Should abortion be abolished?

Dee

@MichaelElpers

Instead  of lying and denying what terms like bodily autonomy, and duty of care mean despite me sending you the definitions why not just admit you haven’t a clue what they mean despite being educated on such 5 times now?

Your ridiculous responses for all to see........

I asked you .......do  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. 

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.

You say .....

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

Right so in America it’s aright to starve a child to death because you’re exercising bodily autonomy.....oh dear 

You never even explained who is  forcing women to feed children?

Why do you think bodily autonomy means you can abuse a child?

You stated when asked why a pregnant woman must give birth 

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

Yet you  tried to lie your way out as usual when asked what about the 50 per cent unplanned pregnancies which are not decided or created you still have no valid answer for this nor anything else for that matter get an education mate 

John_C_87

Its not about having body autonomy it is about how autonomy is created as a united state. Female pregnancy abortion should be abolished because it can be abolished without effect on any of the arguments of woman safety. In fact, it adds a very important missing part of safety that has been ruled on by the Court. The missing basic principle is the presumption of innocence and it is taken by the use of self-incrimination.

MattGould

@YeshuaBought Personally, as a high functioning autistic male, I am opposed to abortion in certain cases. I think abortion should be in allowed in cases of rape/sexual assault/abuse or if the medical professionals that are caring for a woman think the birth of the child will kill the mother. I think that is reasonable and I have no problem with that. However, given the history of the abortion argument, or more specifically that abortion became an issue in the early 20th through the eugenics movement that was championed by the "progressives" at the time, and that people with mental disabilities were specifically targeted in this movement, I am opposed to any legislation saying that anyone can get an abortion just because they want one. It is morally wrong and evil, in my view to essentially kill an innocent fetus/child simply because you were not careful enough to have safe sex and now you want to escape the responsibility by killing an innocent human being. Also, again given the history of the abortion argument, I have deep issues with it and the possibility that people will be able to figure out or predict if someone will have a disability and then decide that they are going to get abortion simply because of their perception of "mercy". It is wrong and inexcusable. 

John_C_87

@MattGould ;

Why do you feel a self-incrimination for all woman would help only woman who have been raped or subjected to types of sexual; abuse?

 I do not see the connection of grouping all woman with the use of admission to a crime publicly as helpful. A woman does not get a medical pregnancy abortion, she receives a medical amputation that is specific to all woman who may become pregnant. Woman as united State have abortion’s by saying she is not going to fertilize the egg inside her body once ovulating starts. Is this a way to create all woman as equal?

We should be addressing United State Constitutional right for all woman while also considering the medical hypocritic oath. There had been requirements already set to preserve a international and American United Sate standard.

MattGould

@John_C_87 I am a little confused as to what you are objecting too. However, I am getting the sense from reading your response that you haven't fully understood what it is that I was trying to say. 

First of all let me repeat again that I am a high functioning autistic male and given the history of the abortion argument in the U.S. and the reason for why groups like planned parenthood became so prominent, abortions and the very idea of abortions makes me very nervous. Now granted, just because past reasons for abortion could be argued to have been morally wrong(which I would agree with), that doesn't mean there are not some reasonable hypothetical and real world scenarios that could and should warrant an abortion, depending on how the pregnancy has progressed of course. 

See, my whole argument for why I am fine with abortion in some cases and not in others is predicated on the sole central idea of responsibility. Statistically speaking, every time a man and a women have sex, they are taking the statistical risk of getting pregnant. Even if they take the necessary risk prevention measures such as wearing a condom or other methods, there is still that statistical risk. The reason I bring this up is that when a man and a women have legally consensual sex, they are then willingly accepting the risk of the possibility of the women getting pregnant and from my own personal point of view, it is morally wrong and reprehensible to just decide, even though someone accepted the risks before having sex, to then decide to kill the fetus/baby simply because they don't want to accept the responsibility of the decision they made. So this is why I am against abortion in these cases. 


By the same logic, I think that cases where a women is sexually assaulted or abused or whatever term you want to use, and a case where it is proven that if a particular woman gives birth she will die are totally fine and it is completely reasonable to say that these particular woman should get an abortion if they so choose.  So in these cases I am okay with an abortion being performed. 


Now you might be thinking, but aren't you just taking a complex issue that can affect women in a multitude of different ways and creating absolute conditions for allowing an abortion and not allowing an abortion and not taking into account the possible millions of other hypothetical scenarios that could warrant an abortion. This is a very fair and logical point. However, I am only human. I do not know everything. So if anyone can come up with another hypothetical scenario that I haven't thought of please let me know. If not, my argument still stands as far as I am concerned. 


 

John_C_87

@MattGould ;

Now you might be thinking, but aren't you just taking a complex issue that can affect women in a multitude of different ways and creating absolute conditions for allowing an abortion and not allowing an abortion and not taking into account the possible millions of other hypothetical scenarios that could warrant an abortion. This is a very fair and logical point. However, I am only human. I do not know everything. So if anyone can come up with another hypothetical scenario that I haven't thought of please let me know. If not, my argument still stands as far as I am concerned. 

You are conditional opposed to female specific amputation and are not aware of the basic way abortion places all woman in a united state using admission. You agree with the admission, even though the admission should not be any part of a united state constitutional address to woman in the argument of abolishing female pregnancy abortion. We have reasonable concerns about abortion in general but in the United States of America there are American constitutional principle that can be used to establish a united state which creates all woman as equal considering pregnancy and termination. We do not set a condition of admission before hand under any condition consent to receive such a notion unless willing to concede to malpractice of United State Consecution.

You are simply willing to take a side in an ongoing complex illegal argument not ever placing efforts in creating, explaining, then detailing a united state created with all woman equally, then woman only who may become pregnant so it can be used in legislation with a presumption of innocence. I see your concern and am directing your attention to the goal we share as united state, we as in constitutional woman and constitutional men that should have been addressed long ago by woman alone.

MattGould

@John_C_87 ; Ok first off, and I mean this with all the respect in the world, the way you have worded your response is a little weird and I am not entirely sure what it is that you are objecting to. But I think I get the picture, if I misrepresent what you have said I am not intending to and further explanation of what it is you are trying to say would be very welcome. Now that that's done lets begin. 


First off you made the mistake of using a strawman fallacy to "debunk" what it was I said. You did this by only quoting part of what I said and by also writing your own interpretation of what I said rather than what I actually meant in my statement in your own words. 


Secondly, where in the constitution of the United States, does it ever say "women have the right to an abortion" or something equivalent to that. I have read the constitution and it doesn't say that any where. So to say that women have rights to termination of a pregnancy because of the constitution is completely false. (http://constitutionus.com/)


and thirdly, you completely missed the point of what it is that I was trying to say. My argument in short, is that women who did nothing to cause their unfortunate predicament, meaning cases of rape or sexual abuse or the probable death of a woman through child birth, should be perfectly allowed to get a abortion. However, in cases where consensual sex was had and there was no force/rape and there is no probable reason to think a woman will die to the birth of her child, then from my point of view it should not be allowed. I explained why it should and shouldn't be allowed in more detail in a previous post. 

Also, I fail to see what abortion has to do with female equality. I am a proponent of women having equal rights under the law, and having the same possible opportunities and chances that men do. However, I do not agree that this warrants the death of a child/fetus simply because I women says, even though she knew the risks going into the sexual relationship, that she doesn't want to accept the consequences of their actions. 

Also, you said something in the last sentence of your post that somehow, because I am a man that I am not qualified to talk about this subject. Maybe I am misinterpreting what it is you were trying to say, but if you did mean that, I can't think of anything more sexist and arrogant than to say something like that. imagine if I went around saying to women, oh because of your gender(which was not chosen by men or women by the way), then you have no right to talk about my issues. I would be metaphorically flogged in the street for saying that. But people can just say it to men about woman and it's ok. This is the type of hypocritical sexist argument that I hate.  

John_C_87

Yeah, before we start this long banter of idea. Simple said. I just want you to say clearly why all woman need to self-incriminate by saying they are to official; stop a life. As this is not a test you do not need to answer for a grade or score. I am just say because woman as a group are stopping a immigration across a international border as united state. We do not need to defend pregnancy abortion as legal it needs to be proven as a United State to be Constitutional itself, before it's use in law, meaning both simple principle to be fully understood to be connected to legal precedent as grievance.

So can a woman go on to undertake a female specific amputation in regards to international immigration that turns out to be only the official stopping of life, well yes of course she can, but we are not to start there by making her say she did in the first place in a hard to understand way.  

LogicVault

@YeshuaBought, eh, I say kill them all and let God sort them out.

John_C_87

LogicVault said:

@YeshuaBought, eh, I say kill them all and let God sort them out.

You do understand by the constitutional definition of non religious GOD,  a numerical axiom, you are in fact saying give all eggs and sperm kept inside, outside, frozen the human body during the lifetime of human ovulation a social security number as a united state? No? Didn't think so. I do appreciate and understand all the public frustration behind the sarcasm...……..
The abolishment of Female pregnancy abortion is at hand, the outcome is minimal as all that is lost when it is abolished with "female specific amputation" is the improper use of self-incrimination publicly. 

John_C_87

YeshuaBought said:

I say no. There are too many what ifs to abolish abortion. I am personally opposed, but supportive of last resort choice. No one actually likes abortion. As the only disabled child (now 38) of a mother without adequate support for her and myself, I believe tough choices sometices have to be made, even if the fetus is a baby. Forced organ donation is not a right. I promise not to be abusive, but if anyone wants to debate me, post here. MartinGocic inspired me to make this debate, even if I disagree with him on this.

Yes abolish, There is no reason to keep a self-incrimination as a United State. It was unconstitutional from the start, woman have a obligation to create all woman as equal in this matter. The abolishment of female pregnancy abortion in legislated law can be made without change to basic principle changing only self-incrimination. Female Specific Amputation is not female pregnancy abortion, it is proven to be pregnancy abortion without automatic self-incrimination from a woman.

ambee

I have had so many conversations with people on abortion and no one on the pro-choice side can actually finish debating me. After i give them facts they just flip me off or stop talking to me because their arguments fall apart. If you want to have a good conversation, reply and lets debate. I would like someone to actually try and change my mind.
                                                       "abortion is murder" ~ change my mind.

John_C_87

@ambee ;

female Pregnancy abortion is a admission by united state to a possible murder. 

ambee

@John_C_87
can you explain your comment. There's a lot of grammar mistakes and it kind of confused me on what your arguing.

John_C_87

@ambee ;

First, "A abortion is murder, the problem is a female pregnancy abortion takes place both if a woman becomes pregnant or if she does not become pregnant  and menstruates so the unregulated self-incrimination creates two issues of law." 

A person can be manipulated to tell a lie. Female pregnancy abortion also known as just abortion places you in group, a united state with other both men and woman to believe the admission to the description of murder as details to believe a murder both has or will take place. There are to scenarios that will play out the same death in basic principle. 1. a woman plans to not become pregnant though the egg is in position and by not preserving life a woman then plans and prepares for the death, menstruation being the single of that death. 2. A woman is pregnant and plans not to give birth. Both scenarios have a common second constitutional relationship shared equally between them both. They stop immigration across an international border, a group formed that is made up of all woman who are fertile. A person does not have to believe something they understand to be a lie, in a significantly large united state created inside constitution, the goal of creating all woman as equal under American Constitution is a duty. What we are debating is a woman's constitutional right to not bring a person across a international border when it places her at risk of death.  

It is unwise to debate publicly if any admission to murder is murder, of course it is murder that is why it is self-incrimination. The outcome of a debate will never addresses the wrong of believing all statements made as truth and not privately testing all facts. Can you say, read, and/or write female specific amputation?

ambee

@John_C_87
okay.
"the problem is a female pregnancy abortion takes place both if a woman becomes pregnant or if she does not become pregnant  and menstruates so the unregulated self-incrimination creates two issues of law."
~menstruation is not abortion my friend. the definition of abortion is "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy,". To become pregnant an egg must be fertilized, this is why life begins at conception. if you do not know what a woman's menstrual cycle is here is a source explaining the biological definition, https://www.medicinenet.com/menstruation/article.htm.
"What we are debating is a woman's constitutional right to not bring a person across a international border when it places her at risk of death. "
~1. no, we are debating if a woman has a right to terminate the fetus she is carrying, aka. abortion. 2. abortion is not a constitutional right 
i think you are coming at this argument in a lot of different directions. so lets start with being on the same page.
- do you beleive that a pregnant woman is holding a life inside her? if not what is inside her?
- does that woman have the right to end that life? Why?

John_C_87

the definition of abortion is "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy,".

Correct when a woman allows menstruation to take place she is deliberately terminating a human pregnancy. The united state presented in female pregnancy is not over when life begins, the semantic is over when an extension of life happens, not the start of life itself.

 - do you believe that a pregnant woman is holding a life inside her? if not what is inside her?  Yes she is holding a life, and no, I do not believe I can prove the egg a woman holds after ovulation is dead before fertilization. The egg is independent and alive. I will wait if someone wishes to sight a human egg is released form the ovary of a woman dead.

- does that woman have the right to end that life? Why?  The woman has a conditional right to terminate a transition of immigration across a international border. As a united state you asking me to explain why a woman must become pregnant and there is not reason she must even though she is murdering a child. The human egg has United State Constitutional right among them is the self-evident death by it's very own creation at the woman's discretion. It can be regulated but the right to terminate by amputation is constitutional as it does not present a self-incrimination and the presumption is medical. If not from her then from issues with the father medically.

What is most important is the inability taking place for the creation of a united state directly related to all woman and not woman and medical research. All woman are to be created equal.

TKDB

Adoption, is a fair, and Equal answer to abortion. 

John_C_87

Taking a child born after giving the mother only an addition to a crime by united state is fair?

ambee

@John_C_87 ;
"Yes she is holding a life, "
~ it doesn't matter when, where, who, or why to murder is illegal and immoral. if you agree that it is a human life and your defending the mother killing it than i will not be able to persuade you. justifying the end of an innocent human life isn't an argument, its just disgusting. i will never agree that terminating life is moral.
"Correct when a woman allows menstruation to take place she is deliberately terminating a human pregnancy. "
~no. the woman would not have become pregnant if the egg wasn't fertilized. here is a article from planned parenthood explaining how one can become pregnant "https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/how-pregnancy-happens" - but to sum it up in needs sperm. woman dont need sperm to menstruate. This is science.
if your argument is its a life but we should still be able to kill it, i dont need to argue with you. you need to talk to someone who is qualified and explain why you think that killing someone is okay.

John_C_87

@ambee

You’re not arguing against my position. All woman had constitutional obligation to preserve a presumption of innocence as a united state with all woman. That obligation begins with the removal of a self-incrimination in legislation of law.

ambee: Explain why you think that killing someone is okay? 

John: I do not think killing someone is okay but from what you have said killing some one is okay and I quote “ if your argument is it’s a life we should still be able to kill it.” A removal and abolishment of a united state made by self-incrimination before law is required. 

Plaffelvohfen

@ambee

To murder is not always illegal (death sentence, war) and as for being immoral well it's subjective so your opinion is as good as another, for instance would you consider killing in self-defense immoral? There are no absolutes with regards to morality, only subjective opinions... 

John_C_87

Okay, so what we do agree on is all death does not share a united state with murder, and murder is always illegal when proven in a court of law unless death was proven natural or accidental. We are not arguing Capital Punishment, we are not addressing basic constitutional obligation by means of armed combat, this is not a battle of immunity over the powers of being a woman, it is a battle for justice in the form of United State Constitutional right and the fact all woman can be held equal before constitutional law. All woman are created equal by their creator and the discretions of other woman and have fail in all efforts to meet their duty. A relief of command is called for and the r4equirment of creating all woman equal shall be met. Is that specification clear as many woman are still at liberty I will not call it a order? 

Marriage is a likely-hood of immigration into a nation across an international border. Without that licensing all woman as united state act independent in that process of immigration across an international border without the signed agreement made with a man. When there is no public claim of death by description of power and authority made by a woman there is no mandatory justification for trial as common defense to the general welfare of American United State Constitution. Female specific amputation is not describing murder on pregnancy the only admission is of a some kind of lack of control requiring a removal.

Murders hold the united state of motive accidents are not motive they are a condition though might be proven as not an accident and intentional. It is an issue that can be addressed in proper fashion. The ugly part about this argument is the total and complete lack of united State constitutional preservation.

ambee

@Plaffelvohfen
no, i believe self defense and the death penalty are justification of death. but ive never seen a child in the womb be anything but completely and utterly innocent.( if you go back and reed my posts i said "innocent human life" multiple times). i dont enjoy word games, and pulling every definition from the dictionary, generally murder is bad. even in the death penalty, murder is ending a life and is bad and in my opinion should be forced to live with themselves in seclusion. if all you have taken from my argument is that murder isnt alwys illegal i dont know what to tell you. and i do agree murder isnt always illegal - ie. abortion

ambee

@John_C_87
most of your comments arent relevant to my questions. you said that the child in the womb is a life but you are also defending killing it.
then you say  "I do not think killing someone is okay "
if you think its an innocent human life than why are we killing it? and worst of all why are you defending it?

John_C_87

most of your comments aren't relevant to my questions. you said that the child in the womb is a life but you are also defending killing it. I have no way to prove the life of an egg and sperm separated are less valuable then the one life made together. It is the only mathematical question were (1 + 1 = 1). I am not killing the child the official stop is taking place on a crossing of international border to become a resident of a country. In basic principle it is a reason why a woman would be treated like property provided a presumption of innocents is a goal to keep.

if you think its an innocent human life than why are we killing it? and worst of all why are you defending killing. Defending the united state constitutional right to allow death to continue is still killing. There is no escape it is a weight to bear as something a person lives with, every day. A woman would loses her life trying to fertilize every egg she produces, male on the other hand kills thousands of living sperm to simple create one with a woman who never produces anywhere near enough eggs.

most of your comments aren't relevant to my questions. No. the woman would not have become pregnant if the egg wasn't fertilized. And the egg becoming fertilized does not mean the child is innocent of attempted murder, or illegal immigration across an international border. We presume the fertilized human egg is innocent.

YeshuaBought

MichaelElpers said:

Forced organ donation is not a right, but should be if another individual is reason for you needing an organ.  For example, if someone stabbed you, and caused you need a kidney, they should be forced to give you one of theirs if that does not kill them.

Because the mother is the reason the fetus exists in her womb, she carries the responsibility for carrying it.

You don't have the right to my organs, even if you might die. Bodily choice is a human right. You suport as a conservative, a government so smal, it could fit inside my uterus. I cal that governmental rape.

John_C_87

Woman can use pregnancy illegally. All woman can be forced to create woman as equal before Constitution in a united state.

John_C_87

@YeshuaBought ;

Rape, is just so hard to always believe when woman self make representation of all men, not woman. This by a throne built out of a bed  where sitting on her head is left spinning like Linda Blair's screaming  F..k Me ! F..k Me ! I Will Kill the seed! I can kill the seed! F..k Me! F..k Me! Every one F..ks me! Even woman.

Sexual assaults are not an issue of abortion they are an immigration issue created by the forced possible pregnancy.

John_C_87

Pregnancy abortion was abolished by United State Constitution, a republic of legislation simple has not followed in United State Constitutional preservation, as of yet. Any and all force was directed against the use of self-incrimination by abortions connection to pregnancies. Not directed at woman. What will remain clear is the choice to remove the self-incrimination will now and always be by the choice a woman can make. You need not take my words Female specific Amputation, but you will need to prove yourself as capable in ability to remove the self-incrimination directed at all woman. That is a basic truth that holds true as a United State Globally.

John_C_87

Why shouldn’t Pregnancy abortion be abolished from legislation?

The Constitutional abolishment by female specific amputation proves beyond any doubt that a self-incrimination set on all woman bears no implications other than reinstating a presumption of innocence for all woman. All woman are created in-equal or created equal. F.S.A.  is not selling any idea of choice, it is clear choice by lack of self-incrimination.

Addressing self-incrimination, aligning a united state constitutional right with all woman as basic principle, and not removing a necessity for medical treatments with bad influencing on the Hippocratic oath. All sounded like justification to go forward with pregnancy abolishment. From Legislated as it contains a hidden cost to be recognized as a public filed grievance.

YeshuaBought

@John_C_87 It is not a baby until it as brainwaves.

John_C_87

YeshuaBought said:

@John_C_87 It is not a baby until it as brainwaves.

Doesn't matter @ YeshuaBought its not a self-incrimination till a crime is described or accused. The United State Abolishment tales effect on only the self-incrimination woman some but not all woman refuse to address. By Choice. 

A. Admission by self-incrimination 
B. Female specific Amputation by constitutional untied state abolishment of pregnancy abortion.
C. Something else not yet specified that all woman can hold as United State.

John_C_87

Yeah I've got to agree on relevance...….What was I thinking.

Oh! Right I remember semantics over the presumed guilt created by self-incrimination, pregnancy abortion should be abolished in legislation because it already is Constitutional abolished by a removal of its united state, self-incrimination. Female Specific Amputation does nothing establish a presumption of guilt that both pro-choice and pro-life agree on by basic principle, what ever you do by chioce doesn't let woman address the basic principle of immigration as it relates to all female pregnancies. 

Want to hear a United State Constitutional joke? What's red White and true?

 All the time woman have been casting votes illegally on a discrimination civil argument. While the Legal precedent of why a constitutional vote on executive office  fore woman in a united state rests in the immigration across an international border by all woman. Presadera may be a new word... however new words are fare less likely to be a old crime. 


If you can read this bumper sticker
you are taking far to much liberty..

YeshuaBought

@MichaelElpers It is not a child, so no.

John_C_87

YeshuaBought said:

@MichaelElpers It is not a child, so no.

YeshuaBought I think you really need to hear something straight, many people have died trying to reach the United States of America, many people have died trying to reach many nations globally. Creating all woman as equal is not about the one woman, the many single woman, a me woman, it is about the united state that can be woman, a statement of one voice as Presadera. The rose Garden was not promised by conditions like marriage it is earned by conditions of constitutional preservation.

YeshuaBought

@TKDB Antichoice propaganda.

John_C_87

F.S.A. Choice liberty...…..

A choice not dependent on rape.
A choice not dependent on incest.
A choice that relieves a woman of command as she is by nature placed under the weight of a international border.
A choice that relieves the her of inequalities created between woman, against woman.

TKDB

@YeshuaBought

This is anti-choice propaganda? 

"Adoption, is a fair, and Equal answer to abortion."

YeshuaBought

@TKDB You have nothing to say about whether I have a baby or not. I don't want sick babies born from MY body.

John_C_87

YeshuaBought said:

@TKDB You have nothing to say about whether I have a baby or not. I don't want sick babies born from MY body.

Realistically TKDB and I are not telling you what to do with your body. We are making a statement on an immigration into a Nation across your border. TKDB wanting it to go on once started despite dangers to woman for the purpose of a basic slavery, though with a legal immunity as approval. Marriage simply being a likely-hood to that immigration creating a new person, the idea of independence can comes at a cost, how woman are created equal before a basic principle and legal precedent in relationship to that immigration is one of the costs. The recognition that woman are in fact a property and have always been, as in basic truth, as international border is held by all woman as a united state. We are not arguing the abilities of independence of a human value as property, only recognizing the fact a united state is real between a women an land. Brought as a union by immigration.

Where you do not want sick babies, a Nation may not desire large number of babies from any one woman. Do we have a right, We have a United State Constitutional right as your admission allowed a violation of the 5th Amendment for the protection of the general welfare. The unite state you use as alibi is however with medical research, and is possibly another intellectual form of murder, and not immigration in general with a untied state of safety for all woman. In research failure of birth was known before any fertilization was to take place. By surrogate parents using egg and sperm as a weapon of lethal force. In basic English which is the reasoning for the intellectual interpretations and detail of no self-incrimination.

At this point Pregnancy abortion is being proven it can be constitutionally abolished safely, in a pursuit of liberty. How it is abolished is by the removal of self-incrimination to woman as a group, for medically it exists already. This being the most important fact as woman are to be create all equal to be sworn under oath in a court of law, one at a time. To set an order to a 1st Amendment grievance which has also been declared by a declaration of Civil War.

Pro-Choice, Pro-Life,
give more than one choice,
self-incrimination, or self-incrimination.

A woman self-incriminates to possibly her own murder.
A woman self-incriminates to a possibly child's murder, The state of the murder no different that an identical murder taking place with all woman who ovulate.

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@YeshuaBought

This is anti-choice propaganda? 

"Adoption, is a fair, and Equal answer to abortion."

No, it is a justification for an inability to preserve united state Constitutional right in the establishment of all woman as created equal. The alternative is not on female pregnancy abortion it is on parenting a child once force into a nation. The difference TKDB is the form of slavery which is taking place has no need to be Constitutional abolished as a united state. A slave is a by product  of war as a prisoner of the titled conflict of War, that issue and the issue of all children as to be created equal before America United state has not be addressed by a state of the union before the House of Representatives. Yet. 

Female specific amputation is a answer to pregancy abortion, pregancy abortion is not fair to all woman is a slef-incrimiantion. have a equality set about its basic principle should not take place. Child adoption is an alturantive to parenting only a child.

TKDB

@YeshuaBought

I'm not talking about you specifically.

"You have nothing to say about whether I have a baby or not. I don't want sick babies born from MY body."

So I still stand by my words:

Adoption, is a fair, and Equal answer to abortion.

John_C_87

@TKDB ;
Just how do you see slavery an alterative to forced self-incrimination?

John_C_87

The relevance is in the share idea that a woman must complete a process of human immigration to spite a risk to her health. We separate complex ideas of what is life and substitute a category not so dependent on issues of crime. Are or are not all woman created equal by presumption of innocence? Are or are not all men created equal by their creator by a presumption of innocents?

MichaelElpers

@YeshuaRedeemed. Did you just say i support a gov. So small it could fit inside your uterus snd that is rape.  That makes no sense, a small government is less likely to control you.

YeshuaBought

@MichaelElpers Address what I said, and stop trolling.

YeshuaBought

@TKDB This is my body. I have the right to choose what to do with my body. I don't want autistic children, and that is my right to choose.

YeshuaBought

@John_C_87Yes you are telling me what to do with my body when you say whether I can have an abortion or not.

John_C_87

YeshuaRedeemed said:

@John_C_87Yes you are telling me what to do with my body when you say whether I can have an abortion or not.

No, I am not telling you what to do with your body, you are more than welcome to self-incriminate only yourself. Other woman may like a choice that is not governed by the self-incrimination of all pregnant woman. I would be telling you what to do with your body when giving orders to preserving constitution in combat, having you pick up a fire-arm and apply lethal force against another woman, as your enemy, any enemy who was armed. In a complex way it is you who tells woman what to do with their body. Suggesting self-incrimination that all woman only want to murder when termination of a pregnancy is necessary.  

 I am creating an equally with all woman using a basic principle of international border because it removes a public presumption of guilt on woman who are pregnant. I am telling woman in general how to preserve united state constitution on their own behalf before a United State Constitutional Republic.