the only actual harm you listed, pelvic floor disease, as well as the only definite nuisance, hemorrhoids, have been proven to be preventable by prenatal care, the rest are just natural signs of aging, people who do more living tend to do more aging, that's not a disease. what is a disease, is narcissistic hedonism, characterized by by the obsession with the idea that the physical appearance of barely nubile youth is the epitome of beauty, and that the lack of the physical appearance of barely nubile youth, is a disease.
What you're saying now is that anyone who cares about the damage done to her body by pregnancy/childbirth is just mentally sick. Those effects on the body cannot be prevented by prenatal care. I don't know what you think prenatal care consists of, but it's not prevention of so-called "natural" damage to the body. And nobody is more attractive from having those things happen to her body. Mostly women are willing to endure those changes because they want children, but certainly no one should be forced to endure them.
Whether the lawmakers intended to or not. By making the killing a crime of MURDER, they have legally recognized the personhood of the child killed.
Murder has a specific legal definition.
What you're saying now is that anyone who cares about the damage done to her body by pregnancy/childbirth is just mentally sick. Those effects on the body cannot be prevented by prenatal care. I don't know what you think prenatal care consists of, but it's not prevention of so-called "natural" damage to the body. And nobody is more attractive from having those things happen to her body. Mostly women are willing to endure those changes because they want children, but certainly no one should be forced to endure them.
The law has been around since 2004. If it didn't meet the constitutional boundaries it should...then the S.C...would have already have been determined its constitutionality. It's been 9 years...and still...not a peep in legal or government circles about it creating personhood...
The only people who want that law to be something its not...is a folks who confused the word "Victim with Person".
Again...I'm the messenger. I didn't write the law.
fine then i should be allowed to kill you because i have the right not to be forced to endure ugliness. your argument isn't a disease but i think it's ugly so i must kill someone to prevent it. it's my right as a woman to kill someone to prevent a minor nuisance because i think it's ugly, fair enough?
The Supreme Court Can't rule on it until it has been challenged.
To date, it has not been challenged.
So, State after State have been passing more and more laws along the same lines to essentially chip away at Roe and with the intent of forcing a challenge by the abortion proponents that will cause the Supreme Court to rule on it.
You seem to believe the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was the end of it - when in fact, it was just a new beginning.
READ MY LIPS...I didn't make the law...nor controlled the creation of the legal definition of child in utero. Obviously you don't like it.
The law makers...nullified the common definition of murder...by creating a clear, concise definition of child in utero...stating in the language of the bill ...its intent...and what is didn't not mean...in which clearly and concisely, by the language the bill, it was created in such a way...as not to imply or create personhood. That was a very problematic issue when the law was still a bill...and the lawmakers didn't want a Constitutional intervention by the S.C. They said as much during the whole process.
You are hell bent on rewriting that law inside your own mind to fit your own personal views. It won't stand in the S.C.
The law has been around since 2004. If it didn't meet the constitutional boundaries it should...then the S.C...would have already have been determined its constitutionality. It's been 9 years...and still...not a peep in legal or government circles about it creating personhood...
The only people who want that law to be something its not...is a folks who confused the word "Victim with Person".
Again...I'm the messenger. I didn't write the law.
Uh huh...and as the saying goes.. "We'll see said the blind man to his deaf brother". It will be whatever it will be. In fact, I can't wait for such events that you believe will happen.
Neither can I.
We have at least that much in common.
What you're saying now is that anyone who cares about the damage done to her body by pregnancy/childbirth is just mentally sick.
its funny how some people think its ok to force someone to risk their lives against their will in this case but not in any other case.
Who are you referring to here? I've never read anywhere where anyone wants a woman's life risked. Do you have a quote?
ive never read such a failed nonsensical analogy in my life
your example has NOTHING to do with what was actually said.
the point is you have no right to force somebody to risk their life against their will
anybody that wants abortion banned or mostly banned support laws that will force a woman to risk her life against her will. THis is a simply fact.
So clearly the Arkansas law is a challenge to Roe and Webster .. likely a deliberate one, hoping to make its way to the SCOTUS.
No, it is not a fact.
This making these up out of thin air is really a problem on these boards, and of course the internet,
I've already explained to you that Pelvic Floor Disease and Hemorrhoids are totally preventable by prenatal care, so now you're claiming that saggy tits, which happens only to women who choose to breastfeed, and stretchmarks, which by the way is preventable by prenatal care, are deadly diseases? If you are asserting that the women will be so depressed about these details that they will kill themselves if they get them, you're nuts. Laser surgery to correct them costs about the same as an abortion to prevent them. Also, they'd have to be nuts. your disgusting hedonism makes you not worth them killing themselves over your opinion of them., they can just wear clothes around people like you, and go nude around people who don't find stretch marks and saggy tits to be a horror story. Any woman with complete prenatal care , out of all the list of "horrors" you cited. will only face sagging tits, noting else on the list, and not even those if she bottle feeds. by the way every time i take my clothes off in my swinger lifestyle, both the men and the bisexual in the room say that i'm beautiful and that my tits are beautiful, and i gave birth twice and breastfed two babies, and forget the test of whether i can hold a pencil under my tit, i can hold a whole pack of pencils under my tits. my tits sag and so one who has seen them has ever called them ugly. i've also never died as a result of them sagging. .
Thank you!
yes im well aware of what your OPINION is
the fact still remains that pregnancy is a factual risk of life, there is not changing this fact
you could debate how much risk but the risk is always there and you have no right forcing anybody to risk their life against their will
in your next post please refrain from making stuff up
i never mentioned any of the nonsense you stated LMAO do you do that to make yourself feel right about your opinion? honest posters see right through this LOL
fact remains, pregnancy is a risk to life PERIOD
cant wait to read what you make up next
Won't happen in my humble opinion. What I think will happen is the Arkansas law will be overturned...according to the decision regarding viability in Roe v. Wade.
TA DA! I made up an imaginary thing called PRENATAL CARE! Which I have caused, by THE POWER OF IMAGINATION, to have the ability to prevent all risk of pregnancy being harmful or deadly to the mother! Except for the risk you named of sagging tits, which is caused by breastfeeding, not pregnancy!
Obviously, I don't share in your opinion.
We all take our chances but if you think that a defeat on this bill would be the end of it, you're wrong.
I'm that sure we will both keep fighting on.
Didn't bring up any other state than Arkansas. I'm sure it won't be the end of it. But in the end...I don't think you'll get your wish on the outcome even if it goes to the S.C.
Again, there is only one way to find that out for sure.
You're confident about your side and I'm confident about ours.
So, let's do this!
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?