Zone1 Where do you personally Stand on abortion laws.

[PeterPilot]

" Federal Power Red Herring For Traitors Against Independence Of The Individual Citizen "

* Not Ancient History Rather Intelligence Is Required For Conviction *

The roe v wade decision had nothing to do with federal government regulation of abortion , as scotus determined that not the federal government and not the state government but the individual citizen is responsible for regulating themselves .

Any citizen has legal standing that state proscription of abortion violates equal protection clause , it is not ancient history and just as any other despot that would suspend us constitution , scotus judges which voted in favor of dobbs decision should be formally charged with sedition against us 14th , 9th , 1st and 10th amendments , as well as malfeasance against title 1 section 8 of us code .

It is amazing that the value of us 9th amendment and profound implications of NON ENUMERATED RITES is ignored .

In a theocracy like ours, it is NOT amazing to me that the Ninth is ignored when it lays the foundation for a woman's right to her own body.

 

[task0778]

In a theocracy like ours, it is NOT amazing to me that the Ninth is ignored when it lays the foundation for a woman's right to her own body.

First, this country is NOT a theocracy.

Second, every woman has the right to say no or require some form of contraception on her part or his. Rape and incest are exceptions.

Third, why is it that pro-abortion don't seem to give a damn about the unborn baby's right to live? Why is it murder if a baby is killed 5 minutes after birth but not 5 minutes before? Why aren't people amazed about that?

Fourth, abortion should not be a federal issue. There is nothing in the US Constitution that stipulates abortion as a constitutional right, and Roe v Wade never should have been done in the 1st place. I see no reason why each state shouldn't be the controlling authority for this issue.

 

[PeterPilot]

First, this country is NOT a theocracy.

Second, every woman has the right to say no or require some form of contraception on her part or his. Rape and incest are exceptions.

Third, why is it that pro-abortion don't seem to give a damn about the unborn baby's right to live? Why is it murder if a baby is killed 5 minutes after birth but not 5 minutes before? Why aren't people amazed about that?

Fourth, abortion should not be a federal issue. There is nothing in the US Constitution that stipulates abortion as a constitutional right, and Roe v Wade never should have been done in the 1st place. I see no reason why each state shouldn't be the controlling authority for this issue.

When state and federal laws exist that are based upon religious dogma, in my book that makes it a theocracy.

 

[task0778]

When state and federal laws exist that are based upon religious dogma, in my book that makes it a theocracy.

theocracy (Merriam-Webster): government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.

Your definition might be considered by some as a little too loose, but to each his/her own. I don't think there are very many laws that are religion-based that are enforced these days. Regarding abortion, for many it is a religious issue but for others it's a moral question of the right to life. There are atheists who do not support abortion rights for that reason. And also some who do but not for religious reasons.

 

[initforme]

A theocracy based on religion would lead to immorality levels never seen.

 

[Billo_Really]

I know it's a lot of choices, but I want to see where people stand. I will allow two choices for those on the fence.

Some ground rules.

1. Non-viable fetuses can be removed in all cases
2. Ectopic Pregnancy treatment is allowed and is not an abortion
3. After 15 weeks if you can't figure out if you were raped or had incest, it's on you.


Think about what level you would vote for. Let's have at it.

I could care less about abortion.

It is not a life if it cannot live outside the womb on its own.

 

[martybegan]

My stance is, it’s none of my business and it’s not of the governments business either. Let the people of the states handle it.

That's my view in my State.

 

[martybegan]

I could care less about abortion.

It is not a life if it cannot live outside the womb on its own.

Then it's a rock?

 

[Billo_Really]

Then it's a rock?

Whatever it is, it's none of my business!

 

[martybegan]

Whatever it is, it's none of my business!

That's a cop out argument and has been refuted multiple times in multiple threads by multiple people.

 

[Billo_Really]

That's a cop out argument and has been refuted multiple times in multiple threads by multiple people.

What? That it's none of your fucking business what a woman does with her own body?

 

[Foxfyre]

I know it's a lot of choices, but I want to see where people stand. I will allow two choices for those on the fence.

Some ground rules.

1. Non-viable fetuses can be removed in all cases
2. Ectopic Pregnancy treatment is allowed and is not an abortion
3. After 15 weeks if you can't figure out if you were raped or had incest, it's on you.


Think about what level you would vote for. Let's have at it.

I prefer the law to be that a doctor can perform a NECESSARY abortion whenever it is medically NECESSARY or advisable and that decision should be left up to the doctor and his patient. Any doctor performing abortions that are not medically necessary or advisable should be liable for criminal prosecution as the doctor would be performing any other medical procedures that are not necessary or advisable. It would be reasonable to include rape and incest in the medically advisable category when reported and the offender, if known, named.

I don't like putting an arbitrary time limit on it as there are so many different circumstances that can be a factor. Certainly in later term abortions, the medical policy should be the save the mother and child whenever possible.

And our culture should return to the concept that regardless of the circumstances, all abortions end a human life. It is a decision that should never be made casually, routinely or out of convenience or the immoral mindset that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn child just because she doesn't want it.

 

[martybegan]

What? That it's none of your fucking business what a woman does with her own body?

Zone 1.

One side cannot just say "there is no debate"

That's all you are doing here.

 

[martybegan]

I prefer the law to be that a doctor can perform a NECESSARY abortion whenever it is medically NECESSARY or advisable and that decision should be left up to the doctor and his patient. Any doctor performing abortions that are not medically necessary or advisable should be liable for criminal prosecution as the doctor would be performing any other medical procedures that are not necessary or advisable. It would be reasonable to include rape and incest in the medically advisable category when reported and the offender, if known, named.

I don't like putting an arbitrary time limit on it as there are so many different circumstances that can be a factor. Certainly in later term abortions, the medical policy should be the save the mother and child whenever possible.

And our culture should return to the concept that regardless of the circumstances, all abortions end a human life. It is a decision that should never be made casually, routinely or out of convenience or the immoral mindset that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn child just because she doesn't want it.

The thing is laws work better with known constraints.

And "necessary" would need to be defined as well. There is already debate on life vs. health of the mother, and what the limits on health are.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thing is laws work better with known constraints.

And "necessary" would need to be defined as well. There is already debate on life vs. health of the mother, and what the limits on health are.

Yes, 'necessary' would need to be defined just as it is understood for heart surgery or knee replacement or amputations or whatever irreversible medical procedures are done.

And our culture needs to change to again appreciate and value the traditional nuclear family, to encourage responsible marriage before having children, to love and value and protect the children.

The more radical on the right need to appreciate that there are ethical reasons for abortion. And those on the left should readjust their mindset to appreciate that it is a developing child/human life in the womb. Not a single one of us exist without going through that stage of development. And it should never be seen that it is okay to end that life unless it is necessary or medically advisable.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, 'necessary' would need to be defined just as it is understood for heart surgery or knee replacement or amputations or whatever irreversible medical procedures are done.

And our culture needs to change to again appreciate and value the traditional nuclear family, to encourage responsible marriage before having children, to love and value and protect the children.

The more radical on the right need to appreciate that there are ethical reasons for abortion. And those on the left should readjust their mindset to appreciate that it is a developing child/human life in the womb. Not a single one of us exist without going through that stage of development. And that life should never be ended unless it is necessary or medically advisable.

Good luck with that.

I consider myself a moderate on the issue, but I get more grief from the left that the right on it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good luck with that.

I consider myself a moderate on the issue, but I get more grief from the left that the right on it.

We need more than luck. We need a dedicated shift in cultural 'norms' to return to a common sense society with shared values re what is good, edifying, just, beneficial, right, moral, ethical, etc.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Sanctimonious Sacrosanct Anthropocentric Psychotics Revile Us Citizenship "

* Not Entitled To Constitutional Protections Means Restrictions To Safety And Security Of Citizens *

I’ve already explained this. 9th amendment just says that there are other rights obtained by the people, but the 10th amendment limits what the government can do.

The term in us 9th amendment is RETAINED , not obtained !

The 10th amendment applies to what states can do when not prohibited by us constitution , and us 9th stipulates that not every prohibition upon the states is enumerated in us constitution ,

If a zygote , or embryo or fetus has not completed a live birth requirement and it is being given constitutional protections , that violates equitable doctrine and the equal protection clause , and us federal government us states are prohibited from proscribing abortion , as live birth is required to become a citizen of either , and therefore the legitimate interests of either are restricted to safety and security of citizens .

* Another Malevolent And Malicious Over Sight Of Dumbfounded Sedition Of Dobbs Decision *

Once again, you have failed to understand what I’m saying. My point doesn’t rely on rights, or live birth, or citizenship, it’s purely what the constitution says the government is capable of and what it is not.

The 14th amendment of us constitution stipulates that live birth is required to become a us citizen , which is the same requirement to become a citizen of a state , and us constitution stipulates equal protection with a us citizen for any person within its jurisdiction .

The roe v wade court related that if the term person in us 14th was not clearly defined and in 2001 , under the bush administration and under title 1 section 8 of us code , a person was defined to be any born alive , and the dumbfounded sedition of scotus in dobbs committed malfeasance against it .

An etymology of the term person is deconstructed into per , as in countable by census , and son , meaning either male , or an arcane reference to preformation of a homunculus that is wholly contained within male semen .

* Loathsome Attitude Of Traitors Against Independence Of Individual Citizens *

The rest of your post is the same explanation of birth rights, which my point doesn’t even consider since it’s not about an abortion rights argument

The same non incidental requirement to become a us state citizen is the same requirement to become a us federal citizen , and awarding constitutional protections to any thing which has not been born , and simply diverting to a premise that states have an ability to regulate any behavior not explicitly enumerated in us constitution , even though regulations are not restricted to safety and security of citizens or to those having also been born , is deceitful .

Your position does not revere the us citizen , it reviles the us citizen for damned dirty ape , apex predator arrogance and embrace of populism for democracy as tyranny of collective majority that promotes its compulsions irrespective of independence of the individual and irrespective of limits by state and federal government to safety and security for us citizens and for those legitimately entitled to equal protection by virtue of a live birth requirement .

 

[Fang]

12 weeks since the fetal heartbeat and neural pathways are established by that time. Beyond that only if the health of the Mother is threatened. 12 weeks is plenty of time to abort if you are the victim of rape or incest.

This is where I'm at. (voted 15 since it was closest)

 

[initforme]

Describe what is wrong with letting voters in each state decide. I can't find a bad thing about that.