If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with rights?

[Steve Ja]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

1. Cool on the same page with this

2. Weak rebuttal that doesn't mean now she has to allow the unborn human to keep on doing what's it doing. If she wants the assault to stop she can go abort the unborn human period.

Then there is the fact that a pregnancy is perfectly natural mindless biology in action. Do humans claim subservience to natural mindless biology or do they claim superiority over natural mindless biology? If subservient then why are medical procedures from immunizations to heart-bypass surgery tolerated? If subservient then whenever you happen to walk near a swamp and a mosquito flies out to suck your blood you have no right to swat it!

But if we humans claim superiority over natural mindless biology then why should any woman be required or even be expected to carry a pregnancy to term? It is pure hypocrisy (and K-strategy prejudice) to think one should be able to take a pill or have an operation, to deal with some unwanted natural-mindless-biological aspect of the body, like cancer — while also thinking that an unwanted/involuntary pregnancy is somehow different than natural/mindless/biological, and requires subservience even if unwanted.

3. Saying that a unborn human is a mosquito is dehumanizing. Saying that the unborn humans actions are much more worse than what a mosquito does is not dehumanizing.

4. I already know this.

5. You distorted what I said. She can abort the unborn human because of the actions it does inside her body and she doesn't have to tolerate the behavior if she doesn't want to and go get an abortion if she wants to.

So to sum it up she should be allowed to abort it, because it takes from the mother.
I think ti should be allowed to be born, because it is doing nothing wrong, or illegal

 

[Steve Ja]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

You are missing the key word in that amendment - "or." States may have some powers, but people may have some, too, against the state. This prevents state governments from taking all the rest of the power and giving individuals no peace.

people have the power to reject the government, to include the stae

 

[choiceone]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

I was referring to their laws which penalize "anti-gay" speech.

Their new court ruling was very careful to distinguish some forms of "anti-gay" speech from others. See the details in:
Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden | Strasbourg Observers

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

Sorry, this is nonsense - you can get excused for all sorts of reasons, including those of being self-employed when this would impact your capacity to earn a sufficient living, and also for being a person whom the defense or prosecution just wants to exclude from a jury on a variety of bases which they do not have to specify.

Choice, it's 100% nonsense...and as nonsensical as Paleocon's post to me...something about jury duty. The jury duty comment was about as disconnected with the topic as one can get.

 

[Steve Ja]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

There was a pretty clear question in my post. Do you really think the R v W case was about getting attention, politicization? And would you claim the same if it had gone in the direction *that you wanted?* Or was it a necessary clarification of women's rights? (whichever way it had gone?)

It was about getting attention and yes she wanted clarification on the Texas law, to prevent further of whats he felt were injustices to the people of her state.
It turned into a national issue with the decision. Political wise yes, it was highly political. The judges interpreted what the Constitution meant when it came to what a person is, not based off what the definition of a person is. Person might change over time, but as it stands now Person is a human being. unborn is a human being. Makes roe V Wade unconstitutional.
Would I feel this way if it had gone the other way? you mean if they had stood up for the Texas law? no because I think abortion should be left up to the states, as the constitution intended based on how i read the words in it, without interpretation of them.
I also understand Roe V Wade did not legalize abortion and overturning it wont make it illegal. It will give powers back where it always should have been. The States

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

1. So to sum it up she should be allowed to abort it, because it takes from the mother.

2. I think ti should be allowed to be born, because it is doing nothing wrong, or illegal

1. That and because it's disabling her immune system and dumping bio toxic waste into her body. I could go more into but I hate having to repeat myself again and again and again and again and again and again.

2. Read number 1 bud

 

[Steve Ja]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

1. That and because it's disabling her immune system and dumping bio toxic waste into her body. I could go more into but I hate having to repeat myself again and again and again and again and again and again.

2. Read number 1 bud

1 is you 2 is me.

 

[Lursa]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

It was about getting attention and yes she wanted clarification on the Texas law, to prevent further of whats he felt were injustices to the people of her state.
It turned into a national issue with the decision. Political wise yes, it was highly political. The judges interpreted what the Constitution meant when it came to what a person is, not based off what the definition of a person is. Person might change over time, but as it stands now Person is a human being. unborn is a human being. Makes roe V Wade unconstitutional.
Would I feel this way if it had gone the other way? you mean if they had stood up for the Texas law? no because I think abortion should be left up to the states, as the constitution intended based on how i read the words in it, without interpretation of them.
I also understand Roe V Wade did not legalize abortion and overturning it wont make it illegal. It will give powers back where it always should have been. The States

Thank you for the clarification. It once again minimizes women and their rights....but that has been your position throughout and is not surprising. And is your right.

And your disrespectful declaration that is was just 'to get attention' was applied to many worthwhile causes over the decades in this country....for example, Rosa Parks.

It has given women the freedom (they are entitled to) to seek medical attention of THEIR choice in their home states and not to have their privacy invaded *by the state.*

And YOUR definition of human being = person is incorrect. "Human being" is a biological definition. "Person" is a legal definition. Other societies can change who 'person' applies to and what rights they are accorded. The definition for "human being" never changes in any other society on this planet. And btw, corpses are human beings, but they are not persons so here is ANOTHER example of where human being does not = person.

 

[Steve Ja]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

Thank you for the clarification. It once again minimizes women and their rights....but that has been your position throughout and is not surprising. And is your right.

And your disrespectful declaration that is was just 'to get attention' was applied to many worthwhile causes over the decades in this country....for example, Rosa Parks.

It has given women the freedom (they are entitled to) to seek medical attention of THEIR choice in their home states and not to have their privacy invaded *by the state.*

And YOUR definition of human being = person is incorrect. "Human being" is a biological definition. "Person" is a legal definition. Other societies can change who 'person' applies to and what rights they are accorded. The definition for "human being" never changes in any other society on this planet. And BTW, corpses are human beings, but they are no longer persons so here is ANOTHER example of where human being does not = person.

A corpse is a dead person, very much a person still
The rest of it you can say what you want does not change my true feelings on anything. you Saying I'm minimizing women holds about as much water as a glass with a hole in the bottom. It really is not worth discussing anything with you, if you wish to act in this way.

 

[Steve Ja]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

Thank you for the clarification. It once again minimizes women and their rights....but that has been your position throughout and is not surprising. And is your right.

And your disrespectful declaration that is was just 'to get attention' was applied to many worthwhile causes over the decades in this country....for example, Rosa Parks.

It has given women the freedom (they are entitled to) to seek medical attention of THEIR choice in their home states and not to have their privacy invaded *by the state.*

And YOUR definition of human being = person is incorrect. "Human being" is a biological definition. "Person" is a legal definition. Other societies can change who 'person' applies to and what rights they are accorded. The definition for "human being" never changes in any other society on this planet. And btw, corpses are human beings, but they are not persons so here is ANOTHER example of where human being does not = person.

And you clearly take attention to think I mean she was just trying to get attention. attention to the issue. No this is not a back up, I clearly even state it in the response. Nice try

 

[Steve Ja]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

Thank you for the clarification. It once again minimizes women and their rights....but that has been your position throughout and is not surprising. And is your right.

And your disrespectful declaration that is was just 'to get attention' was applied to many worthwhile causes over the decades in this country....for example, Rosa Parks.

It has given women the freedom (they are entitled to) to seek medical attention of THEIR choice in their home states and not to have their privacy invaded *by the state.*

And YOUR definition of human being = person is incorrect. "Human being" is a biological definition. "Person" is a legal definition. Other societies can change who 'person' applies to and what rights they are accorded. The definition for "human being" never changes in any other society on this planet. And btw, corpses are human beings, but they are not persons so here is ANOTHER example of where human being does not = person.

Also to compare this issue to what Rosa parks and the civil rights movement went through is really classless. and to think I reject it is even more classless. you can discuss civilly, or not at all. I'm not gonna sit here and continue with someone who thinks this is about woman verse man.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

Unless the fetus has attained viability, evicting it will result in its death.

That's right, but it doesn't matter. The fetus has no rights, and especially no right to live inside the mother.

 

[choiceone]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

Genetically...biologically....you are incorrect. There is only ONE aim, goal, purpose of life and that is to reproduce. It's well documented...as I gave you some sources includind Dawkin's The Selfish Gene. And every societal and cultural convention we have can be derived from that very thing.

It is easy...and fine...to choose a philosophy in life based on religion, natural rights, free will, existentialism, minimalism, yada yada yada, but those are all just many many top layers placed on top of the GENES' (not even the individual's) goal of reproduction. The individual does have free will...and can make choices to not reproduce.....but that ability to exercise free will would not exist if for a population (of genes), it did not further the genes' goal in the long run. If your point that 'thought-driven' purpose cannot exist without first having life (biological life), then I would agree. Genes do not think...they compete. They build and either multiply (survive) or do not.

Please bear with me to the end of the post, as Dawkins is not the only scientist to weigh in on this.

In natural selection, individuals adapt and reproduce, and they survive or do not survive in their particular environments. Any gene that underlies their successful survival and reproduction can be selected for by the environment, and any gene that underlies their failure to survive or failure to reproduce can be selected against, though there are a lot of chance factors. Hence, overall, in so far as individuals do reproduce, they will transmit some genes which, over time, will serve individual survival and individual reproduction.

Genes that serve individual survival can only survive by transmission, depending on reproduction for continuance. Evolution with natural selection does favor reproduction, then, but only because it depends for its existence on reproduction. This is hardly a reason to claim that all biological life is driven by reproduction.

Evolution is not the only aspect of biology or even the only biological process. It is just the one that has been emphasized (and for partly economic and political reasons).

Individual organisms also adapt to cold and heat, for example. While our universal capacity for homeostasis after birth, which has a genetic basis, is involved, some people can adapt to cold using cultural means, which requires intelligence.

Though there is some genetic basis for human intelligence overall, even monozygotic twins can vary greatly in intelligence. The bases for the variance include such variables as quality of nutrition and stress level of the mother during pregnancy, poverty versus wealth and lack and abundance of intellectual stimulation in infancy and early childhood.

A woman of only average intelligence on the basis of genes may nonetheless have a happy combination of good nutrition and low stress in pregnancy and wealth and friends who tell her about intellectual stimulation for her neonate and she may follow what her friends say. Her child could end up being very, very intelligent despite having only genes for only average intelligence. And her progeny could go on doing that. If so, genes for merely average intelligence would be selected for in biological evolution, because cultural strategies substituted continuously for high IQ genes.

Even people of below average intelligence on the basis of genes could learn in culture how to protect themselves in cold climates. Thus, neither genes for better physiological adaptation to cold nor genes for even average intelligence would be needed for survival. If these people transmitted their genes, the natural environment would not select for better physiological adaptation or even better intelligence, just for reproduction.

Anthropologists all admit that, once culture becomes a variable, everything changes and we can't get all excited about biological evolution anymore. But still the biological process of physiological adaptation is important, and here is a reason why.

If we have average genetic intelligence but resources that maximally increase our intelligence in childhood, then as long as our basic homeostasis is working well, and we have basic cultural resources to protect us from distraction by temperature extremes, we can concentrate in school and get better and better at understanding biology and how to manipulate it. Eventually, we will be able to have the capacity to manipulate physiology in medicine and manipulate genetics and reproduction culturally. We can start IVF and sperm banks, and women of average genetic intelligence can select sperm at the banks for IQ level. The IQ of a particular woman's progeny and their progeny can be genetically raised in spite of her own genes, just because of cultural variables.

In this case, the purpose of biological life AND evolution are changed into becoming subordinate to cultural intelligence and manipulated by conscious intelligent human mind.

So for me, the only ultimate purpose of biological life is, in the end, to do the bidding of conscious intelligent cultural mind and reflect the values of that mind. And the people who may make that happen do not have to be the reproducers - they may figure out how to reproduce their species not only without sexual intercourse, but without pregnancy. But their legacy will last as long as conscious intelligent cultural mind is consciously valued more by the groups of humans among whom they operate.

 

[choiceone]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

Comparing my view to a rapist is stretching it and really disappointing, that you would say me arguing allow the body to determine what's right for it, is the same as a rapist who wishes to do as he wants to the woman's body. There are laws against this. A baby does not do as it wishes, it does as nature intended it to do and breaks no laws doing this. A baby does not force itself into the woman's body and you point out that the woman body attacks the embryo and enzymes are pushed out to prevent it by the embryo. Well where does the embryo get these enzymes? Half from the mother since she is half of the baby. so in fact the body is welcoming it, by providing the embryo with a means to protect itself from the woman's natural protections against intrusions. There is nothing the body does to welcome Rape.
You are correct cancer is natural and I had a feeling it would come up. I support medicine and technology when it supports human life, not when it takes human life

Sorry you do not see the similarity. We have laws against rape because it is natural but unfair.

A born baby does do as it wishes to the extent that it can. I admit that a premie doesn't have much of that extent, but screaming when uncomfortable is a willful act. The reason that a baby breaks no laws doing what nature intended, or even what it intends itself, is because it is outside of everyone's body and very small: we can all control it and it has no capacity to harm others based on its location.

I do not say that a zygote/blastocyst forces itself into the woman's body in a willful sense, but if it is a person with rights, then it is also a person with responsibilities. If a born child hits you, you can stop it, so the issue of responsibilities is null. But if an embryo causes the suppression of your immune system (and they all do), and you can't stop it any other way, abortion is a way you can stop it, because it disimplants the placenta/embryo unit. At the same time, if the woman was raped or used contraception, it does not have a right to stay in her body, let alone implant into it.

The enzymes are produced by the placenta which the blastocyst makes as it implants. The blastocyst takes some of the woman's endometrial tissue in the process of making it. Very little of the woman's tissue is part of the placenta. But in any case, the embryo's side of the placenta, made out of its own tissue, is the sole locus of this enzyme production, which is directed by the embryo's own bodily chemistry, which directs the production and operation of the placenta.

And it is worth telling you that the female and male chromosomal contributions to the zygote/blastocyst/embryo on the loci for placental and embryonic growth have very different effects. If those loci are dominated by the male's contributions, the excessive speed of growth can result in choriocarcinoma, a deadly form of cancer, but if they are dominated by the female's contributions, the slow speed of growth can easily result in expulsion of the blastocyst/embryo before it can make a placenta or cause it to produce the enzyme, or it can result in a weak implantation that can easily result in miscarriage. If the contributions on those loci are balanced evenly, a normal pregnancy results. But the woman has no control over which contributions dominate. In a case of a rape of a 9 year old, the rape zygote could end up, as a blastocyst/embryo, killing the little girl. That's just as natural as any other result.

I don't care that much about life, human or otherwise. What I care about is that individuals with conscious intelligent mind, or individuals who have demonstrated such mind before and may be able to do so again, be allowed to patronize any healing system which will allow that conscious intelligent mind to operate and control the body that is naturally at least partly subject to it.

And on rape - if a woman is asleep and not conscious and you rape her, her body may or may not tighten her muscles to attempt to stop the rape, but if the woman is conscious and you rape her, her body will tighten her muscles to do so, because her mind will be in at least partial charge of her body. But the rape of the woman asleep is still rape by law.

You can't get around the fact that the woman's body does NOT welcome the embryo, but treats it as an intruder even when the woman consciously wants to be pregnant. There is no bodily evidence of welcoming and plenty of evidence of trying to kick it out.

 

[choiceone]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

And I have a different view on it as I've expressed. I have my views on abortion and what it is. you have your feelings on what a woman should be allowed to do with another human life.

No, actually, I don't have feelings on what a woman should be allowed to do with another human life.

My view is that the woman has a right to prevent the blastocyst/embryo/fetus from being biologically attached to HER body without her expressed and ongoing consent and that she has a right to prevent the embryo/fetus to continue to reside inside HER body without her expressed and ongoing consent.

And moreover, my view is that neither the government nor you has any right to know whether or not she is pregnant, or any right to search her body or medical records to find out whether or not she is pregnant. Hence, you do not have the right to know that the blastocyst, embryo, or fetus exists at all, or to know whether it is living or dead.

My view is that any person sticking their nose into this issue is an insufferable busybody threatening one of the most fundamental rights of persons in our democracy and is, therefore, as dangerous to that democracy as any attacking terrorist.

 

[Steve Ja]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

No, actually, I don't have feelings on what a woman should be allowed to do with another human life.

My view is that the woman has a right to prevent the blastocyst/embryo/fetus from being biologically attached to HER body without her expressed and ongoing consent and that she has a right to prevent the embryo/fetus to continue to reside inside HER body without her expressed and ongoing consent.

And moreover, my view is that neither the government nor you has any right to know whether or not she is pregnant, or any right to search her body or medical records to find out whether or not she is pregnant. Hence, you do not have the right to know that the blastocyst, embryo, or fetus exists at all, or to know whether it is living or dead.

My view is that any person sticking their nose into this issue is an insufferable busybody threatening one of the most fundamental rights of persons in our democracy and is, therefore, as dangerous to that democracy as any attacking terrorist.

Very contradicting of you
Comparing pro-life to terrorists is pretty low and way off base.
Pro-life protects life. abortion takes it... I'm such a danger to society 700 lives verse 1 million lives. whats more dangerous to society

 

[choiceone]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

It is in fact a person and the constituion already protects it. An illegal judgment does not change that.
If the pregnant mom has no status over the unborn how can she possibly decide whether it lives or dies

How can she decide whether it lives or dies?

1) She has a legal right to commit suicide in every state. Since the embryo cannot continue to give evidence of life and growth without being implanted in her live body, if she kills herself and her body dies, the embryo will automatically die. In fact, up to viability, if the woman dies, the embryo or non-viable fetus always dies. So if she is willing to lay down her life to stop the pregnancy, she easily can.

2) There is one exception to the "always dies." In one case, a very ill pregnant woman was finally declared brain-dead but her relatives had the doctors keep her blood circulating so as to keep the fetus alive until it could survive outside the woman. However, her relatives would not have had the right to do this if she had made a living will stating that extraordinary medical measures could not legally be taken to keep her circulation going if she were brain-dead.

3) Any woman in the US would have the right to leave the US by crossing the border to Canada and could get a legal abortion in Canada and come back, so even if you made a US law against abortion, you could not prosecute the woman. And any daughter with a pro-choice mother could go to Canada with her mom for a vacation. That is, in fact, the way women of means and from wealthy and upper middle class families used to do it. Today, of course, there is also Women on Waves, so any woman near the seacoast would be able to get on the ship and go have an abortion in international waters.

4) Although states have made laws against substance abuse while pregnant if a woman intends to continue her pregnancy, in fact it is not possible to make illegal all the substances that can be used to cause an abortion, including pineapple, papaya, parsely, and many other common foods. A woman has the right to stay in her own home and prevent other people from coming into it, and she can get all her food and other necessities delivered and pay for them online, in complete privacy. She could repeatedly use natural foods and herbs to abort her pregnancy. Of course, if she failed, it is likely that the embryo would end up having serious birth defects. But it is not at all clear that you would ever be able to prove that she caused them by trying to abort.

5) There is no law that requires women to have any medical care during pregnancy or even that a woman has to give birth in a hospital because the timing of childbirth cannot be controlled to ensure the latter. As a result, a woman could refuse to take care of herself in pregnancy, subsist on a diet that caused malnourishment, engage in dangerous activities that could result in miscarriage. If she did this early enough in pregnancy, how would anyone know? A miscarriage at 10 weeks would result in a product in the toilet the size of a prune that could be flushed away.

So I remain convinced that the only way the anti-abortion people could force women to give birth in the US is by violating the 4th amendment and demanding that girls and women have regular pregnancy tests once a month once they begin menstruating, and then imprisoning them if they are pregnant until they give birth. Pay for all this on your own dime, not mine.

 

[choiceone]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

people have the power to reject the government, to include the stae

They do not have the right to violate federal law.

Want a state to withdraw from the Union again? This time, the pro-choice states would just let you do it. Anti-choice states are red and purple, and most of those states have historically paid less in federal taxes than they received in federal aid. The blue states like NY, which have historically paid more in federal taxes than they have received in aid, have basically paid for the stupidity of those states (New Mexico is a rare counterexample).

So we don't care about those anti-abortion states any more. We would be far better off without that dead weight. See Red vs Blue Joke - Dear Red States

 

[Steve Ja]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

How can she decide whether it lives or dies?

1) She has a legal right to commit suicide in every state. Since the embryo cannot continue to give evidence of life and growth without being implanted in her live body, if she kills herself and her body dies, the embryo will automatically die. In fact, up to viability, if the woman dies, the embryo or non-viable fetus always dies. So if she is willing to lay down her life to stop the pregnancy, she easily can.

2) There is one exception to the "always dies." In one case, a very ill pregnant woman was finally declared brain-dead but her relatives had the doctors keep her blood circulating so as to keep the fetus alive until it could survive outside the woman. However, her relatives would not have had the right to do this if she had made a living will stating that extraordinary medical measures could not legally be taken to keep her circulation going if she were brain-dead.

3) Any woman in the US would have the right to leave the US by crossing the border to Canada and could get a legal abortion in Canada and come back, so even if you made a US law against abortion, you could not prosecute the woman. And any daughter with a pro-choice mother could go to Canada with her mom for a vacation. That is, in fact, the way women of means and from wealthy and upper middle class families used to do it. Today, of course, there is also Women on Waves, so any woman near the seacoast would be able to get on the ship and go have an abortion in international waters.

4) Although states have made laws against substance abuse while pregnant if a woman intends to continue her pregnancy, in fact it is not possible to make illegal all the substances that can be used to cause an abortion, including pineapple, papaya, parsely, and many other common foods. A woman has the right to stay in her own home and prevent other people from coming into it, and she can get all her food and other necessities delivered and pay for them online, in complete privacy. She could repeatedly use natural foods and herbs to abort her pregnancy. Of course, if she failed, it is likely that the embryo would end up having serious birth defects. But it is not at all clear that you would ever be able to prove that she caused them by trying to abort.

5) There is no law that requires women to have any medical care during pregnancy or even that a woman has to give birth in a hospital because the timing of childbirth cannot be controlled to ensure the latter. As a result, a woman could refuse to take care of herself in pregnancy, subsist on a diet that caused malnourishment, engage in dangerous activities that could result in miscarriage. If she did this early enough in pregnancy, how would anyone know? A miscarriage at 10 weeks would result in a product in the toilet the size of a prune that could be flushed away.

So I remain convinced that the only way the anti-abortion people could force women to give birth in the US is by violating the 4th amendment and demanding that girls and women have regular pregnancy tests once a month once they begin menstruating, and then imprisoning them if they are pregnant until they give birth. Pay for all this on your own dime, not mine.

1. Do you have evidence to back up suicide is legal in all states. Somebody else was saying it was illegal. I tried arguing it was legal to commit, but not attempt suicide. But yes taking her own life will end the pregnancy.
2. Very true
3. Yup because she followed U.S laws
4. Also true
5. Also true

The last part is completely false. Nobody would be required to have a monthly test, nobody would be imprisoned. To assume otherwise is hysterical hype. You do realize what making abortion illegal would in reality do right? It would close down the medical facilities that give abortions, and stop all federal spending on abortion. If a person really wants to abort, she will find a way, you are very correct. Does not mean it should be legal to do. Plus one of my biggest arguments against Roe V Wade is not that it legalized abortion. It didn't, abortion was never illegal in America and overturning wont change that, it would still be very legal. My argument is it took the rights away from the states, where it belonged.. and made it a federal issue, that it never should have been. Yes I believe Roe V Wade to be unconstitutional.
People murder and it is illegal, should it be legal, because people do it anyways? Of Course not.

 

[choiceone]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

It was about getting attention and yes she wanted clarification on the Texas law, to prevent further of whats he felt were injustices to the people of her state.
It turned into a national issue with the decision. Political wise yes, it was highly political. The judges interpreted what the Constitution meant when it came to what a person is, not based off what the definition of a person is. Person might change over time, but as it stands now Person is a human being. unborn is a human being. Makes roe V Wade unconstitutional.
Would I feel this way if it had gone the other way? you mean if they had stood up for the Texas law? no because I think abortion should be left up to the states, as the constitution intended based on how i read the words in it, without interpretation of them.
I also understand Roe V Wade did not legalize abortion and overturning it wont make it illegal. It will give powers back where it always should have been. The States

Abortion rights were already a national issue long before the decision. In the early 1960s, there was a rash of seriously deformed babies because of the medical profession's ignorant use of thalidomide for various ailments of pregnant women, and Sherri Finkbine, a TV star who hosted a nationwide children's program, went to Sweden to have an abortion of her thalidomide pregnancy because she couldn't get one here. That was perhaps the beginning of a mixed medical and popular movement for liberalization of state abortion laws in the US.

This movement was not without Protestant Christian support. In fact, in the late 1960s, evangelicals were pro-choice. See left in alabama god was pro choice in 1968 - Bing

Various states, in response to this movement, did liberalize their abortion laws in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Hence, there was already a trend toward liberalization, and this was in fact mentioned in the majority opinion in Roe v Wade.

The only reason you believe it should be a state matter is because you have no respect for equal rights for women and for women's self-determination, even though you have it for yourself. Talk about selfish!

 

[Steve Ja]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

They do not have the right to violate federal law.

Want a state to withdraw from the Union again? This time, the pro-choice states would just let you do it. Anti-choice states are red and purple, and most of those states have historically paid less in federal taxes than they received in federal aid. The blue states like NY, which have historically paid more in federal taxes than they have received in aid, have basically paid for the stupidity of those states (New Mexico is a rare counterexample).

So we don't care about those anti-abortion states any more. We would be far better off without that dead weight. See Red vs Blue Joke - Dear Red States

I never said they did, I said we have the power to overthrow the government, which we in fact do

 

[choiceone]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

A corpse is a dead person, very much a person still
The rest of it you can say what you want does not change my true feelings on anything. you Saying I'm minimizing women holds about as much water as a glass with a hole in the bottom. It really is not worth discussing anything with you, if you wish to act in this way.

Legally, a corpse is not a person.

The fact that you are incapable of perceiving a pregnant woman as a person tells us all we need to know.

 

[Steve Ja]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

Abortion rights were already a national issue long before the decision. In the early 1960s, there was a rash of seriously deformed babies because of the medical profession's ignorant use of thalidomide for various ailments of pregnant women, and Sherri Finkbine, a TV star who hosted a nationwide children's program, went to Sweden to have an abortion of her thalidomide pregnancy because she couldn't get one here. That was perhaps the beginning of a mixed medical and popular movement for liberalization of state abortion laws in the US.

This movement was not without Protestant Christian support. In fact, in the late 1960s, evangelicals were pro-choice. See left in alabama god was pro choice in 1968 - Bing

Various states, in response to this movement, did liberalize their abortion laws in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Hence, there was already a trend toward liberalization, and this was in fact mentioned in the majority opinion in Roe v Wade.

The only reason you believe it should be a state matter is because you have no respect for equal rights for women and for women's self-determination, even though you have it for yourself. Talk about selfish!

Ignorant response. The reason I believe it should be a state matter is because that's what I believe. turning it into a war against women, just puts you with the other nut jobs who cry the same to scare people into believing what they believe, no actual evidence to back it up. So on that note i am done having conversations with you as well, as i refuse to converse with such ignorance

 

[choiceone]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

Also to compare this issue to what Rosa parks and the civil rights movement went through is really classless. and to think I reject it is even more classless. you can discuss civilly, or not at all. I'm not gonna sit here and continue with someone who thinks this is about woman verse man.

This is about equal rights for women as actual persons. There are women who are also against that. But for you to imagine that it is "classless" to compare the women's movement in the sixties and seventies to the civil rights movement is ridiculous. There are people who were civil rights movement leaders who supported the women's movement and who considered it crucially important that women in the US stood up for their rights.

In the 1960s and early 1970s, before the US changed, there was gender discrimination against women in marriage - in some Southern states, a working woman had to get her husband's signature on the health insurance she received from her employment and the husband of a woman who inherited property had the right to decide how to spend it and could spend it all on himself, by law. There was discrimination in educational opportunity, even grading, in employment opportunity, pay for equal work, and promotional policies of companies. Men trivialized women when they sought careers "because they would just get married and have kids," and then turned around and trivialized women interested in that very goal by saying they were seeking "a meal ticket."

That was how some of the more liberal guys were, so you can bet that the conservatives were insufferable. The environment of open insult to good manners and intelligence was enough to turn many sweet-tempered, well-raised, marriage-oriented girls into flaming radicals.

I was finally able to get get taken seriously and have equal opportunity and equal pay for equal work - by LEAVING THE COUNTRY!!!

 

[minnie616]

Re: If birth will result in death of the mother, how can you abort a fetus with right

So to sum it up she should be allowed to abort it, because it takes from the mother.
I think ti should be allowed to be born, because it is doing nothing wrong, or illegal

I understand you think an unborn has done nothing wrong.
Most women do choose to continue their pregnancy.

But I think a woman who chooses not to continue her pregnancy should be able to have a legal abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.

A women who forced to continue a pregnancy is not a free woman. She becomes a second class citizen.
She would have less rights than a man and yes I think she would even have less rights than the fetus she would be forced to carry to term.