Abortion is wrong

Dee

 Most Pro-choice would believe that it's not born, has no rights and therefore can be aborted (the two who gave you fist bumps).  I

@MichaelElpers ;

Well a fetus is actually not born and what exactly are the rights of the fetus legally in the US? I thought abortion was legal so how  has it rights therefore regarding abortion? 

Whatever rights you think a fetus may have it certainly has zero rights to  make a woman give birth against her consent , you cannot deny this so you don’t agree with the law .....tough 

John_C_87

Dee said:

 Most Pro-choice would believe that it's not born, has no rights and therefore can be aborted (the two who gave you fist bumps).  I

@MichaelElpers ;

Well a fetus is actually not born and what exactly are the rights of the fetus legally in the US? I thought abortion was legal so how  has it rights therefore regarding abortion? 

Whatever rights you think a fetus may have it certainly has zero rights to  make a woman give birth against her consent , you cannot deny this so you don’t agree with the law .....tough 

Quite simply It does not matter Dee the answer, or alibi of not an American you are giving does not provide a united state constitutional right to have all woman self-incriminate to a skillful use of admission on a international level. The right of the potential victim, in this case a child has nothing to do with the admission of intellectual murder be guided in public. A harsh reminder here is a murder can be proven without the body of the victim, while an admission as criminal confession can also be used without a body and with only official documentation stating life had started. For without the start an official end cannot take place.

The analogy is the debate is a two headed coin stripping away a level of independence of woman as a united state. How is it Dee you see that a fetus is not a citizen of a nation but do not address the immigration burden as a united state with all woman. It clearly is not because of lack of understanding, so why?

Well a fetus is actually not born.
There is an issue with the above claim as a united state for all woman.

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/10/medicalscience.research

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

Sorry, yes I was using pro-choice and abortion interchangeably, by pro-abortion I just meant the argument for abortion being legal, not that every advocate wants people to get an abortion.  Although in today's culture its getting closer to the second as legal and rare is beginning to change to shout your abortion and god bless abortion.

You apologize for equating pro-choice and pro-abortion and then suggest they're becoming the same thing. To begin, that's not a sincere apology. Nor is it true the two are (or becoming) interchangeable.  Choice is what every person should have regarding their own body. Abortion is one of the tools currently necessary to realize that. Again, you do not understand the pro-choice position.

Also, I wasn't stating that pro-choice advocates don't allow abortion when the mother's life in in danger, just that they argue abortion is almost always legal, so the context of the situation wouldn't matter.  Most Pro-choice would believe that it's not born, has no rights and therefore can be aborted (the two who gave you fist bumps).  I realize there are pro-choice people that draw the lines in different places, but the context of the situation would only really matter/ confirm or deny justification for a pro-life individual.

The context does matter.  Choice advocates do argue for abortion being legal throughout pregnancy, but they do not generally hold to the same justifications throughout.  For instance, abortion early in the pregnancy requires virtually no justification, nor should it. However later in the pregnancy, maternal endangerment or fetal anomaly are held as legitimate justifications (that's actually the law) whereas 'whim' is typically frowned upon. So, if the video was showing the results of legal abortions, then the author is unquestionably advocating for an increase in maternal deaths and still-born births. If the video is showing the results of illegal abortion, well...they're already illegal - so what's the point if not to restrict legal abortion (and affect an increase in maternal deaths and still born births).

John_C_87

@SkepticalOne ;

First off, I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion" As a witness can say with liberty they are pro-abortion when a woman has a united state constitutional right to admit to a possible crime, she feels it is her fault the child she was burdened with life had died. The issue of American constitution is based on a truth that a lawyers, and legislators should have known better that it cannot use the religious admission as a point of law unless a common defense is/was given, by the people, for the people, to the admission of guilt legislated. Such things as rape, incest, and poverty are not common defense shared with all woman as a united state publicly.

Before the claim of not knowing, or even understanding basic principles comes to play, Female specific amputation can share a united state with all woman, and is assembled by requirements set forth by the weight placed on all woman to address the preservation of their right to vote on a American President of the United States.

John_C_87

@SkepticalOne ;

Quite simple Skeptic you are using the point of no body to argue about a crime scene that does not exist. While ignoring the crime scene that does exist. The world where all woman are placed in a united state as it relates to crime made with a constructed admission.

1.       The crime your saying might take place, if/when a choice is made.

2.       The crime I debate is taking place and is simply overshadowed by the crime that might take place.

3.       Pregnancy abortions are legal SkepticOne when represented in a court of law as legal inalienable constitutional choice. All woman as united state perform a pregnancy abortion when official stopping pregnancy when making the choice not to fertilized the human egg they create. Inside their bodies with ovulation and living egg. or outside their bodies with donation of living human egg to others. Pregnancy is legally aborted.

4. The legality of pregnancy abortion by official stopping life of the egg outside the woman's body comes in question in the woman's understanding of how much control she had over the fertilization of the egg/eggs donated, by constitution and American United State Constitution.

SkepticalOne

@John_C_87

It seems you disagree with me, but I can't  understand what you are trying to convey. 

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

To me pro-choice and pro-abortion are interchangeable, it's merely a different play on words that people get offended by. I don't really care if you replace pro-life with anti-choice because its referencing the same thing. Some may think slightly more disingenuous because in general "anti-choice" people are conservative who want government influence to decrease. The statements such as shout your abortion does show an affinity towards abortion. You can't just the terms aren't becoming more interchangeable, pro-choice rallies show that they are happy and proud of getting abortions.  

Also not sure why you think i misunderstand the pro-choice position.  What statements have i said that misinterpret the position?  

I generally agree that people have the right to choose in any decision they make, but I think that ends if you're killing another human (that is the debate on abortion).  While bodily autonomy is important I've always found the argument to be slightly disingenuous because the reason people get abortions is not because they want their bodily autonomy back, it's to end the life inside them to prevent it from interfering with theirs.

****Choice advocates do argue for abortion being legal throughout pregnancy, but they do not generally hold to the same justifications throughout.

I stated that, but many also hold the position of no regulation until birth.  Why should the justifications change throughout pregnancy?  i.e What about the fetus has changed in each stage that results in a change of justification.

****However later in the pregnancy, maternal endangerment or fetal anomaly are held as legitimate justification. So, if the video was showing the results of legal abortions, then the author is unquestionably advocating for an increase in maternal deaths and still-born births.

For late-term abortions maternal endangerment is vague.  States have and more are beginning to use the phrasing "health of the mother" in order to justify abortions in the late-term for very minor reasons like fear pregnancy could cause great mental anxiety.  

The video (which admittedly i haven't watch yet, but can guess from inference) could be merely showing why late-term abortions should only be illegal in the case of permanent disability or life of the mother.  It is probably mainly used to show the humanity of the fetus at the stages the abortions are taking place.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

Well like skepticalone stated.  Law states for late-term abortion mother endangerment must play a factor, isn't that placing the fetus' rights above the mother's right to bodily autonomy?  Unless endangered she wouldn't have the right to abortion.

And again referencing law for either side doesn't mean one is automatically correct with their presumptions.  Laws can be wrong.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****Well like skepticalone stated.  Law states for late-term abortion mother endangerment must play a factor, isn't that placing the fetus' rights above the mother's right to bodily autonomy?  

Yet you said .....And again referencing law for either side doesn't mean one is automatically correct with their presumptions.  Laws can be wrong.

Even still abortion is legal in most countries up to a point , I’m incidentally not a fan of late term abortions either way 

Whatever rights you think a fetus may have no one should have the right to use someone’s body against  their consent 

SkepticalOne

I generally agree that people have the right to choose in any decision they make, but I think that ends if you're killing another human (that is the debate on abortion).  While bodily autonomy is important I've always found the argument to be slightly disingenuous because the reason people get abortions is not because they want their bodily autonomy back, it's to end the life inside them to prevent it from interfering with theirs.

This illustrates a misapprehension of bodily autonomy. A woman doesn't get an abortion to "get bodily autonomy back". A woman can carry a pregnancy to term while enjoying bodily autonomy. However, if a woman is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy, then she does not have bodily autonomy. The argument is not about "getting bodily autonomy back", but about keeping it.

Why should the justifications change throughout pregnancy?  i.e What about the fetus has changed in each stage that results in a change of justification?

..Because a fertilized egg has not reached developmental prerequisites necessary for personhood, while a fetus (in the late stages of pregnancy) may have. In short, zygote=/=infant. 

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

If she is pregnant, and doesn't want to be, the entire time she is pregnant she wouldn't have bodily autonomy, so she would indeed be getting it back.  My argument would actually be she has kept it the entire time because she consented to a possibility she'd become pregnant.

What i was looking for was the exact developments you believe make them a person.  Why are there 3 different stages set apart from each other and what is the distinctive trait that separates them.

John_C_87

SkepticalOne said:

@John_C_87

It seems you disagree with me, but I can't  understand what you are trying to convey. 

\

Yeah there are a couple disagreements. Fist one.  We are not trying to find legal, illegal abortion, we are to create and form a union of United State Constitutional right for all woman as a single independent State by relationship of ovulating or fertile woman between pregnancy and its termination.

1.       None of what you are saying describes a legal reason why all woman must be directed by powers of law to self-incriminate by making a false claim out of context to abortion claiming pregnancy abortion as terminating life with just woman who have sex, by use of men as a counterpart in the process, helping women to become pregnant. The word abortion describes a murder without sex as a woman official stops pregnancy by her action to not save the egg which begins to die unless cared for by her inside her body.

The legal pregnancy abortion is the one all woman have/perform is when not having sex as well as having sex and do not becoming pregnant

Woman who can become pregnant by ovulation plan the death of multiple eggs, multiple times until they bear the weight of a childbirth by pregnancy and go on to then complete immigration process by completing the pregnancies process of childbirth.

Your argument is to continue to have woman self-incriminate themselves, forfeit their constitutional right to be presumed innocent, by choice, so they can then have no obligation to be proven guilty in a court of law. Female specific amputation is not pregnancy abortion this United State by Constitutional amendment to wording maintains all women’s presumption of innocence.

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

If she is pregnant, and doesn't want to be, the entire time she is pregnant she wouldn't have bodily autonomy, so she would indeed be getting it back.  My argument would actually be she has kept it the entire time because she consented to a possibility she'd become pregnant.

Pregnancy happens without consent even when sex is consensual. Consenting to sex is not consenting to an extended relationship, STDs, future sex, or pregnancy. Consent is situational and not for every possible outcome related to an activity.

What i was looking for was the exact developments you believe make them a person.  Why are there 3 different stages set apart from each other and what is the distinctive trait that separates them.

I've covered my view earlier in this thread. I encourage you to seek it out rather than having a duplicate conversation here. 

I do not understand what you are referring to with "3 stages". There is either person or not.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

If she is pregnant, and doesn't want to be, the entire time she is pregnant she wouldn't have bodily autonomy, so she would indeed be getting it back

The entire time she is pregnant of course she still has bodily autonomy she just hasn’t exercised it yet even if she doesn’t want to be pregnant , you do say some very peculiar things . A woman has bodily autonomy whether she aborts or not 

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

****Consent is situational and not for every possible outcome related to an activity. 

No but it usually applies to obvious outcomes.  If I eat a ton of Twinkies, I would say I consented to being fat. 


By three different stages, I mean by law the justification/restrictions on abortion are separated by 3 stages as you pointed out earlier.  Why are the restrictions/justifications changing, what about the fetus is making them change?

By your previous points about consciousness you would believe there would be no restrictions up to consciousness, but some after that.  That is not how the law is currently set up.

 

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

****Consent is situational and not for every possible outcome related to an activity. 

No but it usually applies to obvious outcomes.  If I eat a ton of Twinkies, I would say I consented to being fat. 


By three different stages, I mean by law the justification/restrictions on abortion are separated by 3 stages as you pointed out earlier.  Why are the restrictions/justifications changing, what about the fetus is making them change?

By your previous points about consciousness you would believe there would be no restrictions up to consciousness, but some after that.  That is not how the law is currently set up.

 

If you consent to sharing the road with other drivers, do you also consent to  a collision with another vehicle...its a fairly likely outcome. Besides, not being pregnant is a much more obvious (likely) outcome of sex.

Please point me to where I have enumerated the 3 stages to which you are referring. You've completely lost me. That being said, I'm not a lawyer and it would be better for you to seek a legitimate authority on legal restrictions/justifications regarding abortion rather than someone on a debate forum.

As a point of clarification, my line in the sand (where abortion needs justification) is not consciousness, but the capacity for consciousness. And it's not that I wish to wave off all current restrictions, it's just a conceptual hard limit for me.  Most abortions occur well before this, and those that don't are out of necessity.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

**** Besides, not being pregnant is a much more obvious (likely) outcome of sex.

Maybe if you only do it once.  Also procreation is one of the main reasons for sex, it may not be the reason people choose to have it, but it is one of the main reason it exists.

****For instance, abortion early in the pregnancy requires virtually no justification, nor should it. However later in the pregnancy, maternal endangerment or fetal anomaly are held as legitimate justifications (that's actually the law) whereas 'whim' is typically frowned upon.

American law separates the justification at three separate stages.  I was wondering why.

When do you have start having the capacity for consciousness? I'm assuming you think it starts when the baby gains brain activity, but use "capacity" to ensure your not excluding unconscious people.

SkepticalOne

@MichaelElpers

"Also procreation is one of the main reasons for sex, it may not be the reason people choose to have it, but it is one of the main reason it exists."

I think you'd have a difficult time establishing that. The existence of sex did not come about by reason or any pre-ordained plan best as I can tell. Any purpose sex has is assigned by the individual.

"American law separates the justification at three separate stages.  I was wondering why."

What are the three stages?  I am still not qualified to answer a question regarding legal justifications...

"When do you have start having the capacity for consciousness? I'm assuming you think it starts when the baby gains brain activity, but use "capacity" to ensure your not excluding unconscious people."

I'd say brain activity is a fairly good way to measure the existence of capacity, but I've been referring to the development of the cortex (which is a milestone unconscious people have reached).

John_C_87

@SkepticalOne ;
Here is the issue of grievance summarized by you in basic principle, woman are trying to take control of their bodies by having all woman admit by self-incrimination to a guilt in advance of crime so that only the few woman who wish to assert as human right an expression of control. Nations have already followed the idea of woman in general by united state into the world of self-incriminated, the pitfall of Pregnancy abortion as a point of address. The point is a Nations conducts female specific amputation not pregnancy abortion.

As a woman you would not have the American United State Constitutional right to force any woman outside yourself to self-incriminate to a crime. It does not matter if as a woman you believe the crime to be uncritical, it does not matter if you believe the crime to be unpunishable by court of law by technicality, are not even acting as some-one preserving constitution. Woman share a basic principle of removal that is a united state with her menstruation when it comes to ovulation, pregnancy, and termination of life this does not change in the creation of a union with all woman.

The wrong is not the death of the future baby created by completion of pregnancy, woman kill them every month as a united state it is for this reason they may ask for religious forgiveness for their individual pregnancy abortions. The argument is the lack of American United State Constitutional presumption of innocence while woman struggle for Centuries to create all woman as equal.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

I think its pretty safe to assume by evolutionary standards that sex exists as a way to procreate, otherwise our species wouldn't continue to exist.

****What are the three stages?

To answer this question, Blackmun created a three-tiered legal framework, based on the nine-month period of pregnancy, which gave the state greater interest and regulatory latitude in each successive tier.

The first tier in Blackmun’s framework encompassed the first trimester of pregnancy. Given that during these first three months the risks associated with abortion are actually lower than those associated with childbirth, the state has no real interest in limiting the procedure in order to protect a woman’s health, Blackmun argued. During this period, the state can only impose basic health safeguards – such as requiring that the procedure be performed by a qualified health professional – and can in no way limit access to abortion.

The second tier of Blackmun’s framework encompassed the period from the end of the first trimester to the point of fetal viability – the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, either through natural or artificial means, which typically takes place between about 24 and 28 weeks into a pregnancy. At this point, Blackmun determined, the state has an interest in protecting maternal health and can regulate abortion only to protect the health of the mother. In other words, regulations have to be directed toward ensuring maternal health and cannot be aimed at protecting a fetus or limiting access to abortion services. Thus, a state law requiring a doctor to describe to a woman seeking an abortion the risks associated with the procedure before receiving her informed consent would be constitutional – as long as the requirement aimed to protect maternal health and was not created to dissuade a woman from terminating her pregnancy.

The third tier of Blackmun’s framework encompassed the period after the point of fetal viability. During this time, Blackmun wrote, the state has an interest in protecting “potential life” and can even proscribe abortion, as long as the procedure is still allowed in cases in which the life or health of the mother is at risk.

What I'm saying is the legal frame work doesn't make sense.  The first trimester ends and 12 weeks where is no restriction, 2nd ends at viability which can only be regulated in interest in protecting maternal health, the third only in case of the life or health of the mother.

I'm not understanding why their is a difference in restrictions between the 1st and 2nd trimester.  I"m not looking for a lawyers opinion, I'm looking just looking for a logical reason you believe it should exist in this way.  Otherwise you would agree with me that the law has flaws.

SkepticalOne

@MichaelElpers

From an evolutionary perspective, sex is a way that our species CAN perpetuate itself. Given that we are social species (and that sex is typically pleasurable) it can also serve many other functions such as intimacy, resolving disputes, or entertainment. These are aspects which have implications for society beyond reproduction.

This is how I understand the stages:

1. First trimester - no restrictions. The mother has total priority. 

2. First trimester to viability - no restriction against abortion. Protect the mother from misinformation or emotional appeals regarding abortion. The mother has total priority.

3. After viability -protect the fetus unless the mother's life is in danger. The fetus has primary priority with exception of the mother's life being endangered. 

Do you agree with my summary? If so, do you still find the legal framework nonsensical? 

I personally think "age of viability" (at 24-28 weeks) is a misnomer and given too much significance. Having a viable body without a viable brain (and no capacity for mind) isn't very viable in my opinion. However, given the difficulty of pinning down exactly when mind comes to be, I wouldn't want to change the status quo.

John_C_87

The basic idea with abortion is no matter what takes place by saying something is officially started so it has  legally reason to be officially stopped, arguing that it has not yet (really) officially started was an official lie. Officially put on the record.

All woman who might become pregnant by united state terminate pregnancies by use of the death of a human life.

All we the people need to know basically is that for the people we do not need all woman to self-incriminate because a democratic majority said we must.

In female specific amputation brain function is just one of many conditions the world have consideration to the viability of reasons to remove a condition of medical practice that would be limited to only woman. As a medical condition and treatment.

See we the people do not have to self-incriminate all woman to a described crime like murder.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

I just don't know why 1 and 2 are differentiated at all.  Also while I agree you shouldn't spread misinformation, not sure that emotional appeal or information regarding the status of the fetus or other risks shouldn't be on the table. The mother should be given as much information possible to make an informed decision. Would giving a ultrasound be an emotional appeal?

And I'd disagree with the third because I don't think viability is what makes us human.

Some people are concerned with abortions after six weeks of pregnancy because that is when a basic spinal cord and nervous system first develop, but it is not until week eight (six weeks post-fertilisation) that the first rudimentary brain activity – the kind that is observed in organisms as simple as insects – can be observed. The very beginnings of our higher brain structures only start to appear between weeks 12 and 16. Crucially, the co-ordinated brain activity required for consciousness does not occur until 24-25 weeks of pregnancy. We cannot say when consciousness first emerges, but it cannot rationally be called before the end of the second trimester at 24 weeks of pregnancy.  

Can you give clarity on what you mean by "capacity of mind".  How much capacity and where it begins.  

John_C_87

In female specific amputation brain function is just one of many conditions the world have consideration to the viability of reasons to remove a condition of medical practice that would be limited to only woman. As a medical condition and treatment.

A better constitutional translation is:
There are a lot of reasons that can make a female specific amputation a necessity as medical treatment for only woman. This is why it is female specific, independent, also bearing legal weight placing a united state in basic concept of woman's body autonomy, allowing a nation to fine a woman for the act of child pollution not just demanding a father pay for the cost associated to child care..

SkepticalOne

@MichaelElpers

Emotional appeals are disallowed because (at that stage) it's not about anyone other than the woman. Her decision should not be swayed by anything other than medically relevant facts.

Having a viable body is a necessary component of becoming a human person. 

It is not about the amount of capacity, John, but capacity itself. A thimble and a gallon of mind are equivalent for our purposes.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

I disagree.  While yes I agree people should usually stay away from opinions, there is no fact/definition that constitutes what a human being is.I think the care provider should be able to provide the woman with images/ information regarding the current development of the fetus as well as inform her on the details of the procedure.  Ignorance is not bliss.
I may agree that the care provider shouldn't be able things like are you sure you want to kill your offspring, but they should be able to show truths that may elicit an emotional response.

Yes, but viability changes depending on technology.  Also there are people that aren't viable on their own (pacemakers).  I have a hard time saying a 22 week old is a person in the U.S. but not in Africa where its not viable outside the womb.

If it isn't about the amount the capacity wouldn't the first brain waves constitute.

HaileyRountree

Abortion is beyond wrong. It is cruel murder. Anything that involves killing an innocent subject whom has a beating heart, is morally evil. 

Not to mention that the parent figures were the very individuals who created the baby anyways. It was their “mistake” and their “mishap”. How is it that some people consider their babies errors when they’re the ones who didn’t wear condoms or weren’t on birth control.

I acknowledge that rape is a big factor in abortion. A woman may be raped at a young age and she isn’t prepared nor was even considering having a baby. Still, this does not justify that abortion is right. I can understand the worry and fear in a pregnant rape victim’s heart, but all in all you still get to receive the amazing gift of being a mom. 

Overall, it’s hard. There’s several occasions where it can be hard to accept that abortion is not the answer. But it’s true. God did not give us women the ability to make and carry babies just to kill them in their developing stages. 

John_C_87

@SkepticalOne ;

It is not about the amount of capacity, John, but capacity itself. A thimble and a gallon of mind are equivalent for our purposes.

What was to be created was a American United state constitutional right between pregnancy and all woman. It is overdue.

When a woman gets a Doctor involved in pregnancy termination it is no longer a pregnancy abortion it is female specific amputation.

MichaelElpers

@HaileyRountree

While I agree mostly, at the end you can't make an appeal to God. Not everyone believes is God and therefore it is an authoritarian fallacy.

When regarding abortion or other ethical behavior you have to stay away from religion, we must also stray from it in law.

SkepticalOne

@MichaelElpers

1. "there is no fact/definition that constitutes what a human being is"

What is not in dispute is that a woman is undoubtedly a human being (ie. a person). She doesn't need the certainty of the ignorant injected into her decision making process.

2. "Yes, but viability changes depending on technology.  Also there are people that aren't viable on their own (pacemakers).  I have a hard time saying a 22 week old is a person in the U.S. but not in Africa where its not viable outside the womb."

I understand and agree with what you're getting at.  All I am saying is that a person that is not viable can't exist. A being that can not live...cannot live.

3. "If it isn't about the amount the capacity wouldn't the first brain waves constitute."

That discounts what we actually know about the brain and mind. In a brain which is not fully developed, brainwaves alone don't tell us enough. It is important to know if parts of the brain known to be related to consciousness have come to be. If the cortex doesn't exist, then brainwaves are analogous to the wind whistling through the trees - impressive as that may be, it's not evidence of anyone other than the listener. [LINK]

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

****She doesn't need the certainty of the ignorant injected into her decision making process?

How can claim certainty of ignorance?  What I'm saying is what defines a person is opinionated.  We should be allowed to make arguments displaying the validity of the opinion that the fetus is a human.  If they have put time into researching a different conclusion (are not ignorant), then they shouldn't be swayed.  Having more information to enforce an opinion is not a bad thing, but for sure they shouldn't be harassed.

Also why would being turned away from having an abortion be considered bad?

I wouldn't say its similar to wind whistling in the trees.  While it may have not lead to consciousness the brain activity has probably began to regulate bodily functions such as heartbeat.

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

****She doesn't need the certainty of the ignorant injected into her decision making process?

How can claim certainty of ignorance?  What I'm saying is what defines a person is opinionated.  We should be allowed to make arguments displaying the validity of the opinion that the fetus is a human.  If they have put time into researching a different conclusion (are not ignorant), then they shouldn't be swayed.  Having more information to enforce an opinion is not a bad thing, but for sure they shouldn't be harassed.

Also why would being turned away from having an abortion be considered bad?

I wouldn't say its similar to wind whistling in the trees.  While it may have not lead to consciousness the brain activity has probably began to regulate bodily functions such as heartbeat.

I understand what you're saying, but what defines a person is not ill-defined.  Personhood is a legal term designating someone who has rights by virtue of having been born. Whether personhood should be attached earlier is something that can be debated (at an appropriate time and place). Also, you should understand no one is restricting you or anyone else from trying to sway someone away from abortion.  As I understand it, the law is directed against this being done in a clinical setting with the pretense of fact.

Brain activity regulating bodily functions means the lights are on (these are autonomous functions). The absence of a cortex tells us no one's home.

John_C_87

What is not in dispute is that a woman is undoubtedly a human being (ie. a person). She doesn't need the certainty of the ignorant injected into her decision making process.

So you are in agreement abortion(AKA pregnancy abortion) by "certain ignorant injection of decision making" is a level of self-incrimination created for all woman regardless of truth and fact. The self-incrimination is projected publicly before any questions are raised directly on particular grievnace with an offical stopping of life.

John_C_87

Also why would being turned away from having an abortion be considered bad?
Because the governing nation can perform a female specific amputation not abortion to limit the number of children any one woman can created unregulated as a citizen of its country. For the woman had not been licensed by a state to have children by civil union.

John_C_87

It basically sounds as though the goal of alibi and not united state constitutional right is for the creating of the master race by use of medical research. Its is obvious that noone is interested in creating all woman as equal to goal is something else.

LogicVault

@MartinGocic, if abortion is so easily proven to be wrong, why haven't you proved it yet? Your personal opinion doesn't prove anything. Abortion - 1, you - 0.

John_C_87

@LogicVault ;

A claim of official stopping life then arguing life has not started is self-evident, proven wrong in united state formed by female pregnancy abortion creates a constant change on the self-evident principle. Ignoring the grievance by failing an educational hurtle to understand is not establishing it is not fact. What you are asking is to prove perjury the criminally unconstitutional grievance in a public forum, this is a much harder task then the idea of proving officially stopping life in a clever and new way is still murder. The score board reads perjury 1, MartinGocic 0 

A 2nd Amendment right for woman is made by saying publicly a woman has certain inalienable rights to the use of lethal force. One of those rights being that all woman are created equal by refusal to bear the weight of pregnancy ones the creation of life starts by their entry into puberty by ovulation. This union can be proven as a united state female pregnancy abortion. All woman kill babies by female pregnancy abortion not just woman who have had sex and became pregnant. Not all woman perform female specific amputation as a union made on pregnancy, or ovulation. 

LogicVault

@John_C_87, all I'm seeing is a bunch of "blah blah blah" from you. I still see nothing that proves it as wrong. Btw, "murder" is define as ILLEGALLY killing another person. Abortion is legal, therefore does not meet the criteria necessary to be actual "murder".

John_C_87

LogicVault said:

@John_C_87, all I'm seeing is a bunch of "blah blah blah" from you. I still see nothing that proves it as wrong. Btw, "murder" is define as ILLEGALLY killing another person. Abortion is legal, therefore does not meet the criteria necessary to be actual "murder"

Guess what? Good there is no murder grievance here. The argument is about woman who have female specific amputation are committing murder with abortion. I am saying people who debate female pregnancy abortion are lying. So when placing that lie of self-incrimination by writing female pregnancy abortion on paper is legal as a law. It then might be a much more basic provable form of perjury in a court of law. Where in united state constitution there is no reason to collect with the use of law all woman who become pregnant, by saying if any stop of pregnancy is made, or had to be made medically, it must be by only the woman's control before all facts are to be known. 

As united state we are arguing a basic principle of immigration that takes place with only woman who are pregnant. By making a point to insist a lie be told a woman is being stripped of her presumption of innocence as a united state publicly. As woman have failed any efforts to address their obligation to preserve American United State Constitution the American united state Constitution will be preserved without their assistance. Thus, the introduction of female specific amputation as a united state to create all woman as equal before American Constitution.

Quite simply you are saying a lie. Abortion is an official stop that will or has taken place...…..And you are saying nothing has officially started to official be stopped. This is what all people as group call a lie. 

Aini

@MartinGocic
I think we're referencing the "Heavenly law" that all living things are valuable, to men's laws. This is hard to iterate, but no matter how many Perfect "heavenly laws" u impose on men, u will not make Men perfect. It is not I believe - through laws that this can be achieved.

I think it is true though that all life should be valued, however are we perhaps valuing one life over the other in this case? And who are we to make such a judgment?

ps. I want to iterate that I understand the wish to make things good and value life, but again I say I don't think laws are any way to achieve this.