The most basic right...life...would incur the violations to women's right's that I have outlined. Up to and including the woman's life.
To protect the unborn life...the govt ensuring the woman was forced to bring it to birth...would violate all the rights I mentioned: due process, the same exact privacy rights that men have (women would have to give up), bodily sovereignty, self-determination, liberty (if women defied the govt and attempted abortion, to force a woman to remain pregnant if she refused, etc), and even her right to life, since every single pregnancy is a risk to a woman's life and it cannot be predicted.
the fact that this wasnt clear before (after you complain and complain I dont read your posts) when I clearly wrote 'to protect the life of the unborn' is your shortcoming,
Now what is your answer? How do you justify this at the expense of all a woman's rights?
Tic Tock, Tic Tock. How to talk to you. Tic Tock and Tic tock
This will not constitute a derailing since I plan to return to this.
Let me cite another issue I was heavily involved with at my RE Board when I was then a director.
The gist of this story involves health insurance that was paid entirely for by members who checked the box agreeing to having it and paying fully for it.
I was dealing with several members, one a female member on the same Directors board when she submitted for our vote removing all formerly qualified people from paying in full for the health coverage. This means Kaiser would take our direction as our law and kick them all off their paid for policies. These policies naturally involved all health care and not merely some of it. Details could follow how they came to be qualified at all and more. i want to stick to our vote.
I worked hard to persuade the board they deserved to remain on the health plans for several reasons. 1. They were asked to join. 2. They paid their own policies. 3. Kaiser health informed me that they gladly wanted them to keep paying. but kicked off they would not be allowed to keep them on the policy. Kaiser was covering them under a Board plan.
I worked hard to persuade my fellow Directors. How dare we treat them this way when the Board itelf was responsible for includintg them to begin with.
Some directors said it was that they were not paying dues thus not eligible. Some were widows. Widows also need insurance. Some kicked off were paying dues when they joined thre plan yet retired and no longer paid dues.
Anyway, it ended up there were enough directors voting them off that they killed the plans for a good many people.
You mightr retort, life is hard. If you don't pay dues off you go. I do not agree. I and other membvers had retored the finances of the board to outstanding helth. We lost not one dime from widows who themselves never had paid dues and it was not their fault the husband died leaving them the burden alone to pay for insurance. And they kept paying.
So the board kicked them off. To this day I believe it was wrong. The widows were forced to pay more premiums to have trhe same insurance. We treasted widows like crap.
Back to your argument.
Humans or embryos
As i told you not all yhumans are equally able to have full rights.
You proclaim to my deaf ears the women are deprived.
But deprived to do what?
Kill their own dogs or cats or horses?
Sure in some towns that is illegal.
My view stems from the unborn being not horses or dogs, but honest to god humans. In development.
Can that end this parade I must remain fully involved in? No it will not.
So one more time, I am not changing a damned thing and do not understand why this is now my burden to prove squat.
I no longer am a director of the board. I have lost all directors voting privileges. I do not even have members voting privileges. So if the Board revives it and makes it go my way, I will not be a voting member.
I do not vote as a member of the house nor the senate.
All I can offer is my views and clearly you do not like my views.
If you liked my views you would have quit this bugging me to stay in the bugs bunny hotel.
So, one more time. I do not agree her bearing her child is a violation of her rights. See this applies not to a few women, all women. Women not being pregnant have the right to not get pregnant We both can agree that is fact. I simply came to make a suggestion on a way to end this damned diatribe that always pops up when abortion is the topic.
And you despise all of my attempts. I simply know of no way you will be happy. Even though my arguments if told to lawyers would make sense to them, to you they do not make sense. I pretty much rely mostly on my legal training since to me my legal training was excellent in how to argue and do so with principle.
Can i make you happy? I do not not accept I will make you happy.
Your sole basis of happiness will only be when you beat me to crap and I submit to you and your credo.
opcorn2:
