The Constitution doesn't establish viability, medical science does. There are charts showing the rate of survival of premature babies. The survival rate of those born before 26 weeks is not good at all. This is a fact. Religion, culture, the Constitution, wishful thinking, and people that ask dumb questions don't get to define viability.Hmm… which (constitutional) amendment(s) define viability?
Are you opposed to people being forced to donate a kidney (or any other organ/blood) to save another's life? Would you protest if you were forced to donate an organ to save another's life? A yes or no answer will suffice. A refusal to answer will also speak volumes too.Maybe because abortion is the killing of life and donating a kidney is in saving a life.
Your "belief" is your own. Why should anyone else be required to follow your belief, especially through force of law, if they believe differently?Regardless, I believe abortion should be available to women experiencing major health issues during pregnancy. I am not opposed to it entirely.
Please quote anywhere in those laws where the unborn have any rights recognized? OTOH, they explicitly exempt abortion and still allow women to kill their unborn, so obviously there is no right to life recognized. The govt uses laws to protect many things, endangered species, forests, livestock, coral reefs, etc. None of them have any rights recognized, correct?Protect/penalize does not = rightsThe law begs to differ, harm or death done to an unborn, whether maternally or any person is against the law:
Explain how both woman and embryo/fetus can have rights equally! It's impossiible.Protecting the rights of both the mother and unborn child does not treat women as second class citizens. It protects them equally, one cannot kill the other and vice versa. But when the life of the mother is in danger that choice should be up to the woman and her doctor, if she wishes to proceed or have an abortion to protect her life.
What rights does a man have over a woman regarding her pregnancy and related choices? Do explain!That's the huge difference between men and women. Have they spoken to this to the man involved.....do they even know who....what about his rights.....? It's not treating women lesser, it's that men and women are different, or haven't you noticed? Thus my opinion that far more pre-pregnancy education is much needed to help resolve this issue.
Here is your problem with logic.that unborn inside the womb has equal rights
Here is your problem with logic.
It is UNBORN hence absent of rights till born.
It is a part of the women up until that point.
If you want to forbid tattoos, plastic surgery and piercing than you can also make a case that women or men have no choice over their body, society does.
Is this the way you want to go?
Interesting how you did not include the actual 14th Amendment part that you are arguing makes your argument.The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.
Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.
I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.
You haven't made a point.The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.
Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.
I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.
So just flush the Constitution? You believe that your rights to free speech, owning firearms, your own bodily autonomy, due process, etc should all be decided by the states?
The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.
Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.
I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.
You haven't made a point.
That's nowhere near an agreement, it's just ground-level perspicacity.
Take your faux middle-ground elsewhere.
The longer you post the less there is about protecting little innocent pre-born babies and the more the misogyny is in evidence.The 14th Amendment speaks nothing of the unborn. It's speaking during the time after the Civil War to heal the nation and give liberties to those oppressed. They're similar to trinitarians who read false doctrine into the text. Then their slogan, "my body, my choice" is an oxymoron even in their false rendering of the 14th amendment.
Not only did the authors of the fourth amendment not contemplate equipment with which to record telephone calls, it did not envision telephones or telephone wires, or overseas calls, or satellites or cell phones. And yet justices are obliged to apply the language and principles well beyond federal marshals rummaging through your desk drawers, your pockets and unlocking your safe. Its a given that the written words of the constitution will lead to applications, not anticipated by people of that generation, culture or space. The fact that there was no discussion of a fetus' rights or those of its mother in the post civil war era, and that virtually nobody's imagination took the debate there, does not mean Justices should not, do not, and have not since. Fetuses are not legal persons with bodily rights that they can express, anymore that cadavers are. That means that another party, person or institution must have the vested quasi legal property rights over those decisions instead. Many many many states decided that the legal person in who's body they are encased, should bear those rights and responsibilities.
That makes sense to me.
It wouldn't matter even if the unborn were persons, because unless the woman gave her specific consent to the unborn to implant in her uterus, it wouldn't have a right to be there. If a woman doesn't give a person specific consent to PIV sex with her, that person has no right to have it. Even if she does, that doesn't give that person the right to have anal sex with her. If she gives it on Thursday night, that doesn't give that person the right to PIV sex on Saturday night. If she gives consent to X for PIV sex on Thursday night, that doesn't give consent to X's child for uterine implantation a week later.The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.
Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.
I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.
And having the right to refuse donating a kidney means there will be a death. You have no problem that a man can refuse to donate a kidney which will cause a death .
The law does not beg to differ as there is no law that says a women cannot drink alcohol or smoke tobacco both of which harms a fetus.
But you are not protecting the right of the mother to choose what happens to her body when you put the right of the fetus to live above her right to make choices. It does not protect them equally as women are now dying because they are not allowed to have an abortion
https://nationalpartnership.org/rhw-a-dramatic-rise-is-pregnant-women-in-texas-dying-after-abortion-ban/#:~:text=The number of women in,federal public health data finds.
Yes, there is a difference. Women become pregnant, not men. Yet men want to make the decision for women.
Interesting how you did not include the actual 14th Amendment part that you are arguing makes your argument.
Kinda makes your whole post irrelevant.
The longer you post the less there is about protecting little innocent pre-born babies and the more the misogyny is in evidence.
That's ridiculous. When an embryo makes a placenta and implants, it causes the placenta to produce an enzyme that partly shuts down the woman's immune system, leaving her liable to all sorts of diseases for the duration of the pregnancy. Having a partly disabled immune system is, by its very nature, a health problem and a risk to her health and life. You cannot, therefore, equally protect the woman and the embryo, because the embryo harms the woman by its inherent nature and the woman doesn't. Women sacrifice their own well-being for the duration of a pregnancy and in childbirth.Maybe because abortion is the killing of life and donating a kidney is in saving a life. Regardless, I believe abortion should be available to women experiencing major health issues during pregnancy. I am not opposed to it entirely.
The law begs to differ, harm or death done to an unborn, whether maternally or any person is against the law:
Protecting the rights of both the mother and unborn child does not treat women as second class citizens. It protects them equally, one cannot kill the other and vice versa. But when the life of the mother is in danger that choice should be up to the woman and her doctor, if she wishes to proceed or have an abortion to protect her life.
That's the huge difference between men and women. Have they spoken to this to the man involved.....do they even know who....what about his rights.....? It's not treating women lesser, it's that men and women are different, or haven't you noticed? Thus my opinion that far more pre-pregnancy education is much needed to help resolve this issue.
It wouldn't matter even if the unborn were persons, because unless the woman gave her specific consent to the unborn to implant in her uterus, it wouldn't have a right to be there. If a woman doesn't give a person specific consent to PIV sex with her, that person has no right to have it. Even if she does, that doesn't give that person the right to have anal sex with her. If she gives it on Thursday night, that doesn't give that person the right to PIV sex on Saturday night. If she gives consent to X for PIV sex on Thursday night, that doesn't give consent to X's child for uterine implantation a week later.
Give it up. One reason the unborn are not persons is that they can't meet the existing criteria logically implied by the Constitution, including their capability of being exactly enumerated and not just counted by projection. They have never been considered persons in the history of the US.
A person has rights to life, liberty, and property as a package deal. The implanted embryo has no right to property - you have to be born alive to have inheritance rights. The implanted embryo has no right to liberty, because, to give it liberty, you would have to separate it from the woman's body, and if you did this before fetal viability, it would just die. It's not capable of the package of personal rights, which is one way you know it's not a person.
A major reason the implanted embryo has no rights and isn't a person is that a person is a living human mind with the capacity to convey human expression to other living human minds objectively, by facial or vocal means. That's the reason that, in the case of conjoined twins, if two heads are functional, there are two persons born, but if only one head is functional and the other is parasitic, there is only one person born and the parasitic head can be removed for its well-being.
That's ridiculous. When an embryo makes a placenta and implants, it causes the placenta to produce an enzyme that partly shuts down the woman's immune system, leaving her liable to all sorts of diseases for the duration of the pregnancy. Having a partly disabled immune system is, by its very nature, a health problem and a risk to her health and life. You cannot, therefore, equally protect the woman and the embryo, because the embryo harms the woman by its inherent nature and the woman doesn't. Women sacrifice their own well-being for the duration of a pregnancy and in childbirth.
The notion that women have to sacrifice their well-being for embryos is disgraceful and unworthy of human beings.
Girls and women can be impregnated by physical force when they are unconscious or by violence when conscious. They cannot be held responsible for all pregnancies. Embryos certainly would never have a right to life inside of and off of the woman under this circumstance, so there's no good reason for any embryo to have such a right.Taking language out of the 14th amendment which was written to give rights to slaves post civil war then placing them falsely upon the unborn is the perfect example of "out of context". The racists of that time didn't give them any rights whatsoever, even not thinking they were human beings, hence the language of the 14th amendment.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, albeit exempts abortion, still the recognition is there.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
Then of course section c here shows the error of using their 2nd 'go to' law for support......does it need explanation? Just two sections later in the same context proves their 'out of context' error.
Aren't we to support the defenseless? The real need here is education pre-pregnancy.....teach, teach, teach the repercussions of unprotected sex and the possible results which can occur even with protected sex, the responsibilities involved, the risks and bodily changes incurred during pregnancy. Instead, we have....have sex, enjoy yourself, take a pill before or a pill after, damn any responsibility, if it happens simply kill it.....don't worry, be happy.
Women who have no choice about pregnancy but are required by long to continue any pregnancy, including a rape pregnancy, have nothing to be proud about in giving birth, because, when they have no choice, they are merely performing a duty for which they deserve no a lick of credit.The billions and billions of women who have suffered through pregnancy and proudly raised families might tend to disagree with your hypothesis, lol.
Yup, pro-choice for everyone. Then everybody does what they think will be best for their family, their fetus and their lives. Even misogynists. They still have their wives, partners and daughters to force into giving birth, they just don't get to terrorize all women. Pro-choice sounds like a fair solution.Lol, pointing out the errors of pro-abortionists makes me a misogynist...., hilarious. It's your way or the highway, isn't it?....the intolerant left.
Yep. Stangely some of the same states that want to deny the unborn any rights infer those rights when they sometimes charge the killers of pregnant women with two murders.They say the unborn have 'no' rights because they are not mentioned, then turn around and use the phrase, "my body, my choice". Claiming that phrase means the unborn inside the woman is part of her body, then needless to say the unborn have the same rights as the mother, because it's part of her body.
Deny the obvious contradiction is willful blindness. Try again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?