unborn child, and/or protecting it, the debate becomes one of balancing cost/benefits and judgement calls.


Once you do that, you admit that your earlier point of "autonomy" was wrong.


You don't get to play Circular Debating games.


Well, you can, but I will call you on them.


View attachment 407339

only in yer mind, cartoon boy. i expand as a conversation goes along.... why?

it's the natural order. you're grasping.

answer me this:

should a woman be FORCED to carry & give birth against her will or be held criminally liable for seeking an abortion. you know - like going to prison?

that is a simple yes or no.

Sorry, we are past that. YOu admitted to the legitimacy of restrictions on late term abortions.


In doing so, you agreed that the State has a valid interest greater than the woman's "autonomy".


Backtracking now, is you doing what I said you would do, ie, playing the circular debating game.


View attachment 407369

nope. nice try ... doesn't fly.

we are not past the most basic fundamental aspect of this thread.

btw - late term abortion have been severely restricted for a very long time, so the point is pretty moot when it comes to that.

do you think the state has a say in a woman's autonomy when the embryo or fetus cannot survive on its own & is so underdeveloped as to need a womb to gestate? we are never beyond that because mitigating circumstances rule.

yes or no.

 

[Correll]

abortion should stay legal up to the point of viability.

That seems to contradict your talk of a "woman's body" and "autonomy".

IF telling the woman what to do with "her body" is a violation of her "autonomy" why does that change when the "fetus" becomes viable?

because she is no longer an incubating host when it can survive on its own, but until then, if she is forced to remain pregnant - then that is all she is worth in the eyes of the pro birthers.

But, she IS an "host" even after the child can survive on it's own. They don't remove the child early and put it in a incubator, they "force" the woman to carry the child to term.


My point is, that your arguments are of Absolute Principles.


YOu say, "A woman's body.... autonomy", that is an absolute, with no legitimacy to any other voice.


Then you change up, and say, well, not all the way to birth.


Once you admit that society has a valid interest in the unborn child, and/or protecting it, the debate becomes one of balancing cost/benefits and judgement calls.


Once you do that, you admit that your earlier point of "autonomy" was wrong.


You don't get to play Circular Debating games.


Well, you can, but I will call you on them.


View attachment 407339

only in yer mind, cartoon boy. i expand as a conversation goes along.... why?

it's the natural order. you're grasping.

answer me this:

should a woman be FORCED to carry & give birth against her will or be held criminally liable for seeking an abortion. you know - like going to prison?

that is a simple yes or no.

Sorry, we are past that. YOu admitted to the legitimacy of restrictions on late term abortions.


In doing so, you agreed that the State has a valid interest greater than the woman's "autonomy".


Backtracking now, is you doing what I said you would do, ie, playing the circular debating game.


View attachment 407369

nope. nice try ... doesn't fly.

we are not past the most basic fundamental aspect of this thread.

btw - late term abortion have been severely restricted for a very long time, so the point is pretty moot when it comes to that.

do you think the state has a say in a woman's autonomy when the embryo or fetus cannot survive on its own & is so underdeveloped as to need a womb to gestate? we are never beyond that because mitigating circumstances rule.

yes or no.

Now that you admit that the state has a say in a "woman's autonomy" the question becomes a political discussion of balancing the rights and interests of the unborn child against the rights and interests of the mother.


Which is the way it should be, not people like you pretending that people who oppose you are Evul.


Which is what you are trying to avoid. Because you don't care so much about any issue, other than using it to smear and marginalize your enemies, to advance your far left agenda.

 

[Thunderbird]

US signs anti-abortion declaration with group of largely authoritarian governments

Move is part of a campaign by Trump administration to reorient US foreign policy in a more socially conservative direction

www.theguardian.com

The “core supporters” of the declaration are Brazil, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia and Uganda, and the 27 other signatories include Belarus (where security forces are currently trying to suppress a women-led protest movement), Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Sudan, South Sudan, Libya.

Most of the signatories are among the 20 worst countries to be a woman according to the Women, Peace and Security Index established by Georgetown University.

The list of Americas new friends must make sobering reading. Not to worry. In a fortnight President Joe will consign this to the bin.

You seem to be a racist. Why do you have a problem with countries where people of color are a majority? Perhaps therapy could help you unload some of that hate.

Your article tries to cover up the fact, but a majority of the countries trying to protect babies are African.

Geneva Consensus Declaration

Geneva Consensus Declaration on Promoting Women's Health and Strengthening the Family

www.hhs.gov

 

[Thunderbird]

So the US, under the "leadership" of trump, takes another giant leap into authoritarianism, and installing a right-wing theocracy to rule over a once-free people. They always go after women and LGBTs first, as we are considered expendable.

The US government has no business taking any stand on abortion, which is not an issue that legitimately involves government. It is purely ideological and there is no universal agreement.

Authoritarians do go after women, but the abortionists are on the side of the authoritarians!

Sex-selective abortions may have stopped the birth of 23 million girls

A huge analysis suggests sex-selective abortions have led to at least 23 million fewer girls born worldwide, but birth ratios are now returning to normal

www.newscientist.com

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Flip Side "

* Read The Signs *

You seem to be a racist. Why do have a problem with countries where people of color are a majority. Perhaps therapy could help you unload some of that hate.

That is funny since tee tee is all about depriving the few remaining colorless majorities of that status .

Should we regard you to be among the anti-racist racists ?

This thread is about the us corroborating with the demented ideology of fictional ishmaelism against individual liberty .

 

[Unkotare]

" Puritanical Church Of Manifest Poverty "

* Critics Without Viable Alternatives *

Objectively, the very creation of PP, racist in its nature, IS racism in practice....Study Sanger.

Just because over population and generational poverty is conditionally associated with a particular race does not mean that making abortion available to those who would prefer to elect the option for purposes of escaping those conditions is racist .

The definition of racism must include illegitimate aggression based on race that would mean coercion and being forced into abortion base upon race and not simply being provided with the option .

http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/docs/kerner.pdf

Even if violence does not occur, the consequences are unacceptable. Development of a racially integrated society, extraordinarily difficult today, will be virtually impossible when the present black ghetto population of 12.5 million has grown to almost 21 million.

And by cynically placing abortion centers in black areas is racism...you support that.

Of course. The real aim of these racist butchers has never changed.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Orwellian Attempts At Reason "

* False Conflagration Of Terminology *

Authoritarians do go after women, but the abortionists are on the side of the authoritarians!

The terms authoritarian and libertarian are antonyms , where authoritarianism establishes collectivist government and libertarianism establishes individualism .

The prohibition of abortion is performed by government and is authoritarian , while the elective choice of abortion is by the individual and is libertarian .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Cheap Attempts At A Moral Argument "

* Outsiders Pride Over Captive Animals In A Zoo *

Of course. The real aim of these racist butchers has never changed.

The real aim is to allow individuals to escape poverty and the degradation of social dependence , while the flip side is the communuist racists who want to keep them there in suffrage for political and social gain .