So, if abortion is murder...

[OKgrannie]

I want equal rights and justice for all.

Do you?

Yes, and that cannot happen when you force women to be incubators. A zef is not a part of "all", it is not a member of society in any way.

When Abortion Was a Crime

If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned and abortion made illegal again, the history of when abortion was a crime suggests that the results would be dire indeed. The practice of abortion might dip in response to pressure, but it would not stop. Women would once again besiege physicians and other health-care workers with requests for abortion. Enforcement of new criminal statutes would no doubt be patterned on the old system. State authorities would again expect medical personnel to assist the state by reporting, interrogating, and physically examining women suspected of having abortions; police would revive the practice of raiding abortionists' offices and capturing women. Any woman who miscarried would be treated as a potential criminal and subjected to medical examination, which could include internal "viewing" via ultrasound. Medical mistreatment of women would become routinized as the health-care system became further enmeshed in the state's law enforcement apparatus. If abortion is made illegal, some women will die; many more will be injured. The old abortion wards


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

― 250 ―
will have to be reopened, a public-health disaster recreated. Making abortion hard to obtain will not return the United States to an imagined time of virginal brides and stable families; it will return us to the time of crowded septic abortion wards, avoidable deaths, and the routinization of punitive treatment of women by state authorities and their surrogates.

However, the past will not be duplicated in every detail if abortion is again made illegal, for the historical circumstances differ. In the last twenty-five years, abortion has been politicized in new ways. We can anticipate the "private" enforcement of the laws by the antiabortion troops that now harass abortion providers and women who seek abortion.[14] Women could be routinely prosecuted and imprisoned for having abortions, which they were not during the era of illegal abortion.[15]

It is not impossible to imagine women in the United States being subjected to constant state surveillance of their reproductive systems similar to that recently experienced in Romania.[16] The monitoring of female menstrual cycles, investigation of miscarriages, and the transformation of prenatal care from checkups to checks that all pregnancies are progressing to term are conceivable in the United States. With the rise of an antiabortion movement that proclaims the primacy of the fetus, prenatal care and medical thinking have already moved in the direction of putting the fetus ahead of the pregnant woman. Too often pregnant women are perceived as vessels for ensuring the best outcome of a future child. The obsessive focus on the behavior of pregnant women allows Americans to overlook the social and economic roots of this country's high infant mortality rates as well as the general population's difficulty in improving its eating habits or eliminating smoking and alcohol and drug abuse. Some women have been charged with "child abuse" of a fetus in utero; others have been surgically delivered by cesarean section against their will. Predictably, it is mostly low-income women, minority women, or women who hold religious views different from those of their doctors who have been charged or forced to undergo such surgery.[17]

Discounting the rights of pregnant women weakens everyone's rights as patients. If a pregnant woman cannot reject a cesarean section—whether for religious, political, or personal reasons—then any woman can be forced to submit to procedures deemed necessary for the fetus; any patient can be forced to comply with treatments deemed essential by medical personnel. This society rejects the sacrifice of one person in order to save another considered more important; an organ may be do-


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

― 251 ―
nated voluntarily, for example, but donations may not be obtained through coercion. Reproductive rights are based on the same principle: women cannot be required to sacrifice their own health and lives in order to produce babies.

 

[Chuz Life]

I want equal rights and justice for all.

Do you?

A zef (human in the zygote, embryo or fetal stage of their life) is not a part of "all", it is not a member of society in any way.

I pretty much seen that coming when I asked the question.

Neither were blacks considered 'members of society.'

They too were denied their rights and personhood as a means to justify the attrocities of slavery,...

 

[OKgrannie]

I pretty much seen that coming when I asked the question.

Neither were blacks considered 'members of society.'

They too were denied their rights and personhood as a means to justify the attrocities of slavery,...

The only thing that slavery has in common with the abortion question is that denying women the right to abortion makes slaves of them. Or even less, reduces them to the status of incubators. You CANNOT make the zef an equal "person" without denying the equal personhood rights of women. Then there is no equality at all.

 

[Demon of Light]

We are not talking about fertilization when we are discussing the failure of the embryo to implant in the womb. They are two separate matters.

Are you even paying attention? I was clearly explaining that the rate of fertilization when these methods is either zero or extremely close to zero and that since pregnancies naturally fail frequently, especially prior to implantation, there is little reason to think there is any impact on implantation.

As for evidence and clinical proof of the "post fertilization effect", which you have called a myth, I posted the sections regarding the study and the conclusions drawn from the evidence:

I responded to that in case you didn't notice.

These are the two methods in which observed evidence lead the researchers to conclude that BCP's thin the endometrial lining, making it substantially less likely implantation will occur. The evidence, and they cite measurement of the lining and the expression of integrins to be "grossly altered" in OC users, lead them to conclusions that are substantiated as they are causes of infertility in women who are not on BCP's. Infertility studies and the conclusions made using the same data and evidence, have decades of proof behind them, thus legitimizing the conclusion that BCP's have a "post fertilization effect".

Did you not get the part where I said I already knew about this study before you put it up here? Maybe I wasn't clear enough but I have already seen this study and if you read it clearly enough you realize that it is in fact saying this a theoretical possibility, a hypothesis, and nothing more.

The endometrium is in the uterus. By definition, ectopic pregnancy is:

So given there is no endometrium in the fallopian tubes or any other location an ectopic pregnancy occur, BCP's can have no effect on implantation there.

I'm thinking maybe you just really don't know how to pay attention. The reason I mention ectopic pregnancy is because if the endometrium is so essential that it being thin prevents implantation how can there be implantation where there is no endometrium at all? The claim is that endometrial thickness is critical to implantation, yet implantation occurs where there is no endometrium at all.

I found something else interesting while I was looking around:

Q: If I stay on the Pill until I conceive will it take longer to get pregnant?

A: Most probably not. A European study on oral contraceptives called the EURAS-OC study (European Active Surveillance Study on Oral Contraceptives) prospectively followed more than 2,000 women on the Pill who stopped taking it to try to conceive. The women were followed for at least two years after stopping oral contraceptives to examine how long it took them to get pregnant.

The study found that within just one cycle of stopping the Pill over 21 percent of the women had become pregnant. This was virtually identical to the natural pregnancy rates of 20 to 25 percent per cycle in women who are not using any form of birth control. One year after they discontinued oral contraceptives 79.4 percent of the women were pregnant. The median time to conception was three months. These numbers are pretty much the same as for non-birth-control-pill users. In other words, prior use of the Pill seemed to make no difference to future conception.

The study also looked at women who used the Pill for more than 24 months (long-term use) and found that it also had no effect on conception rates. Of the women who took the Pill for 24 months or less, 79.3 percent become pregnant after a year of stopping its use, versus 81 percent of women who had been on birth control for more than two years.

Source: MSNBC

Those figures go right to the point mentioned in the study about decreased menstrual flow indicating the effects on the endometrium and integrins continue after discontinuing use of the pill. If that is true then it appears this has little to no impact on the pregnancy rate.

 

[prometeus]

Religion and morality doesn't have anything to do whether or not a person's rights begin when their life does.

By your declaration no less?

Or whether elective abortion is contrary to the 14th. Equal protection and Due process clauses.

As it has been pointed out several times already the due process does not apply. That is a limit on the power of government and the government is not aborting anything. Educate yourself about your Constitution. It is embarrassing when an adult does not know what the constitution of his nation says.

 

[Chuz Life]

As it has been pointed out several times already the due process does not apply. That is a limit on the power of government and the government is not aborting anything. Educate yourself about your Constitution. It is embarrassing when an adult does not know what the constitution of his nation says.

What is embarassing is that you yourself misrepresent the equal protection clause of the the 14th,... even as you attack me; claiming that I am doing the same. I'll put my interpretations up against yours in front of the SCOTUS any day of the year.

 

[The Uncola]

What is embarassing is that you yourself misrepresent the equal protection clause of the the 14th,... even as you attack me; claiming that I am doing the same. I'll put my interpretations up against yours in front of the SCOTUS any day of the year.

Be sure to let us all know when you get that on the SCOTUS calender, it'll be a hoot to watch.

 

[Chuz Life]

Be sure to let us all know when you get that on the SCOTUS calender, it'll be a hoot to watch.

Well, that is where we all intend to get our views presented one day, isn't it?

 

[prometeus]

What is embarassing is that you yourself misrepresent the equal protection clause of the the 14th

Really? How? Sow me one instance in which the equal protection clause has been accorded to fetuses, because then we all could see what I am denying.

even as you attack me; claiming that I am doing the same.

I am not attacking you just underscoring the fact that you are uninformed. And to think that you were in the military...

I'll put my interpretations up against yours in front of the SCOTUS any day of the year.

Of course you would, but how does that change anything?

 

[Chuz Life]

What is embarassing is that you yourself misrepresent the equal protection clause of the the 14th,... even as you attack me; claiming that I am doing the same. I'll put my interpretations up against yours in front of the SCOTUS any day of the year.

Really? How? Sow me one instance in which the equal protection clause has been accorded to fetuses, because then we all could see what I am denying.

So in the absense of a settled case,.... the amendment and its equal protection does not apply?

Sorry,.... it doesn't work like that.

The reason I said that you are misrepresenting the equal protection aspect of the 14th is exhibited in your very quote above.

You CHUZ to use the 14th amendment and the fact that it is not commonly used by the courts to protect prenatal children,... to deny them equal protection.

You CHUZ to use the 14th Amendment to exclude human beings from 'equal protection;' rather than to INclude them.

I find that shameful and embarassing.

I am not attacking you just underscoring the fact that you are uninformed. And to think that you were in the military...

Of course you would, but how does that change anything?

Fair waring on the personal attacks.

 

[prometeus]

So in the absense of a settled case,.... the amendment and its equal protection does not apply?

Sorry,.... it doesn't work like that.

Why do you need to twist what I say? Is it lack of understanding or integrity or inability or otherwise refute? I said NOTHING about settled case only an instance in which fetuses are recognized as persons. Say tax purposes, no that does not work, the census it is a part of the XIVth, not that does not work either. OK your turn.

The reason I said that you are misrepresenting the equal protection aspect of the 14th is exhibited in your very quote above.

Of course you would say that too. After all I only interpret it as everyone else. You on the other hand pervert it.

You CHUZ to use the 14th amendment and the fact that it is not commonly used by the courts to protect prenatal children,... to deny them equal protection.[/quot]Not commonly used? What a load of your usual "honest" crap. Name one instance in which any court uncommonly used it.

You CHUZ to use the 14th Amendment to exclude human beings from 'equal protection;' rather than to INclude them.

No, I take the XIV for what it is and what it is and what it was intended to be.

I find that shameful and embarassing.

Of course you do. After all you need to divert attention from the embarrassment that you art clueless about the Constitution.

Fair waring on the personal attacks.

No attack just pointing out facts that are shameful. Perverting the Constitution for an agenda is about as low as one can get in the political arena.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why do you need to twist what I say?

I don't and I didn't.

I said NOTHING about settled case only an instance in which fetuses are recognized as persons. Say tax purposes, no that does not work, the census it is a part of the XIVth, not that does not work either. OK your turn.

This is barely discernable. If you were trying to make a point,... you buried it.

After all I only interpret it (the 14th Amendment) as everyone else. You on the other hand pervert it.

:::sigh:::

Sorry,... I didn't get the memo that you are now the official spokesperson for "everyone else."

You CHUZ to use the 14th amendment and the fact that it is not commonly used by the courts to protect prenatal children,... to deny them equal protection.

Not commonly used? What a load of your usual "honest" crap. Name one instance in which any court uncommonly used it.

Do you mean like the "Born Alive Infant Protection ACT?"

The "Unborn victims of Violence Act?"

I take the XIV for what it is and what it is and what it was intended to be."

What is is and what it is?

After all you need to divert attention from the embarrassment that you art clueless about the Constitution.

Me thinks thow protest too much. Thow art the one who is trying to use the 14th to deny the rights of children. Reading it as to exclude them rather than to include them.

No attack just pointing out facts that are shameful. Perverting the Constitution for an agenda is about as low as one can get in the political arena.

Here here!

:cheers:

 

[prometeus]

I don't and I didn't.

So you just blatantly lied then. I'll take that as your way of acknowledging it.

This is barely discernable. If you were trying to make a point,... you buried it.

perhaps you should undertake then only discussions that present no intellectual abilities.

Sorry,... I didn't get the memo that you are now the official spokesperson for "everyone else."

Which is it this time, lie or twist or o is it possible that you were unable to understand the simple sentence I posted. Here just in case: "After all I only interpret it (the 14th Amendment) as everyone else. You on the other hand pervert it." I highlighted the crucial part the one you have difficulty comprehending or are just choosing to lie about.

Do you mean like the "Born Alive Infant Protection ACT?"

The "Unborn victims of Violence Act?"

If that was the case then a separate law would not be necessary as the only needed thing would be the declaration that fetuses are persons like the rest of us and they would like the rest of us be then protected. But how is it possible that under the same Constitution in some states fetuses are and in some are not persons. Never mind, that would take some basic understanding of law and the Constitution and you clearly lack it.

Here here!

You must meant "hear hear" because there is nothing there. Look it up in your dictionary.

 

[Bodi]

What is embarassing is that you yourself misrepresent the equal protection clause of the the 14th,... even as you attack me; claiming that I am doing the same. I'll put my interpretations up against yours in front of the SCOTUS any day of the year.

You will never get in front of SCOTUS... Hahaha