Even when I was an atheist, I was still pro-life.

[Lursa]

Where in the Constitution does it mention abortion?

Again, you dont seem familiar with the 9th Amendment. Where in the Constitution is our right to have consensual sex enumerated? Where is our right to have kids enumerated? Nowhere. Same with abortion. It does not have to be named. It is automatically a right accorded to the people. Perhaps you should review the Constitution that you implied "I" was unfamiliar with.

Can you address this so that it seems like you understand it and we dont keep going over it? Or ask for clarification if you dont?

I couldnt find your thread in the Constitution forum but I think it covered this as well.

Earlier in this thread, you said you were an expert on the Const. Or close to that. I'd like to read your analysis.

And also, the 14th Amendment, which much of the RvW decision used as a foundation, starts with this:

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Again...the justices found nothing to deny women abortion. Your thoughts?

 

[screenwriter]

It's attached to her body, so in a sense it is part of her body. She can have it removed if she chooses.

How odd - let an 18 year old girl go into a doctor and request a hysterectomy - or at least a tubal ligation. They won't do it - no matter how much she wants it. Uterus and fallopian tubes ARE 100% "her" body - her unique DNA and present in her body since birth. Shouldn't she be allowed "control" over her own body parts? Go one step more - since she should have control over how body - what if she wants a doctor to terminate her life?

 

[calamity]

The body inside her body is not her body!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It inside HER body though, right?

 

[Vadinho]

I also thought homosexuality was unnatural as well. I even believed in capitalist things like a flat tax. I could keep going on. So don’t assume that all atheists are leftists. Look at Penn Jillette, for crying out loud. But since this is an abortion section, like I said, you don’t have to be “religious” to be pro-life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How in the world can an atheist turn into a religious person? Makes no sense at all.

 

[southwest88]

How odd - let an 18 year old girl go into a doctor and request a hysterectomy - or at least a tubal ligation. They won't do it - no matter how much she wants it. Uterus and fallopian tubes ARE 100% "her" body - her unique DNA and present in her body since birth. Shouldn't she be allowed "control" over her own body parts? Go one step more - since she should have control over how body - what if she wants a doctor to terminate her life?

There are several reasons that a doctor wouldn't perform these operations on an 18-year-old.

Hysterectomy & death are permanent, @ this point. & ethically, the patient is young - & may change her mind, except that the conditions under discussion aren't reversible. A uterus may be implantable, but not permanent for the foreseeable future.

Second is the question of Who pays? An 18-year-old isn't likely have the means, nor independent insurance coverage. (& would insurance cover these procedures?)

@ 18, I believe the parents &/or caretakers would have to give permission (that may vary from state to state) for life-changing operations. That would certainly be true of suicide - which is not legal in all states in any event, doctor-assisted or no. & therefore another reason that a doctor would likely refuse the request. (& actually, @ the point of intake, the patient might not ever talk to a surgeon. She would more likely be referred to counseling or psychological evaluation, especially if in a state where suicide is illegal.)

If the woman were 50 years old, & @ least past her childbearing years, a doctor would probably accept her as a patient for reproductive issues - assuming there were a medical reason to carry out the procedure. On the suicide issue - that would vary with state legislation controlling suicide. & even where suicide is legal, I think there are procedural protections built in to protect against frivolous requests for suicide. So the doctor & patient would have to comply with those.

 

[weaver2]

How odd - let an 18 year old girl go into a doctor and request a hysterectomy - or at least a tubal ligation. They won't do it - no matter how much she wants it. Uterus and fallopian tubes ARE 100% "her" body - her unique DNA and present in her body since birth. Shouldn't she be allowed "control" over her own body parts? Go one step more - since she should have control over how body - what if she wants a doctor to terminate her life?

In order to be eligible to have this permanent birth control method for women performed in the USA you must be, depending on your state's laws 18 and older or 21 and older. 26% of women have had this operation done. 3% of men have had vasectomies. Wanna talk about which gender is sexually responsible?

 

[Scrabaholic]

How odd - let an 18 year old girl go into a doctor and request a hysterectomy - or at least a tubal ligation. They won't do it - no matter how much she wants it. Uterus and fallopian tubes ARE 100% "her" body - her unique DNA and present in her body since birth. Shouldn't she be allowed "control" over her own body parts? Go one step more - since she should have control over how body - what if she wants a doctor to terminate her life?

It is not illegal for an 18 year old to get a tubal ligation or hysterectomy. However, hysterectomies are not done without medical need - that is doctors making those decisions, not the govt.

Doctors do terminate people's lives here - if they are terminally ill and request it.

 

[Scrabaholic]

How in the world can an atheist turn into a religious person? Makes no sense at all.

Why does it make no sense?

 

[Vadinho]

Why does it make no sense?

Logic and reason created the atheist. Religion corrupted it. Makes no sense to me at all but apparently this person decided there is a sky fairy after all. To each his own.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Logic and reason created the atheist. Religion corrupted it. Makes no sense to me at all but apparently this person decided there is a sky fairy after all. To each his own.

It's very disrespectful to us Christians to call God a "sky fairy". I do not mock your belief system or lack thereof. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

Some people are atheist and then see the light.

 

[Vadinho]

It's very disrespectful to us Christians to call God a "sky fairy". I do not mock your belief system or lack thereof. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

Some people are atheist and then see the light.

It is very disrespectful to believe that I will spend an eternity in pain because I think your God is a sky fairy.

 

[screenwriter]

There are several reasons that a doctor wouldn't perform these operations on an 18-year-old.

Hysterectomy & death are permanent, @ this point. & ethically, the patient is young - & may change her mind, except that the conditions under discussion aren't reversible. A uterus may be implantable, but not permanent for the foreseeable future.

Second is the question of Who pays? An 18-year-old isn't likely have the means, nor independent insurance coverage. (& would insurance cover these procedures?)

@ 18, I believe the parents &/or caretakers would have to give permission (that may vary from state to state) for life-changing operations. That would certainly be true of suicide - which is not legal in all states in any event, doctor-assisted or no. & therefore another reason that a doctor would likely refuse the request. (& actually, @ the point of intake, the patient might not ever talk to a surgeon. She would more likely be referred to counseling or psychological evaluation, especially if in a state where suicide is illegal.)

If the woman were 50 years old, & @ least past her childbearing years, a doctor would probably accept her as a patient for reproductive issues - assuming there were a medical reason to carry out the procedure. On the suicide issue - that would vary with state legislation controlling suicide. & even where suicide is legal, I think there are procedural protections built in to protect against frivolous requests for suicide. So the doctor & patient would have to comply with those.

Fetal death isn't permanent? And here I thought "ethics" was supposed to remain far outside the abortion equation - can't have someone else's pesky ol' ethics sneak in to the discussion. Heck, that just might lead it into the realm of religion - and we know how abortophiles feel about religion. Pesky, pesky, pesky ethics - whose ethics do you use? If it is a woman's body - then it's a woman's body. Uterus isn't even up for debate as being a unique individual as is offspring with unique DNA. If she's 18 then she is an adult - adult enough to abort her offspring - no questions asked. How do you know that when she's 32 she's going to find that she now believes in the sanctity of the life of her unborn and is traumatized because at 18 she was allowed to terminate one ..... or two .... or three .... or four ..... or five ..... or six ..... (ad infinitum) of her offspring? Might drive her to suicide - and no luck terminating THAT life with a doctor's blessing as she did her offspring. Eh?

 

[screenwriter]

It is not illegal for an 18 year old to get a tubal ligation or hysterectomy. However, hysterectomies are not done without medical need - that is doctors making those decisions, not the govt.

Doctors do terminate people's lives here - if they are terminally ill and request it.

No not illegal - but show a list of doctors willing to perform the procedure on an 18 year old girl. Or vasectomy on an 18 year old boy. I'll await your list. The offspring inside a mother isn't terminally ill either yet is terminated with the assistance of a doctor. So whole different animal to lump the terminally ill in with a perfectly normal healthy offspring. [No, we won't go into the termination of a deformed offspring - that takes abortion into the realm of actual valid medical procedure and that's not the point of my question.]

 

[Lursa]

It's very disrespectful to us Christians to call God a "sky fairy". I do not mock your belief system or lack thereof. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

Some people are atheist and then see the light.

I'm a Christian and I dont really find it offensive. I can completely see how ridiculous it may seem to someone that considers gods as something that need to be proven to believe in....and that if they dont...they dont.

While that term may seem offensive, I understand its use when others are practically bludgeoned with the 'positive' beliefs from some Christians that claim there IS proof of God. That's untrue...it's wrong and it's wrong in God's Eyes.

Such people may need to be given the real truth that that is what their unproven belief seems like to some...a myth, imaginary.

We are supposed to believe in God on faith and faith alone. I dont understand why some Christians...or other religious people...need to prover His Existence.

 

[Scrabaholic]

It is very disrespectful to believe that I will spend an eternity in pain because I think your God is a sky fairy.

People can believe whatever they want, as long as they do not try to push it on others.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Fetal death isn't permanent? And here I thought "ethics" was supposed to remain far outside the abortion equation - can't have someone else's pesky ol' ethics sneak in to the discussion. Heck, that just might lead it into the realm of religion - and we know how abortophiles feel about religion. Pesky, pesky, pesky ethics - whose ethics do you use? If it is a woman's body - then it's a woman's body. Uterus isn't even up for debate as being a unique individual as is offspring with unique DNA. If she's 18 then she is an adult - adult enough to abort her offspring - no questions asked. How do you know that when she's 32 she's going to find that she now believes in the sanctity of the life of her unborn and is traumatized because at 18 she was allowed to terminate one ..... or two .... or three .... or four ..... or five ..... or six ..... (ad infinitum) of her offspring? Might drive her to suicide - and no luck terminating THAT life with a doctor's blessing as she did her offspring. Eh?

Then that will be her problem to deal with. Even though smoking causes cancer, people are still allowed to purchase and use tobacco products. I'm sure most who end up dying from cancer wish they had never picked up the habit.

And wtf is an "abortophile"?????

 

[Scrabaholic]

No not illegal - but show a list of doctors willing to perform the procedure on an 18 year old girl. Or vasectomy on an 18 year old boy. I'll await your list. The offspring inside a mother isn't terminally ill either yet is terminated with the assistance of a doctor. So whole different animal to lump the terminally ill in with a perfectly normal healthy offspring. [No, we won't go into the termination of a deformed offspring - that takes abortion into the realm of actual valid medical procedure and that's not the point of my question.]

I did not "lump terminally ill with in with a perfectly normal healthy offspring". Perhaps you need to work on better understanding what you read and reply to.

Doctors are not obligated to do any procedure they do not feel comfortable doing. That has nothing to do w/ legality of the procedure.

 

[southwest88]

Fetal death isn't permanent? And here I thought "ethics" was supposed to remain far outside the abortion equation - can't have someone else's pesky ol' ethics sneak in to the discussion. Heck, that just might lead it into the realm of religion - and we know how abortophiles feel about religion. Pesky, pesky, pesky ethics - whose ethics do you use? If it is a woman's body - then it's a woman's body. Uterus isn't even up for debate as being a unique individual as is offspring with unique DNA. If she's 18 then she is an adult - adult enough to abort her offspring - no questions asked. How do you know that when she's 32 she's going to find that she now believes in the sanctity of the life of her unborn and is traumatized because at 18 she was allowed to terminate one ..... or two .... or three .... or four ..... or five ..... or six ..... (ad infinitum) of her offspring? Might drive her to suicide - and no luck terminating THAT life with a doctor's blessing as she did her offspring. Eh?

TMK, Fetal death is permanent. What you're missing here is that in cases of choice in prenatal care - if the medical case isn't conclusive - choice is left up to the pregnant woman - assuming she's competent, & she therefore decides for the fetus. That's the normal course of law in the US. Unless you want to appoint counsel for the fetus & litigate the question?

Is the woman an adult @ 18? The age of majority varies in the states, as Weaver2 mentioned above.

How do you know that when she's 32 - I don't know any such thing, nor does an attending physician. However, because of that lack of knowledge, medical ethics won't allow the doctor to make snap decisions about hypothetical cases. In such cases the doctor has to be guided by the medical facts in front of him or her.

(ad infinitum) of her offspring - This is mere hyperbole. Understandable, in that the rationale seems to be falling flat. But still, the woman in question can't have an infinitum of offspring, because she doesn't have an infinitum of time in which to conceive & deliver, recover; then conceive & deliver into infinity.

Doctor-assisted suicide is legal in some states, not legal in others. If the woman can make a case in a state where suicide is legal, she doesn't need a doctor's blessing (which is an odd way to state it anyway).

 

[screenwriter]

TMK, Fetal death is permanent. What you're missing here is that in cases of choice in prenatal care - if the medical case isn't conclusive - choice is left up to the pregnant woman - assuming she's competent, & she therefore decides for the fetus. That's the normal course of law in the US. Unless you want to appoint counsel for the fetus & litigate the question?

Is the woman an adult @ 18? The age of majority varies in the states, as Weaver2 mentioned above.

How do you know that when she's 32 - I don't know any such thing, nor does an attending physician. However, because of that lack of knowledge, medical ethics won't allow the doctor to make snap decisions about hypothetical cases. In such cases the doctor has to be guided by the medical facts in front of him or her.

(ad infinitum) of her offspring - This is mere hyperbole. Understandable, in that the rationale seems to be falling flat. But still, the woman in question can't have an infinitum of offspring, because she doesn't have an infinitum of time in which to conceive & deliver, recover; then conceive & deliver into infinity.

Doctor-assisted suicide is legal in some states, not legal in others. If the woman can make a case in a state where suicide is legal, she doesn't need a doctor's blessing (which is an odd way to state it anyway).

And you use that word "ethics". Just saw a video of a teen with a sliced tongue, face tattoos, and filed down teeth to look reptilian. Her body her choice - yet where is the "ethics" in permitting these permanent body changes? Why should a teen with painful cramping not be allowed a hysterectomy so she doesn't have to endure that every month? Her body - her choice? So allow her to destroy her offspring as a teen with no thought to her future? In the case of abortion on demand the doctor has no "medical facts" in front of him/her. There's zero wrong with either mother or offspring. It's a case of being deemed a nuisance - taken with the reverence of removing a mole off a face.

 

[southwest88]

And you use that word "ethics". Just saw a video of a teen with a sliced tongue, face tattoos, and filed down teeth to look reptilian. Her body her choice - yet where is the "ethics" in permitting these permanent body changes? Why should a teen with painful cramping not be allowed a hysterectomy so she doesn't have to endure that every month? Her body - her choice? So allow her to destroy her offspring as a teen with no thought to her future? In the case of abortion on demand the doctor has no "medical facts" in front of him/her. There's zero wrong with either mother or offspring. It's a case of being deemed a nuisance - taken with the reverence of removing a mole off a face.

If you don't like the term ethics, you can call it customary & usual practices.

"ethics" in permitting these permanent body changes - Well, are these changes permanent? The tongue can be stitched up, tattoos can be erased, & teeth can be replaced. None of that sounds permanent to me.

teen with painful cramping not be allowed a hysterectomy - If she can make the case to a doctor & hospital, she can have the surgery. Whether she has the means to pay for it, could be another question.

Abortion on demand - Yes, that's allowable in the first trimester. In the second trimester, the state can impose restrictions upon abortion. In the third trimestester. abortion can be forbidden, except for the life of the woman.