Should abortion be abolished?

EmilyRouse

@Dee
Why may a woman void responsibility of her actions, and also terminate a life in the process? Sex is a process purposed for procreation. Yes, it doesn't always result pregnancy, and people may do it casually, but that doesn't change what it is. Even if pregnancy isn't the intended result, in having sex the woman is partaking in a process she knows leads to pregnancy. It's like signing a waiver; She acknowledges that risk when partaking in it. That is where the consent lies. If the fetus is not consented to, how did it arrive? How is it there, if not by some form of consent?

Plaffelvohfen

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen

Of all the actions that lead up to a pregnancy, where else other than the man and women can you place the responsibility of the pregnancy.

First, why do you need to "place the responsibility" anywhere to begin with? The "responsible" one is Nature, evolution took place and this is what we ended with...  

Dee

@EmilyRouse

Why may a woman void responsibility of her actions, and also terminate a life in the process? Sex is a process purposed for procreation. Yes, it doesn't always result pregnancy, and people may do it casually, but that doesn't change what it is. Even if pregnancy isn't the intended result, in having sex the woman is partaking in a process she knows leads to pregnancy. It's like signing a waiver; She acknowledges that risk when partaking in it. That is where the consent lies. If the fetus is not consented to, how did it arrive? How is it there, if not by some form of consent?

Actually a woman is taking responsibility for her actions by aborting sooner than bringing an unwanted child into the world for which she cannot care.

Regarding sex so what if it’s purpose is procreation? Most people stop procreating after 1or 2 kids why not have 10 ,12 ,15 if that’s the case?

No it’s not signing a waiver , a woman is entitled to change her mind when her circumstances change why would you deny them this?

Every time a woman has sex she is mostly not thinking of the risk of pregnancy ,  what is that consent of exactly?  if that was the case? Even if we acknowledge that she realizes she may get pregnant how in any way should she be forced to give birth against her consent?

Your stance is once a woman gets pregnant that’s it , she must have that baby as the baby is entitled to a right to life in favour of her right to bodily autonomy no matter what........That’s your position right?

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Your placing responsibility on evolution?  So I guess when anyone commits an act  they should be justified in blaming it on evolution.  "If evolution didn't make me this way, maybe I would have behaved differently."  I hope that doesn't hold up it court.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

Your question just be clear is: why should a fetus have the” right “ to use a woman’s body against her consent?

My answer: Because the life of a human is more important than bodily autonomy lasting 9 months especially when that autonomy was originally forfeited by a decision made by the women.  The fetus played no role in the creation of itself.

This is why I have posted these 2 questions in past:
Does the mother have the obligation to feed the baby if it interferes with her bodily autonomy?  If not, you believe that the right to bodily autonomy (that doesn't create death or permanent damage) exceeds that of a person's life, and I don't think I will ever agree with that.

So in comes my second question.  If the person's life is more important, when do believe the fetus deserves the title of "person". Birth is illogical because you can't logically declare that a 39 week old in the womb that is more developed is less of a person than a 25 week old that is born.  So when does human life become a "person" and give an explanation to why.

John_C_87

@ MichaelElpers

Why may a woman void responsibility of her actions, and also terminate a life in the process? Simply said EmilyRouse the presumption of innocence is the reason of negation for all woman, woman are to create all when equal by presumption of innocence by American united state Constitution after over 100 years that simple has never happened. The self-incrimination is used as a relief to the united state of all woman.

@ Dee

Your stance is once a woman gets pregnant that’s it , she must have that baby as the baby is entitled to a right to life in favour of her right to bodily autonomy no matter what........That’s your position right?No, she just wants to know how many woman you know get pregnant only by medical insemination then have a female pregnancy abortion? When a woman takes active measure to avoid pregnancy when undertaking sex there is a prior warning of the danger.

The United State Constitutional issue is woman have had themselves voted by Congress into the Congressional armed services. Do woman understand how big of a Constitutional violation it is to have all woman self-incriminate to a crime?

Should abortion be abolished? It has and guess what? most woman do not even care about the difference of why female pregnancy abortion was illegal to begin with. 

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;
First, why do you need to "place the responsibility" anywhere to begin with? The "responsible" one is Nature, evolution took place and this is what we ended with...
The responsibility is placed by the self-incrimination that is why it gets placed.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

You didn't answer my question, why do you need to place "responsibility for a pregnancy" anywhere to begin with? 

Dee

@MichaelElpers

Your question just be clear is: why should a fetus have the” right “ to use a woman’s body against her consent? 

My answer: Because the life of a human is more important than bodily autonomy lasting 9 months especially when that autonomy was originally forfeited by a decision made by the women.  The fetus played no role in the creation of itself.

Incorrect , unless you’re convinced the life of the unborn is more important than the born , that is what you’re saying isn’t it?

Forfeited? How so do women sign agreements every time they get pregnant in the U S to say they forfeit their rights to bodily autonomy?

This is why I have posted these 2 questions in past:
Does the mother have the obligation to feed the baby if it interferes with her bodily autonomy?  If not, you believe that the right to bodily autonomy (that doesn't create death or permanent damage) exceeds that of a person's life, and I don't think I will ever agree with that.

I’ve answered this 5 times now , a mother who feeds a baby has already agreed by giving it birth to feed it , why is this so difficult a concept for you to grasp?

So in comes my second question.  If the person's life is more important, when do believe the fetus deserves the title of "person". Birth is illogical because you can't logically declare that a 39 week old in the womb that is more developed is less of a person than a 25 week old that is born.  So when does human life become a "person" and give an explanation to why.

I don’t believe a fetus and it’s “ life “ is more important than the born nor do you. I don’t care when’s fetus becomes a person it’s immaterial to my argument as in ( for the 21st time now ) How is it fair to grant the unborn a right by forcing a woman to give birth against her consent thus denying her a right? 

Bet you won’t answer yet again 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Because someone is responsible for it, pregnancies don't just turn up out of the blue.  Why are you trying so hard to hide it when it's so obvious that someone is responsible for the pregnancy.

Only irresponsible people try to hide from things are responsible for.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

****Incorrect , unless you’re convinced the life of the unborn is more important than the born , that is what you’re saying isn’t it?

No, because once again as I've said I agree with abortions when the life of the mother is in danger.  So life of born greater than unborn, comprehend yet?
Their autonomy is not greater than the life of the fetus.

****Forfeited? How so do women sign agreements every time they get pregnant in the U S to say they forfeit their rights to bodily autonomy?
They don't sign agreements they give verbal consent .

****A mother who feeds a baby has already agreed by giving it birth to feed it , why is this so difficult a concept for you to grasp.

You've never stated that, but thank you.  I agree a mother that has birthed a baby has consented that she must feed it even if that involves her body.  She can't decide she no longer wants to feed it in the interest of bodily autonomy.  Just like why I'm saying when a women consents to sex, she can't decide she no longer wants to pregnant.  For the first option you think the consent is continual, but not for the second?...doesn't make sense.  the only reasoning you could give for why they are different is the baby is a person and the fetus is not.

****Why is it fair. Because people have the right to life, and I believe the fetus is a person.  Also I believe the women gave consent during sex and can't just decide to take it back, just like you said a mother has consented to continually feeding a baby even though the birth was a 1 time act.  That consent means i am no longer violating her right to bodily autonomy because she consented it.  THAT IS THE REASON AND ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.  The only way in which that changes is if you believe the fetus is not a person.  You don't believe the fetus is and I do, hence why I want an argument when you think someone becomes a person and is deserving of all encompassing rights.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Ok then, since you think personhood/human life are the same and begins at conception, the one responsible for the pregnancy is the fertilized ovum... If personhood begins at conception then it is a person 5 to 7 days before it implants itself in the uterus... This implantation, whether intentional or not, is its responsibility, this ovum creates the actual pregnancy, and to the extent that the law protects the fetus as human life, the law must hold the "person" accountable for what it does: Using someone's body without consent, even if using this body without consent wasn't its intent... 

Of course I personally reject that silly notion of pre-birth personhood... Not that it legally matters, the government cannot abolish abortion rights, period...

MichaelElpers

@MichaelElpers

Does the fertilized ovum make decisions? It doesn't makes decisions it just exists, therefore it is not responsible for a pregnancy.  It's like saying a car is responsible for an accident.

****The extent that the law protects the fetus as human life, the law must hold the "person" accountable for what it does. 

A baby is a person but law doesn't make the baby responsible for its actions, the parents are responsible for their children.

Abortion is not a right.  Also the government can indeed abolish it obvious by the fact that think rights begin at birth, yet there are plenty of restrictions on late-term abortions already.  Just like there was a right to own slaves because they were deemed property, current law views the fetus is similarly  If law sees the fetus as a person, their right to life would abolish abortion.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

But there is no need for "intent", one does not need to intentionally crash his/her car to be responsible for damages, it's not the car that is responsible, even if there was no one in the car, if your brakes break and the car slides down a slope to crash downhill, the owner (the person) is still responsible...

But that is not what I meant by the government cannot abolish abortions... The law recognizes the right to abortion as a fundamental right, any law that would infringe on this right must be put under strict scrutiny.

The strict scrutiny standard is one of three employed by the courts in reviewing laws and government policies. The rational basis test is the lowest form of judicial scrutiny. It is used in cases where a plaintiff alleges that the legislature has made an arbitrary or irrational decision. The heightened scrutiny test is used in cases involving matters of discrimination based on sex. 

Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny.

Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional. The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.

In the early 1970s, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases challenging laws that restricted abortion. In Roe v. Wade (1973), the high court considered a challenge to a Texas law outlawing abortion in all cases except those in which the life of the mother was at risk. The second case, Doe v. Bolton (1973), focused on a more lenient Georgia law that allowed a woman to terminate her pregnancy when either her life or her health was in danger. In both cases, lower federal courts had declared the statutes unconstitutional, ruling that denying a woman the right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term violated basic privacy and liberty interests contained in the Constitution.

So, in two separate but related decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ conclusions and struck down both statutes by a vote of 7-2. In Roe, the more significant of the two decisions, the court concluded that constitutional rights to privacy and liberty protected a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. Writing for the majority, Justice Harry Blackmun acknowledged that while “the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy,” a number of prior decisions had found “a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy.” This guarantee of privacy, Blackmun added, is grounded in several amendments within the Bill of Rights and in the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of liberty, which taken together create zones of privacy in areas of society such as marriage, contraception, family relationships and child-rearing.

Justice Blackmun’s argument for the right to privacy in Roe grew out of earlier high court decisions, most notably Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In Griswold, the court had struck down a Connecticut anti-contraception law on the ground that it intruded on the right to marital privacy. Justice William Douglas, writing for the majority, had asserted that “zones” of personal privacy are fundamental to the concept of liberty under “the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.”

Having concluded in Roe that access to abortion is a “fundamental right,” the court declared that only a “compelling state interest” could justify the enactment of state laws or regulations that limit this right. The court also recognized that the state has an “important and legitimate interest” in protecting the health of the mother and even “the potentiality of human life” inside her. The court then asked: When does the state’s legitimate concern for maternal and fetal protection rise to the level of compelling interest? 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.

In Doe, the same seven-justice majority largely restated and fleshed out its ruling in Roe. Again writing for the majority, Justice Blackmun determined that state regulations that could create procedural obstacles to abortion – such as, in this particular case, the requirement that an abortion be performed in a hospital or be approved by two doctors – violate a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.

That is why it cannot outright ban all abortions... I don't agree that the state interest in protecting "potential life" meets the "compelling" requirement even at that point but since it only affects less than 1% of all abortion, I'm fine with it... 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I never suggested the women were trying to get pregnant, just that they are responsible for it.  Dee seems to think the majority of them intend to though and then change their mind.  

Yes, I think as many others do this ruling is crap.  For one, like you pointed out the right to privacy isn't even stated in the constitution they had found certain areas of privacy in previous decisions, and supposedly based in the 14th amendment.  Then you have to decide that abortion falls under "privacy".  So somehow abortion is determined to be an fundamental right even though it is based off of something that isn't even an fundamental right, and questionable whether it falls under that category anyways.  I'm curious why drugs don't follow under the right to privacy?

At the end it states, someone can't be a person until viability begins.  Seems irrational as then a 24 week old in the U.S. would be a person but most likely not in Africa. The decision was made back in 1973, they didn't have near as much info on the biology of the fetus

Seems that you backed off your premise that a fetus can't be a person because they would then be responsible for the injury caused to the mother.  As i pointed out babies are also not responsible.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

They would be responsible for the baby if they did go through the pregnancy, it's their intentional choice to give birth... Until birth, it is not a person, period...

Fetuses are not "persons" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
---Abortions were more common in 1868 than in 1973, therefore could be no intent to make fetuses persons...
---"Persons" everywhere else in Constitution clearly refers to persons after birth, as it the enumeration (or census) clause.

We have birthday, birth certificate, birth rights... We do not have conceptionday, conception certificate, conception rights... I already said that I personally do not consider fetuses to be persons... But if you do believe it, you must hold them to the same standard as any other...

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;

Again, as government abolishment of female pregnancy abortion does not translate to changing anything other then the unconditional united state of self-incrimination. "The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional." The reason of judicial testy is that placing all woman in a united state of self-incrimination was rational? Are you sure that the illegal status of a woman President simply did not just trigger an impromptu retaliation in a desperation to prove the United State Constitution can be wrong?  This guarantee of privacy, Blackmun added, is grounded in several amendments within the Bill of Rights and in the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of liberty, which taken together create zones of privacy in areas of society such as marriage, contraception, family relationships and child-rearing. 
A self-incrimination shared as a united State instantly negates any burden of American Constitution Bill of Right of privacy. Without question and with great prejudice Plaffelvohfen. That is why it cannot outright ban all abortions...If one person can by united State Constitutional ban female pregnancy abortion without change to the structural independence of woman as a United State. So can a Government.

Self-incrimination by admission is a Fundamental Constitutional Right it does not mean it shall not be well regulated, so well regulated it may even find itself abolished from American United State Constitutional law.

The question to any and all woman as united state, why does self-incrimination have to be a union placed on all females when objected to by a male?

Dee

@MichaelElpers

There you go again like the annoying dummy you are by refusing for now the 23rd time the question I keep asking but you cannot answer as in ......I don’t believe a fetus and it’s “ life “ is more important than the born nor do you. I don’t care when a fetus becomes a person it’s immaterial to my argument as in ( for the 21st time now ) How is it fair to grant the unborn a right by forcing a woman to give birth against her consent thus denying her a right? 

Bet you won’t answer yet again 

MichaelElpers

@Dee

I think everyone else can see I've answered that and offered reasons for my opinion.  You either can't comprehend or are playing dumb in order to keep yourself from having to make any actual arguments. 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I think birth rights and birth certificates most likely because of tradition.  It is and was much easier to determine when a person was born than conceived, also we used to not understand the biology of the baby until it was birthed.  These things don't offer any explanation or argument to why a fetus shouldn't be a person.

You never addressed how abortion could be considered a fundamental right when based on something that isn't stated as a fundamental right.

What if it was not their intent to give birth? What if they wanted an abortion, but a medical emergency or premature birth caused them to give birth early. 
And what if it was their intention to give birth, but give it up for adoption or not naturally feed the baby.  If they were in a situation in which breast milk was the only way to feed the baby, should they be forced to give up bodily autonomy?

You keep saying as an affirmative statement it's not a person until birth, but you don't offer explanations for why or addressed my arguments to why that would often be illogical.  You are just stating anecdotal evidence for how things are perceived currently.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****I think everyone else can see I've answered that and offered reasons for my opinion.  You either can't comprehend or are playing dumb in order to keep yourself from having to make any actual arguments. 

You’ve offered your opinion which I reject as nonsensical and totally illogical , I admit I cannot comprehend some of your repetitious nonsense but nor can anyone else .... So here you go again try and read this simple  question .....

How is it fair to grant the unborn a right by forcing a woman to give birth against her consent thus denying her a right? 

Bet you won’t answer yet again for the 25th consecutive time 

 

MichaelElpers

 @Dee

****How is it fair to grant the unborn a right by forcing a woman to give birth against her consent thus denying her a right?  "You’ve offered your opinion which I reject as nonsensical and totally illogical."

Exactly I've offered my opinion and reasoning for your question.  You've rejected it as nonsensical and totally illogical, which is only a statement.  You've offered no reason to why my argument is illogical, nor provided any evidence to support your opinion.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

.  You've offered no reason to why my argument is illogical, nor provided any evidence to support your opinion.

You need to be told why it’s logical to force a woman to give birth without her consent ....oh dear 

You need evidence to see why it’s fair to grant a woman a right to bodily autonomy.....oh dear 

I nearly forgot you think forcing women to give birth against their will is logical and denying them theirs rights in favour of the unborn is logical 

MichaelElpers

@Dee

"Without consent"  As I've mentioned before and used your argument that consenting to birth the means you must take care of it, is very similar to consenting to sex means you've consented to a possible pregnancy.  I need evidence to see why its fair to place the right to autonomy over life.

I'm merely placing life over wants.  I indeed think that is logical.  If abortion didn't kill, I would have no problem allowing that right to exist.

But again you presented statements and no arguments.

John_C_87

Dee said:

@MichaelElpers

.  You've offered no reason to why my argument is illogical, nor provided any evidence to support your opinion.

You need to be told why it’s logical to force a woman to give birth without her consent ....oh dear 

You need evidence to see why it’s fair to grant a woman a right to bodily autonomy.....oh dear 

I nearly forgot you think forcing women to give birth against their will is logical and denying them theirs rights in favour of the unborn is logical 

The action of female pregnancy abortion is creating a united state that holds a self-incrimination for all woman. None of what is said would prevent Female Pregnancy abortion for becoming abolished for the illegal but hard to prove way it groups woman together with a unconstitutional self-incrimination.

Female specific amputation is not female pregnancy abortion. It however can be prove to be female pregnancy abortion after a use is set as a united state with all females who are created equal. An abolishment does not mean a suitable united state constitutional common defense cannot be created without the wrong.

John_C_87

MichaelElpers said:

@Dee

"Without consent"  As I've mentioned before and used your argument that consenting to birth the means you must take care of it, is very similar to consenting to sex means you've consented to a possible pregnancy.  I need evidence to see why its fair to place the right to autonomy over life.

I'm merely placing life over wants.  I indeed think that is logical.  If abortion didn't kill, I would have no problem allowing that right to exist.

But again you presented statements and no arguments.

A woman killing life is a united state with all eggs MichealElpers. The second united state is a dismissal of immigration by all woman by not maintaining the abortion all females who can make a child do by ending ovulation by use of sex. A woman in basic principle cannot claim she has the human right and responsibility of only her body she is introducing a life to a nation, her body has no control she can only hold this life for a limited time, she must seek liberty on behalf of that life.

The attack on a general United State Constitution can be just as easily played out with a nation such as china, or India where limits on birth have already been set. Rape is not the base issue that is governed as a united state neither is forcing a woman to fulfill all the requirements of pregnancy.  Reality is that as a united state some woman may be able to sell there right to conceive child to another woman completely.

As this is what is being done by science right now.

John_C_87

Female pregnancy abortion is easily abolished due to the self-incrimination. The United State held in constitution allows nations to police the use of female specific amputations without self-incrimination to a crime and that is what is essential on an international level. A unityed state that creates all woman as equal in a way that does not cause the sacrifice of Unted State Consitutional right.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****”Without consent"  As I've mentioned before and used your argument that consenting to birth the means you must take care of it, 

No you’re not using my argument at all as you’ve ignored it for 26 times so far 

****is very similar to consenting to sex means you've consented to a possible pregnancy.  

But so what even if a woman agrees to get pregnant does that mean she must be forced into giving birth against her consent? 

Bet you won’t answer this yet again 

 ****I need evidence to see why its fair to place the right to autonomy over life.

You want to know why it’s wrong to force women into giving birth against their consent Wow! Tell me how is it right?

****I'm merely placing life over wants.  

You’re not , you’re placing the right to life of the unborn over a woman’s rights .....At least attempt to be honest 

****I indeed think that is logical.  If abortion didn't kill, I would have no problem allowing that right to exist.

I know you think the denial of rights is “logical” and forced births are “logical”

****But again you presented statements and no arguments.

You mean like the one question you’ve ignored from the start 26 times now as in ......How is is right to force a woman to give birth against her consent?

Don’t fret I know you will totally ignore what I’ve asked from the start because you have no argument to do so 

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****”Without consent"  As I've mentioned before and used your argument that consenting to birth the means you must take care of it, 

No you’re not using my argument at all as you’ve ignored it for 26 times so far 

****is very similar to consenting to sex means you've consented to a possible pregnancy.  

But so what even if a woman agrees to get pregnant does that mean she must be forced into giving birth against her consent? 

Bet you won’t answer this yet again 

 ****I need evidence to see why its fair to place the right to autonomy over life.

You want to know why it’s wrong to force women into giving birth against their consent Wow! Tell me how is it right?

****I'm merely placing life over wants.  

You’re not , you’re placing the implied right to life of the unborn over a woman’s rights .....At least attempt to be honest 

****I indeed think that is logical.  If abortion didn't kill, I would have no problem allowing that right to exist.

I know you think the denial of rights is “logical” and forced births are “logical”

****But again you presented statements and no arguments.

You mean like the one question you’ve ignored from the start 26 times now as in ......How is is right to force a woman to give birth against her consent?

Don’t fret I know you will totally ignore what I’ve asked from the start because you have no argument to do so 

MichaelElpers

@Dee

But so what even if a woman agrees to get pregnant does that mean she must be forced into giving birth against her consent? 

Yes. If consenting to a pregnancy she can't change her mind and kill the unborn pregnancy, just like she can't neglect her baby after it is born.  You would say one is born and one is not, but I believe both are people deserving of basic rights.

Dee

@MichaelElpers
But so what even if a woman agrees to get pregnant does that mean she must be forced into giving birth against her consent? 

Yes. If consenting to a pregnancy she can't change her mind and kill the unborn pregnancy, just like she can't neglect her baby after it is born.  You would say one is born and one is not, but I believe both are people deserving of basic rights.

Wow ! So you think it fair and just to force a woman to give birth against her consent .Actually consenting to a birth she can change her mind,  you think your opinion is somehow fact.Why would you neglect a baby after agreeing to have it and why do you keep bringing it up?

The majority of people would say so as it’s a statement of fact and actually not just I saying it .Yes , you say both are deserving of basic rights but yet you deny a woman her basic rights and believe forcing women to give birth is entirely logical hows does that work?

John_C_87

Wow ! So you think it fair and just to force a woman to give birth against her consent.

Force? No-one is hiring a medical doctor to inseminate a fertilized egg into a woman, a woman is not a fish, she is not walking by a male and becoming pregnant. All woman are not rape in order for them to become pregnant.

Outside of that, when abolishing something like Female pregnancy abortion, when the removal of the wording only creates a basic change in a grievance area made by the relationship of law and crime, the reason for continuing with it use becomes clear. What else does a change like Female specific amputation do if not remove the self-incrimination as united State? Why is any person including a woman not will to remove a grouping based on admission of a crime despite available facts?

John_C_87

Female Pregnancy abortion, self-incrimination. Before abolishment.
Female Specific Amputation, no-incrimination. After abolishment.

See the difference made by united state constitution instead of legislation simply based on all legal precedent.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

****Actually consenting to a birth she can change her mind,  you think your opinion is somehow fact.

No, i think my opinion is right, and i present arguments for why it is. 

****Why would you neglect a baby after agreeing to have it and why do you keep bringing it up?

For the same reasons you might have an abortion. Maybe the baby is getting in the way of your job, education, or you no longer believe you can take care of it.  You've changed your mind and now it's unwanted.  To rid yourself of it, you exercise your right of bodily autonomy and refuse to breast feed it.  So...

****you say both are deserving of basic rights but yet you deny a woman her basic rights.

In this instance, if you believe that the women has the obligation to feed the baby, you also would be denying her rights to bodily autonomy.  Why is that right to take that away?

I could also counter and say because i think both are deserving of basic rights why are you denying the fetus' basic rights.  In one way or the other you are denying what is considered a right to someone.  I believe the right to life trumps bodily autonomy, and would also say the right to bodily autonomy is not infringed because the consent was given.


Please actually answer the question I posted, instead of claiming i didn't answer yours and posting more.  I copy your statements and questions down and respond with reasons.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****No, i think my opinion is right, and i present arguments for why it is. 

Yes you think forced births against a woman’s consent are right I get that 

****

For the same reasons you might have an abortion. 

Right,  LOL so a woman who has baby agrees  to not feed feed it because she’s claiming the right to “bodily autonomy “ after choosing to have the baby and this is for the same reasons one might abort .........only you could come up with such nonsense 

****Maybe the baby is getting in the way of your job, education, or you no longer believe you can take care of it.  

If that’s the case you brought the child into the world it’s now a citizen and entitled to everything that entails .....comprende?

***/You've changed your mind and now it's unwanted.  To rid yourself of it, you exercise your right of bodily autonomy and refuse to breast feed it.  So...

How you fail to seethe difference between the born and unborn is beyond me 

****In this instance, if you believe that the women has the obligation to feed the baby, you also would be denying her rights to bodily autonomy.  

Bodily autonomy does not entail starving a citizen are you really this ?

****I could also counter and say because i think both are deserving of basic rights why are you denying the fetus' basic rights

Why would I grant the unborn rights over the born?

****In one way or the other you are denying what is considered a right to someone.  

The only one denying a right is you to women because you dislike the law and think it’s wrong all because you say so 

***I believe the right to life trumps bodily autonomy, and would also say the right to bodily autonomy is not infringed because the consent was given.

Let’s accurately rephrase what you’re trying to say ......You think the unborns supposed right to life is more important than a woman’s real and legal right to bodily autonomy.

You still cannot explain why you can force a women to give birth and thus deny her a right agreed upon all in favour of a right you claim a fetus has but actually hasn’t 

****Please actually answer the question I posted, instead of claiming i didn't answer yours and posting more.  I copy your statements and questions down and respond with reasons.

You still have not responded to the question I keep asking your avoidance is obvious to everyone 

MichaelElpers

@Dee

****You still cannot explain why you can force a women to give birth and thus deny her a right agreed upon all in favour of a right you claim a fetus has but actually hasn’t.
****How you fail to seethe difference between the born and unborn is beyond me.

That idea that the unborn should or shouldn't have rights are just an opinion. You believe the born receives every right and the fetus has zero, but have no reasoning behind it. I know there is a difference between the unborn and born one is in the womb and the other is not (at some points one may be more developed than another). I have given explanations into why I believe the fetus is deserving of basic rights, while you have presented no arguments to why they shouldn't have them.

****Bodily autonomy does not entail starving a citizen are you really this ?

In that instance it would.  So which right is more important.

John_C_87

Dee said: Yes you think forced births against a woman’s consent are right I get that.

At no point is anyone having woman medically impregnated with a fertile egg. Therefore no one is forced to give birth to a child. 

MichaelElpers said No, i think my opinion is right, and i present arguments for why it is. 

And that opinion has to do with a united state of all woman on immigration through an international border how?

 Neither if you describe any plan on how to save female pregnancy abortion form abolishment by the destruction of the self-incrimination held by principle at its united state. This after a 100 plus years……. 

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****That idea that the unborn should or shouldn't have rights are just an opinion. 

It’s not , it’s backed up by law what you’re giving though is just an opinion

****You believe the born receives every right and the fetus has zero, but have no reasoning behind it. 

Incorrect I believe the born have rights entitled to all such entities and in actual fact most societies agree with human rights yet you can see no reasoning behind  them  

****I have given explanations into why I believe the fetus is deserving of basic rights, while you have presented no arguments to why they shouldn't have them.

Yes you have given reasons , but for the 42nd time now still refuse to answer ........why should a woman be forced to give birth without giving  her consent this is a denial of her rights?

Why is a fetus granted a right but a woman denied one in favour of the fetus?

How is it just to use someone’s body without their permission?

****In that instance it would.  So which right is more important.

No it actually wouldn’t , a woman’s right to bodily autonomy does not entitle them to infringe on another citizens right to bodily autonomy ......This is pretty basic stuff and again you do not seem to know the difference between the born and the unborn or are you just trolling?

MichaelElpers

@Dee

****It’s not, it’s backed up by law what you’re giving though is just an opinion.

Law is opinionated.  Law once viewed slaves as property.  Do you believe that was fact?

****You believe the born receives every right and the fetus has zero, but have no reasoning behind it. "Incorrect I believe the born have rights entitled to all such entities and in actual fact most societies agree with human rights yet you can see no reasoning behind them .

Exactly what i said, you give the born all of the rights but the fetus none.  You can't preface your reason as that's how most people view it, give the reason why people should view it that way.

****Yes you have given reasons , but for the 42nd time now still refuse to answer ........why should a woman be forced to give birth without giving  her consent this is a denial of her rights?

  You ask WHY.  Why can only be correctly answered with reasons.  Reasons support an argument.  I don't know how you think i could possibly answer your question any differently...do you just want me to reply...yes, they should.

****How is it just to use someone’s body without their permission?

It is just if the reason you must use their body to live, was a situation entirely decided and created by them.  Or if you don't want my answer to have any reasons...your wrong it is just.

****No it actually wouldn’t , a woman’s right to bodily autonomy does not entitle them to infringe on another citizens right to bodily autonomy.

Do you know what bodily autonomy means?  The women is not infringing on the babies rights if she chooses not to feed it; she forcing anything upon the babies body. (Please explain how the mother would be infringing on the babies bodily autonomy).  On the other hand, the baby, if your requiring the mother to feed it against her will, would be forcefully using the mothers body against her consent. Giving her right to bodily autonomy away.

Not sure why you keep asking if I know the difference between the unborn and born as the unborn is not related to this question.  The point is the baby and mother who have equal rights, one will either starve, or the other will give forced to give up her bodily autonomy without consent.

John_C_87

So basically you are both in agreement on the medical pregnancy abortions outside the women’s body not inside the woman, it is okay and this noticed difference should not raise questions of concern or addressed in female pregnancy abortion debate. The process is still a united state with woman, does that matter, the woman who seek medical treatment are to stop the fertilization process to prevent immigration in the same way the medical field does without the use of self-incrimination?

All the genetic test that took place with female fertilized eggs that end in A planned termination are never called a pregnancy abortion by those people who oversee the fertilization and termination process.

https://www.livescience.com/43157-embryo-implant-signals-pregnancy.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9772233/1.7-million-human-embryos-created-for-IVF-thrown-away.html

https://valerietarico.com/2015/01/09/who-aborts-the-most-fertilized-eggs-families-like-the-duggars/

I cover a rather large range of ground here the idea of a self-incrimination is just absurd to have been allowed to go on this long.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****Law is opinionated.  Law once viewed slaves as property.  Do you believe that was fact?

You need to read up on how laws are formed and what law actually is , you do say some very strange things

Laws in my country did not view slaves as property but there again U S citizens still segregated blacks in the 60’s , Maybe you guys need someone to teach yous what civilization is but there again you think owning more guns than people is a great law to have in place 

****Exactly what i said, you give the born all of the rights but the fetus none.  

I place a higher value over the born than the unborn , you wish to force women to give birth against their consent but cannot explain why 

****You can't preface your reason as that's how most people view it,

I’m not interested in what “ most people think” 

 ****the reason why people should view it that way.

Why should I care how others view it? I’m still asking why you think it fair that a women should give birth against her consent?

  ****You ask WHY.  

Yes 

****Why can only be correctly answered with reasons.  

Yes 

****Reasons support an argument.  

Yes 

***don't know how you think i could possibly answer your question any differently...

You still have not answered it 

****do you just want me to reply...yes, they should.

No , I want you to tell me how the denial of a right regarding a woman is fair you  keep going on about rights for a fetus but cannot explain how denying a viable human their rights in favour of the unborn is a right not recognised in law or elsewhere  

****It is just if the reason you must use their body to live, was a situation entirely decided and created by them.  

“Approximately 50 percent of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned,” 

You walked right into that one didn’t you?  50 per cent of pregnancies are not from a situation entirely decided and created by women 

So at last you admit it’s fine to abort in the event of unplanned pregnancies

****Or if you don't want my answer to have any reasons...your wrong it is just.

Why would I not want to answer when I’ve destroyed your arguments yet again?

***Do you know what bodily autonomy means?  

I do and despite explaining it to you several times you still haven’t a clue 

****The women is not infringing on the babies rights if she chooses not to feed it; she forcing anything upon the babies body

She actually is as she is starving her child to death. In the U S it’s ok to starve your child to death as you’re covered under “bodily autonomy “ when was this law introduced and when was “a duty to care “ regarding mother and child abolished? 

It’s truly tragic that you don’t even know what a “Duty to care “ is regarding mother and child , do you want me to tell how  and where it’s covered in your constitution? 

You finish your piece with this .....she forcing anything upon the babies body

What does that even mean?

.**** (Please explain how the mother would be infringing on the babies bodily) 

Honestly are you on drugs as you’re making no sense whatsoever  

****On the other hand, the baby, if your requiring the mother to feed it against her will, 

Tell me  where a mother fed a baby against her will? Who exactly is forcing her to feed the baby against her will? 

****would be forcefully using the mothers body against her consent. 

So again demonstrate to me where mothers have been forced to feed babies against their will? 

****Not sure why you keep asking if I know the difference between the unborn and born as the unborn is not related to this question.  

LOL , that’s hilarious 

****The point is the baby and mother who have equal rights, 

Yes at last you get it the born have rights granted to us all the fetus does not 

****one will either starve, or the other will give forced to give up her bodily autonomy without consent.

What are you talking about you’re making no sense at all.Your right to bodily autonomy does not mean you can murder , maim or injure another as you are infringing upon their rights as a citizen which we all have , why is this so incredibly difficult for you to comprehend?

Would it help if I explained it using your constitution? Maybe not as I guarantee you still wouldn’t get it

Bodily Autonomy 

 Being able to move freely from place to place; being able to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault ... having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction

MichaelElpers

@Dee

****“Approximately 50 percent of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned,” You walked right into that one didn’t you?  50 per cent of pregnancies are not from a situation entirely decided and created by women.

Just because they are unplanned doesn't mean the situation wasn't entirely decided by them.  They were the ones that still committed the act.

**** I’m still asking why you think it fair that a women should give birth against her consent?

For the last time, the main reason is because she consented to a possible pregnancy when she had sex, therefore it is not against her consent.  I have given others, but I'm not going to repost my entire argument again. If you don't want a high risk use, contraception and/or only have sex with men that have vasectomies.

****She actually is as she is starving her child to death. In the U S it’s ok to starve your child to death as you’re covered under “bodily autonomy “ when was this law introduced and when was “a duty to care “ regarding mother and child abolished?

No it's not OK, that's entirely my point.  The women must feed the baby, therefore she CAN'T decide to use bodily autonomy which is her right.  She would be neglecting the baby but not infringing on its autonomy.

John_C_87

@Dee ;
Why should I care how others view it? I’m still asking why you think it fair that a women should give birth against her consent? The basic principle remains consistent throughout woman, they perform a female pregnancy abortion by not having sex. In this way, by united state all woman do not become pregnant. Artificial insemination the premeditated death takes place outside the woman's body and the international border has already been crossed.

There is not forced female pregnancy as woman are not told they must give birth to a artificially fertilized egg placed inside them. 
United States of pregnancy.
1. a woman brings a person across and international border into a nation.
2. a woman does not abort the egg when becoming pregnant.
3 all woman can decide to kill the egg inside them before nursing the egg to become a person in a nation. Across international border. The woman can even donate the egg to be fertilized by others already within an international border.

Bodily Autonomy

 Being able to move freely from place to place; being able to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault ... having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction.

By law a woman can report a sexual assault, provide evidence and testimony to support a claim, she has no control over if that assault becomes murder or not throughout an investigation. Again lying on a reported crime is also illegal. The reporting of a crime adds requirements of its own regulation to a much simpler immigration across an international border question that the woman faces and how constitutional rights act on her choices of liberty and justice for all. Here a self-incrimination does not act for all woman constitutional in a united state.

There are several alternative methods of sexual satisfaction.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****Just because they are unplanned doesn't mean the situation wasn't entirely decided by them.  They were the ones that still committed the act.

Yet you stated.....

****It is just if the reason you must use their body to live, was a situation entirely decided and created by them.

So tell me in your view how is an unplanned decided by them? 

As you did say “ entirely decided and created by them “ didn’t you?

**** 

For the last time, the main reason is because she consented to a possible pregnancy when she had sex, 

She didn’t , as in the 50 per cent unplanned pregnancies in the U S verify 

****I have given others, but I'm not going to repost my entire argument again. If you don't want a high risk use, contraception and/or only have sex with men that have vasectomies.

But most women who abort only do so because it’s unplanned as demonstrated (50 per cent rate) or life circumstances change , do you think women do it for fun?

****

No it's not OK, that's entirely my point.  The women must feed the baby, therefore she CAN'T decide to use bodily autonomy which is her right.  

As usual you’re so dumb you don’t even know what bodily autonomy means and what it allows one to do and not do , like the you are you think starving  a child which is a citizen to death is somehow to use bodily autonomy....Are you really that ? 

Also why do you need me to explain duty of care and bodily autonomy to you ?

I gave you a definition and like the you are you totally ignore it 

****She would be neglecting the baby but not infringing on its autonomy.

How would she not be infringing on its autonomy you ? 

Do you even know what “Duty of Care “ means you clown?

Practices which violate a person’s bodily integrity are wide-ranging, from seemingly harmless acts like piercing a baby girl’s ears, to forms of violence like sexual abuse, or even medical treatment administered without a patient’s consent or against their wishes.

Children are disproportionately affected by violations of their bodily integrity because these harmful practices are usually performed on people at a very young age, when they are unable to speak up for and defend themselves, or give — or refuse — consent.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

****As you did say “ entirely decided and created by them “ didn’t you?
Yes decided as in, they were the ones that made the decision that got them pregnant.

For the last time, the main reason is because she consented to a possible pregnancy when she had sex,

She didn’t , as in the 50 per cent unplanned pregnancies in the U S verify...possible was the key word their.

****like the you are you think starving  a child which is a citizen to death is somehow to use bodily autonomy.

Yes,  Because you are FORCING the women to use her BODY without consent to feed the child.  She no longer has control what she does with her body.

All you are claiming is that because she consented to birth she now has a "duty of care" to feed the child, I agree she should be forced to.  That duty means she must feed the child with her body even if she doesn't want to. 

How would she not be infringing on its autonomy you ?

Because allowing someone to starve is in no way infringing on their bodily autonomy.  She is not forcefully doing anything to the babies body, she is doing nothing at all.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

**Yes decided as in, they were the ones that made the decision that got them pregnant.

Right , so an unplanned pregnancy is actually making a decision to get pregnant.....you’re a total  

****For the last time, the main reason is because she consented to a possible pregnancy when she had sex,

She didn’t , as in the 50 per cent unplanned pregnancies in the U S verify

***possible was the key word their.***

Right so again a woman not planning on having a baby is actually consenting to a possible pregnancy ......Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

****

Yes,  Because you are FORCING the women to use her BODY without consent to feed the child.  

Who is forcing women to feed babies without consent you fool? Give me one example you clot of a woman forced to feed a child against her will?

Also you totally ignore yet again bodily autonomy does not allow you abuse or neglect another 

***She no longer has control what she does with her body.

What are you even babbling about?

****All you are claiming is that because she consented to birth she now has a "duty of care" to feed the child, I agree she should be forced to.  

No I never said “forced “ dummy , but if she refuses she is now guilty of child abuse 

****That duty means she must feed the child with her body even if she doesn't want to. 

Wow ! Being the you are you cannot believe that outside the U S that parents have a duty of care to a child and cannot abuse or neglect it ......

****Because allowing someone to starve is in no way infringing on their bodily autonomy.  

Allowing your child to starve to death is a criminal act you cannot use your body to abuse or neglect a child under your care you fool 

****She is not forcefully doing anything to the babies body, she is doing nothing at all.

Except starving the child under her care to death you ......I just bet you voted for Trump I often wondered what sort of knuckle dragging American  idiots voted for him thank you for clarifying 

mamo

Personally, I believe that abortion should be legal for cases such as rape or illness. However I believe that it shouldn't be legal if you were to choose to have sexual intercourse. I believe this because if you chose to have sexual intercourse then you made the decision despite knowing what would happen. For example, if you were to choose to drink a lot of alcohol at a time, you won't be able to choose not to have a hangover because it is a result of a choice that you made. 

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers ;

Pregnant before hand is not the united state of female pregnancy abortion MichaelElpers a woman does not have to be pregnant before she performs a pregnancy abortion. The argument is no woman performs a female pregnancy abortion after they are pregnant after fertilization occurs is female specific amputation.

The united state that a woman who does not have sex and a woman who undertakes the activity of sex share the burden of possible immigration across an international border as United State. When addressing a state of the union on all woman and pregnancy we must presume a level of innocence. We are not granting immunity to crime we are stating a purpose without self-incrimination on all woman as a united state.

Again on top of this all woman by pregnancy commit to providing passage across international border. Your argument becomes much more complicated as medical practice has already performed many pregnancy abortions outside the women’s body without the pressure of citizen ship in the balance.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

You can't even understand the fundamental difference between someone starving and violating a right to bodily autonomy.  

At least Plaffelvohfen has arguments, I may disagree with him, but he at least can provide logical thought patterns for his arguments.

The discussion with you hasn't been for a while, but is no longer productive.  I can no longer tolerate your questions and statements that have no reasoning behind them.  Its like arguing with a child that constantly replies Why?, hears the argument, and responds no your wrong.

This cartoon is a good illustration.

Dee

@MichaelElpers


Here is a sample of your stupidity in print for all to see ......

MichaelElpers ****Because allowing someone to starve is in no way infringing on their bodily autonomy.  

Because she is not forcefully doing anything to the babies body, she is doing nothing at all.

Do you really need me telling you what a statement that is after you ignored fo the 15th time what bodily autonomy and duty to care  actually are you clown

You don’t  know what “Duty of care means “ , thinks bodily autonomy means allowing one to starve a child to death , and thinks unplanned birth is really .....planned .....

You couldn’t answer even one of my questions despite me educating you in legal terms and your constitution in the U S , You’re a prize dummy mate 

@pllafvelvohen is far more patient than me and has a gift for tolerating idiots like you who think bodily autonomy means you can starve a child to death  and that unplanned pregnancy is actually really planned