Abortion Contrariety: Can we find a balance?

smoothie

@RickeyD Notice the wording of the laws you just copy-pasted, they are specifically worded as an extra crime against a pregnant mother when done without consent by a person attempting to do harm to the pregnant mother. It gives more of a right to mothers, not the fetus who is not a citizen and does not possess amendment rights. It's literally in the name given to the laws: Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women.

They are specifically worded as such that if the fetus is killed by another person against the pregnant mother's will they can be subject to punishment. That is why they remain enacted while abortion is legal, some of those laws actually make it crystal clear that consented abortion does not apply.

It does not prove anything when arguing against the choice of abortion by the pregnant mother herself.

piloteer

@ZeusAres42

I do understand what you are saying, and I find it commendable to seek to find common ground, but that needs some real innovation, and I haven't really seen any innovative solutions that you have proposed. HappyKillbot, seems to have a similar opinion to you, and the suggestion of an artificial uterus where unborn babies can be nurtured safely outside the womb and they can be adopted from there, that is at least an attempt at an innovative idea. Obviously there's one glaring problem with that solution- It's not real yet. That seems to be a little more innovative, but still falls short as of this moment. I think ideas along those lines would be the best we could do to find common ground. All the aspects in the middle have been argued over endlessly since before biblical times and nothing has come from it yet.That territory has been gone over and over again without anything resembling a common ground. If you have any ideas that are outside the box, or turns the whole issue on its head and gives us all a new perspective, then I might be able to believe we could find common ground. Until then, I will have to respectfully disagree with you on whether abortion is immoral, I will humbly keep my position on this issue. 

Your argument on late term abortion is a little bit of a misrepresentation. 91% of all abortions  are done before the second trimester. More than half of all late term abortions (including partial birth abortions), are done for women whose life are in danger if they proceed with the pregnancy. Unfortunately, it only becomes obvious that the mother or the babies life may be in jeopardy until later in the pregnancy. On top of that, when a woman finds out they might be in danger, they are also told that they have to wait to perform the abortion because they could be in even greater danger if they have the abortion before the third trimester. If late term abortions are made illegal, women who have a dangerous condition because of her pregnancy may be in grave danger because she would either need to perform the abortion at a dangerous period in the pregnancy, or she will be forced to go through with a pregnancy that may kill them. I think it's pretty hard to make compromises with truths like that in play.                

I should also add that I've made three posts at RickeyD, and neither him nor I have made any comments that are less than civil. If this discussion is really only about this discussion, I'd say I haven't seen anybody make any remarks that are distasteful or even mean spirited.   

RickeyD

@smoothie ; Both abortion and physical assault to the mother are synonymous...the mother suffers trauma in both instances. Only the demonic, the mentally deranged, the moral-less, advocate for the mutilation of babies.

Abortion Regret

https://www.liveaction.org/news/post-abortive-abortion-regret-weighs/?utm_content=80179610&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Abortions Increase Risk of Maternal Death: New Study

http://afterabortion.org/2012/multiple-abortions-increase-risk-of-maternal-death-new-study/

What Can Abortion Do to Your Body?

https://www.masscitizensforlife.org/what-can-an-abortion-do-to-your-body

RickeyD

@piloteer ; Abortion is and has always been a state's rights issue. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction in advocating for the death penalty of any "person" preborn or born void due process. Again, those who advocate for the death of babes are servants of Satan, they are demonic and will suffer greatly before experiencing the second death in Hell.

smoothie

@RickeyD Nobody is forcing a mother to have an abortion, unlike a physical assaulter who is assaulting a mother against her will.

Do you dispute that your Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women laws stand have no legal connection to abortion?

RickeyD

@smoothie ; The fetal homicide laws stand as evidence of the personhood of the preborn baby and their right to due process before the sentence of death is imposed by a mommy and her abortionist. Do you understand that you are arguing for Satan in that you are advocating for the death of a child in the womb...a child that God has blessed and ordained to LIVE and serve Him in Time? Do you understand that your advocacy for infanticide/abortion is as if you cut that child from the womb of the mother with your own hands as your support, vote, advocacy, is conspiratorial and you are therefore "guilty" before God for murder of innocence? Do you understand that unless you repent of your abortion and sodomy and turn to Jesus in faith that you will die in sin and lose your soul in Hell in a most horrific judgment?

smoothie

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/32/Appeal-to-Fear

@RickeyD Not with my own hands, when legal, a mother decides whether to have an abortion.

How do those laws grant "personhood" status when the punishment isn't even as severe as murder? These state lawmakers for this law have already decided that a fetus killed isn't equal punishment to a person.

You also argue that this due process is a state issue. How? The due process you mention was specified in the fifth amendment of the federal government.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42 ;

Pregnancy abortion can not effectively be by law declared legal, the self-incrimination stated by officerly ending birth must be proven in a court of law to be a lie or not. Please do not mistake my objection to pregnancy abortion with a woman's constitutional right to create all woman as equal by their creator. This both in Nations like Europe or united states of law like America. A woman under any presumption of innocence would be asking for a female specific amputation as she is stopping an immigration into a nation.

A licensed doctor does not perform an pregnancy abortion on any woman ever. It is a lie. A woman does not official stop pregnancy with an abortion, no nation has a right to openly allow woman or men for that matter to self-incriminate certain woman.

RickeyD

@smoothie ; 1) When you support the mutilation of babies with your advocacy, your vote, your voice, you act in conspiracy with those who engage in the murder and you are therefore guilty.

2) Due process-personhood is integral with creation of the fetal homicide statute, its enforcement, its adjudication. This due process is derived from the Bill of Rights, specifically the 5th and 14th Amendment due process clause; therefore, the preborn child is a person and protected as per those States that have legislated against harm done to the child in the womb. That's my point, Blackburn, in his liberal idiocy, may deny the child their right to due process but the States have interceded and interpreted the Constitution via its original intent.

The Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868. No state, it declares, shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Whatever the original Constitution may have to say on abortion, Craddock argues that amendment includes the unborn among the “persons” whose rights it protects. They can’t be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” They, just as much as born persons, have the Constitution right to “the equal protection of the laws.”

Craddock provides three arguments: What the word person meant then, the anti-abortion laws of the time, and what the people who wrote the amendment said about it, all show that the amendment includes the unborn.

Take the state anti-abortion laws in place before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. Almost every state had laws against abortion, he notes. Most of these laws were part of the law covering “offenses against the person.” In addition, 23 of the 37 states explicitly called the unborn child a “child” in their laws. Six of the 11 territories did so as well.

Craddock offers other evidence. In 1859, the American Medical Association demanded the government protect the “independent and actual existence of the child before birth.” Eight years later, the Medical Society of New York called abortion at any stage of the child’s life “murder.”

This and much other evidence shows that “a general consensus treated preborn human beings as ‘persons.’ … [T]he preborn were included within the public meaning of the term ‘person’ at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” Therefore the amendment itself considers the unborn to be persons with the right to life.

https://stream.org/harvard-law-journal-unborn-babies-are-constitutional-persons/

Dee

@ZeusAres42

**** Sorry , I was responding to you in the morning that day after just waking up. And I am quite grumpy in the mornings. So, sorry if I sounded a bit abrupt. 

It’s not a problem , it’s all good 

****However, you did state what I said but also made an assumption about my position. And in your above response here you actually forgot to quote what you said before I asked: "****By the same token, I could also ask you why is it fine to deny the rights of a viable human being to live ***." That was a response you said previously which was: "

"why is it fine to grant the unborn life against the woman’s wishes?" 

I was trying to clarify your position as I wasn’t sure if you were for or against up to a certain point.

I didn’t forget as I thought my question and statement covered that , you are saying ..... ”why is it fine to deny the rights of a viable human being to live”

On a side issue how is a fetus now a “human being”?   If abortion is legal how am I denying a fetus “rights”? If it’s not legal why is a fetus given a right in order to deny a woman a right , why does a “right” of a fetus supercede any right of a woman to abort?

****My point was to challenge your question which I just reduced to the consequent. This is not implicative of my position and nor does it mean that I think all women should be forced to give birth at all costs, at all times against their will. I do not think all women should be forced to give birth no matter what; this is actually the polarized pro-life crowd stance; not mine.

Yet if you hold that abortion is wrong that’s exactly what you’re supporting as in if everyone agrees it is wrong then it becomes illegal which means women are indeed being forced by the state to give birth against their will.

If that’s not the case please explain what your position is as it’s either for making it legal or illegal?

**** I am against all women being forced to give birth against their will. But I am also against late-term termination of a fully developed viable living human being unless there is a dam good reason for it.

I too would like to know the reasons for such but there must be good ones as I don’t think women do it without having pretty good reasons 

****If you want to call me something in regard to the abortion debate then call me pro-choice in the sense that I choose not to accept either of those dichotomous viewpoints.

Yes but you and I don’t have to accept either of these positions as they don’t impact on is if they did our positions would become very clear 

 *****Also, just because I am uncomfortable with something is irrelevant and I also acknowledge that I cannot make an argument purely based on an uncomfortable feeling, and I have not done so yet. 

I know it’s irrelevant but you mentioned it regards a comment you made and it’s that I was addressing 

****Lastly, with regard to being forced against our will, that argument can only go so far. The truth is we're all legally, morally and ethically bound to some degree according to society and societal rules, whether we like it or not. 

Thats true but you’re missing one thing and that is abortion is legal in most countries so using that rationale one can say we are legally , morally and ethically bound to those self same rules to respect a woman’s right to abort 

John_C_87

All Pro-Life supporters are trying to do is fight for that life.

1.       As a group the Pro-life supporters do not know that as fact as they do not have the information to make that statement. “Fighting to save that life.”

2.       A medical Doctor does not even have all the facts to say it is the woman alone who is making the choice to terminate the immigration process of birth.

3.       All that has been done is the creation of two civil right argument A.) Malpractice. B.) Discrimination. It should be noted that the female on female discrimination is one of the discriminations taking place which is not addressed.

4.       What do you see? I see a group attempting to justify a murder that is said to take place without any proof being presented in a safe manner.

5.       What do I not see? An attempt by females in general to address an equality between them in relationship to the union they may share with pregnancies.

All woman officially end a similar life by allowing the egg to remain unfertile by choice. A united state here is that both groups of women stop an immigration into a nation. As all understanding is not available. Simply said many nations as a governing body already had a legal Constitutional right to limit immigrations currently in progress in relationship to their supreme powers and authority.

John_C_87

@RickeyD ;

"Cruel and unusual punishment."
A woman who does not become pregnant is in fact performing an abortion on birth. She is knowingly officerly ending a life. There is an address to discrimination that must be met between woman being created.

An egg, a sperm, a baby, a organism described medically between egg, sperm, and baby have a constitutional right. Where we the people can preserve a united state constitutional right not all those who have the translation made by this united state cannot preserve it openly, this does not mean the are disqualified. This creates a issue on its own as the parent is the legal guardian of a child in all state of being, again creating legal precedent of its own.

The 14th Amendment has spoken and is ignored by all who dare use pregnancy abortion. It had been found to be unconstitutional by loss of privacy. A new clear argument is the united state constitutional declaration of independence state which describes female specific amputation as a process of limits to female immigration cross not just American border but all international border. 

ZeusAres42

@piloteer just briefly as I am responding on the fly at the moment . And I will come back address more later. I just like to clarify though that I didn't actually make any misrepresentation as I actually said that I am in agreement with late term abortion if the mothers life is at risk or the future life of baby is at grave risk. 

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42 ;
Do you not mean simply that if the future of the baby does not exist.

ZeusAres42

@Dee Well, I think you get my position now, at least to a certain extent anyway. However, I would like to get a more clear picture of your position now on the abortion debate.

So, are you saying that you agree with abortion all the way? For example, what about if a woman was a week just before birth and decided for some reason to now changing her mind about having a baby. In this scenario both the mother and father consented, there is no abnormality, the farther still wants the baby, no medical reason for abortion; the only reason is that the woman's reason is "Because I just don't want a baby now." Do you still believe that the woman should be able to abort? And do you think the woman should be able to abort because you also think a woman should have the right to do whatever they want with their body as it is their body?

piloteer

@RickeyD

I have no qualms being considered a servant of Satan. That is just a mythological character from your mythological book, just as Hell is a mythological place. Abortion is not a states rights issue because no state is allowed to violate the doctrine of the 14th amendment which grants us the libertie to make decisions regarding our own bodies. Decisions on what is inside and out of our bodies. Abortion is a federal right that is granted by the constitution.   

ZeusAres42

@piloteer

Also, I have stated the abortion legislation in the UK with others here too which is what I am in agreement with. Also, to my knowledge, the abortion debate is kind of unheard of now in the UK in comparison to other countries where this is still heavily debated. It does look like there is some common ground already here in the UK.

What is the abortion law in England, Scotland and Wales?

Abortions can take place in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy in England, Scotland and Wales. However, they have to be approved by two doctors. They must agree having the baby would pose a greater risk to the physical or mental health of the woman than a termination.Abortions were illegal before the the introduction of the 1967 Abortion Act, which initially allowed them to take place up to 28 weeks. This was reduced to 24 weeks in 1990. Abortions after 24 weeks are allowed only if:the woman's life is in danger, there is a severe fetal abnormality, the woman is at risk of grave physical and mental injury https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19856314

Also, feel free to crossreference that BBC article with the actual .gov.UK legislation sites:

• http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/contents
• http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/37/crossheading/abortion

My argument is not that I think it's immoral although morally complex to have late-term abortions. My point is, however, that some pro-choice advocates are claiming that you should be able to abort at any time even during labor all because the woman changes her mind and that they think someone should be able to do whatever they want with their body just because it's their body which I do not think is a very good reason for doing abortion.

RickeyD

@piloteer ; You'll have qualms for the foolishness of atheism/abortion the atomic-second you exhale your last. Abortion is murder and you are a conspirator in the mutilation of innocence and will suffer greatly for this offense toward God and His creation. 

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

Am I also correct in understanding that you think abortion should be ok at any time even during labour just because a woman changes her mind and a person should be able do whatever they want with their body because it's their body?

MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42

Whether it is "okay" or not depends on the individual view (in my view it is okay, but others may beg to differ). What is more relevant to the discussion is that it should be legal, because, yes, it is their body. Whether 1 day after pregnancy, or 1 second before childbirth - the person should have that option, otherwise they do not owe their body, and that is a bad aspect to have in a society.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

@ZeusAres42

Whether it is "okay" or not depends on the individual view (in my view it is okay, but others may beg to differ). What is more relevant to the discussion is that it should be legal, because, yes, it is their body. Whether 1 day after pregnancy, or 1 second before childbirth - the person should have that option, otherwise they do not owe their body, and that is a bad aspect to have in a society.

@MayCaesar   And if then they are told not to abort they are being forced against their will right?

So you should also have no issue with a female terrorist that decides to sit next to you and blow themselves up right? I mean, after all, it is their body is it not?

John_C_87

piloteer said:

@RickeyD

I have no qualms being considered a servant of Satan. That is just a mythological character from your mythological book, just as Hell is a mythological place. Abortion is not a states rights issue because no state is allowed to violate the doctrine of the 14th amendment which grants us the libertie to make decisions regarding our own bodies. Decisions on what is inside and out of our bodies. Abortion is a federal right that is granted by the constitution.   

Provided a woman understands clearly a simple constitutional right may not be legal, fare to say all woman have not been created equal on a constitutional level in any relationship to pregnancy. 

John_C_87

It is unclear if this matters to people, but no-one here has voiced a legal reason to not set a constitutional posture creating all woman in a united state of equality without prejudice. The constitutional posture being female specific amputation.

Abortion is not contrary it sets as malpractice a category of invasion of privacy.

Go ahead take the United state constitutional challenge ask if there is an objection to allowing all woman to seek female specific amputation? Before you ask what it is I will tell you that the process of F.S.A. is any number of medical procedures that a woman may undergo in relationship to pregnancy. Prejudice takes place between woman and holds a united state well past color of the woman's skin. 

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

@MayCaesar   And if then they are told not to abort they are being forced against their will right? 

So you should also have no issue with a female terrorist that decides to sit next to you and blow themselves up right? I mean, after all, it is their body is it not?

Telling someone something is not the same as forcing them against their will. You can tell a person planning to go through abortion not to have the abortion, and the person can say, "Thanks for your opinion; I will take it into account".

Am I inside the female terrorist's body, feeding on her against her will? If so, then, indeed, she is free to blow herself up along with me - realistically, however, only several parts of my body can be inside hers, and I am conscious enough to pull them out as soon as she revokes her consent. If I do not pull them out, well... Depending on the seriousness of the situation, her blowing herself up may be warranted.  
If not, then I am an autonomous being, in no way connected to her body, so she cannot blow herself up without my consent.
Of course, this is a purely rhetorical question; realistically, she can blow herself up at any point under any circumstances without being prosecuted, as there is no one left to prosecute at the end.

RickeyD

@John_C_87 ; No one has a right to murder a baby and man, in or absent a black robe, does not possess the authority to murder innocence. Abortion is murder and anyone who supports, advocates, votes for, participates in the mutilation of babies in the womb will suffer greatly before their second death in Hell lest they repent.

John_C_87

RickeyD said:

@John_C_87 ; No one has a right to murder a baby and man, in or absent a black robe, does not possess the authority to murder innocence. Abortion is murder and anyone who supports, advocates, votes for, participates in the mutilation of babies in the womb will suffer greatly before their second death in Hell lest they repent.

I will type slower for you.... female     specific      amputation     is     not      abortion,      pregnancy      abortion,      nor birth abortion.     FSA   is     not      an      admission      to      murder      for      all     woman    either.      What murder?        I know abortion is murder and according to the supreme court it is also an invasion of privacy but no one  appears interested in arresting woman who do not get pregnant so they can commit murder by Pregnancy abortion, there appears to be prejudice toward woman, by woman in relationship to pregnancy.  

Dee

@ZeusAres42


***** So, are you saying that you agree with abortion all the way?
 

I think if a woman has a valid reason , sure . I think most women who do so would do because their reasons are valid otherwise why would they do it?

 ****For example, what about if a woman was a week just before birth and decided for some reason to now changing her mind about having a baby. In this scenario both the mother and father consented, there is no abnormality, the farther still wants the baby, no medical reason for abortion; the only reason is that the woman's reason is "Because I just don't want a baby now." Do you still believe that the woman should be able to abort?

You see here’s the problem extreme cases like this are always put forward but never the reverse , quoting extremes like this just demonstrate you will always get extremes like this woman who is clearly unbalanced and in need of psychiatric help 

 ****And do you think the woman should be able to abort because you also think a woman should have the right to do whatever they want with their body as it is their body? 

No I never made that case nor would I , but in the case of abortion that right should not be taken away to do so is tyranny nothing less 

John_C_87

Telling all woman with prejudice they all must self-incriminate is a tyranny.

Proving a right is a wrong is not taking something away it is insuring the legal precedent that was constitutional made identified as wrong is understood clearly. The only problem with pregnancy abortion which is in who truth birth abortion is the Court ruling on invasion of privacy. Though one woman will show prejudice towards another woman does not mean that right translates to legislation of law as a right. A practice of law must also address the perjury that takes place on official medical records as doctors are licensed by the state of law they are held.

Female specific amputation may be birth abortion, a woman official relieving the state licensed medical doctor of stopping a life, it may not. What it is not, a woman asking to make an admission to state licensed medical group placing this prejudice on record, in writing. Who died and left you judge, a baby was described publicly as having been murder. That is who. Who holds the pen which is to be mightier then the sword? you are.

piloteer

@ZeusAres42

I personally fail to see what is wrong with a woman making a decision regarding her body, but I understand you may have your reservations about that point. Some food for thought though. It seems to me you agree that a woman should not be forced to go through with a pregnancy if her physical or mental health are at risk. But what if it is deemed that she will not be put in mental or physical health, but she doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy? Could that possibly be a circumstance that in and of itself may put her health at risk? If she doesn't want the child, is she more prone to seek "alternative" measures to have an abortion? If that is the case, wouldn't it be obvious to conclude that she is now in serious mental and physical risk?

  https://www.newscientist.com/article/2148066-hundreds-of-uk-women-are-seeking-illegal-abortions-online/

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preventing-unsafe-abortion

History has shown that women who do not have access to safe and reliable abortions are at risk of seeking out illegal abortions. The want to seek unreliable medical care regarding her abortion is because of a mental issue caused by being forced to have a baby she doesn't want. And because all she has to rely on is second rate medical care, she is put in severe physical risk. I find it hard to find a balance when all this is in play. Especially since we both agree that women shouldn't be forced to be put at risk. 

John_C_87

Please tell me how self-incrimination is in any way safe medical care? 
Reliable medical care would be a female specific amputation no woman is forced to have a baby all woman are required to give birth to a citizen of a nation on behalf of a person other then herself.