• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:869]

Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

That is a stupid remark...

Actually, I thought it was quick and clever, but it doesn't surprise me that you didn't understand it. Comprehension doesn't seem to be a strong suit with you guys...
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

I do read everything you write ...
OK, but it sure seems to me that some of your writing indicates otherwise. That's why I felt I needed to reiterate certain things, like Christianity interpreting "born again" differently than literally.

Yes, I'm well aware that's the only part that matters to you. Context means nothing.
IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, nothing about the context changed the depiction of God interacting with a soul before the soul's body began to exist. That's why the part I focused on was the only part that mattered.

You do realize, however, that God made everything. He formed everything. He created everything:
AN UNPROVED CLAIM. Not to mention PARTLY FALSE; God most certainly did not create everything in the manner described in the Bible. Only an ignoramus would have done it that way!

WHY CREATIONISTS THINK GOD IS STUPID

God did not know that the Big Bang could produce clouds of hydrogen gas, so He had to Create them, Himself.
God did not know that Gravitation could coalesce the clouds into galaxies and stars, so He had to Create them, too.
God did not know that if some of the stars were very big, they would shine very brightly, use up their hydrogen very quickly, create heavy elements in the process, and finally explode, seeding Space with clouds of dust, so He had to Create the dust clouds, Himself.
God did not know that the clouds of dust could mix with slower-coalescing gas clouds, and ultimately Gravitation could cause stars accompanied by Earthlike planets to form, so He had to Create the Earth Himself.
God did not know that when ultraviolet sunlight, geothermal heat, lightning discharges, and radiation from rocks bombard simple chemical molecules (like water, carbon dioxide,
ammonia, methane, and various salts), and did so for millions of years, then complex organic molecules could gradually form, break, interact, reform, re-interact, rebreak, and reform in multitudinous ways.
Also, God did not know that some organic molecules are tougher than others, and could tend to persist.
God did not even know that less stable molecules could randomly obtain a degree of protection if they managed to loosely link to the more stable ones.
Certainly God was ignorant of the fact that loose groupings of molecules constitute a crude degree of organization, and that an energy-rich environment could naturally promote more stable organizations over the less stable.
We hardly need mention God's further unawareness of the simple fact that the more stable an organization is, the more complex it is capable of becoming.
Yes, it is entirely due to God's lack of knowledge of the principles of feedback (wherein simple chemistry, energy, and Time could combine to drive molecular organization toward enormously complex dynamic stability) that God had to Create Life all by Himself.
This same lack of information about the evolutionary process ultimately forced God to Create sexual reproduction and multicellular life, also; He merely made it look like a billion years or two had passed, before He got around to it.
Then there was all the experimentation with life-forms that God had to conduct, occasionally rejecting up to 90% of them at once with global extinction events, before finally populating the land masses with various mammalian types.
And God is so unoriginal with His Creation that he had to maintain the same amino acids and genetic code, from viruses to bacteria, through every plant and animal.
Further proof of God's lack of originality comes from the fact that the more closely two species resemble each other, the more genes they usually have in common. Why, God only needed to alter 2% of chimpanzee genes to "Create" Man. As if chimps and humans couldn't possibly have merely evolved 1% in different
directions from a common ancestor.

A PERFECT GOD WOULD GET CREATION RIGHT THE FIRST TIME! ONLY AN INFERIOR ENTITY WOULD HAVE TO TWEAK AND TWIDDLE WITH CREATION, UNTIL MAN FINALLY APPEARED ON THE SCENE.

When Creationists Accept the Evolution of Galaxies, Stars, Planets, Life, and Man as a Masterpiece of Total Omniscience Regarding the Consequences of Just One Act, Only Then Will They Cease Insulting God's Know-How!

Then again, I'm talking about context, so I'm sure you're not interested
The context that describes God as a bumbling ignoramus? Of course not!
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

The term tentative
IS YOUR DELUSION, NOT MINE. I provided a link that explains in detail the Formal Difference between a hypothesis and a theory, and the word "tentative" is not there.

doesn't mean guess,
IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH "THEORY", EITHER. Newton's Laws of Motion are part of a Theory that is not in the least "tentative". The most that happened to that Theory was, it turned out to be a "special case" of a larger Theory ("Relativity"). In fact it is a special case of another larger Theory, as well ("Quantum Mechanics"). "Tentative" is for "Hypothesis", and can change as extra data is collected. But once a Hypothesis starts fitting the data accurately, it becomes less and less "tentative", and more and more Theory.

it means provisional, and that's exactly what theories are, regardless of the amount of data that supports them.
MOSTLY FALSE. Nowadays we have such a VAST collection of supporting data for our various Theories that it is practically impossible to "overthrow" one. The most we can expect is that it might get relegated to "special case" status of a larger Theory. Within that special case, there will not be anything "provisional" about the earlier Theory. What you are talking about only happens when some new field of research is opened up (example: high-temperature superconductivity in copper-oxide ceramics), and the available relevant data is insufficient for anyone to be sure that a particular guess/Hypothesis is correct. (Years later, we still don't know exactly why those superconductors superconduct.) I will admit that scientists sometimes "jump the gun" in too-soon calling a Hypothesis a Theory. But their mis-use of the labels does not mean the labels are at fault.

Any Scientist that's worth his degree, and isn't also being political and/or bias for personal reasons, will tell you that.
HAH! The fact that some scientists jump the gun as described above means that you have to pick one of those scientists to support your flawed opinion.
 
Last edited:
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

Your dishonesty has to come to a stop sooner or later. So you want to "ONCE AGAIN" see the dirt on Wilson displayed for all to read? Gladly.
Why didn't you post the link when I previously asked you to share it? Now, the article states:


"...during those years he was the object of much criticism and barely escaped impeachment."​


He wasn't even impeached. Do you not know that during George Washington's time the President and many other govt officials were subject to numerous threats of impeachment? James Wilson, with so many political enemies who even wanted to kill him, was no exception.


The article does not say what the threat of impeachment was about. You tried to relate it to his debt. If running away from debt is dirt than our federal govt have been bailing out plenty of dirt from the financial tycoons during the housing bubble burst. If having debt is a high crime, then Hillary Clinton should be impeached for receiving at least $100 million from the islamic gulf state nations plus other high crimes that put our nation at risk.


But, your attempt at character assassination of James Wilson is a logical fallacy. Because, at issue in this debate is not about his character, but it's all about what he said in his document "Of the Natural Rights of Individuals" which he wrote in 1790. In it he says:


"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.26 By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger."​


The highlight part of his 1790 statement that says: "human life, from its commencement to its close" is confirmed by the 20th -21st century Science of Human Embryology that says:


1. "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."
[Clark Edward Corliss. Patten's Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30]


2. "Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being."


[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


3. "Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1977, p. 12]


4. "Deveopment is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovium) is fertilized by a spermatozoon (sperm) and ends at death."
[Moore, Keith L. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1977, p. 1]​


So, like I said before, it doesn't matter what kind of character you have, if you state a statement of truth, such as 1 + 1 = 2, if doesn't change the fact of truth even if you're a murderer.
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

i am with you on the supreme court legislating from the bench,i am about the 10th amendment states rights and limited government .
federal government over reach lies at the feet of the congress and the president and the court,that is why mr trump has won the primarys ,the inaction of the republicans in both houses had driven my vote to trump and that is where my vote will stay.


run don run

The 10th amendment is not about limited govt.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

The Constitution gives the States and the people all the powers that were not delegated to the US, i.e. the Federal govt nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States. So, neither the President nor the Congress nor the SC can prohibit or strike down or decriminalize State laws enacted by State Legislatures to criminalize criminal offenses such as State antiabortion laws. Abortion was a crime that deprive human life that the 5th and 14th amendment specifically prohibited. States were constitutionally right in enacting criminal laws against it. The Roe SC violated the Constitution when it legislated from the bench, a power not delegated by the Constitution. It also violated the 5th and 14th amendment when it strikes down States' antiabortion laws that were enacted to protect human life in the womb.
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

That has always been my argument.
Women should be able to choose have an abortion if they don't want to give birth , or if they don't want to chance a possible problem pregnancy, or if they do not want to give birth to a malformed infant.
It should be the woman's choice to be able to choose an abortion before viability.

It should be between the woman and her doctor with input from her husband, lover, clergy , trusted friend , or whomever else she wishes to consult with.

Yes, the belief that "Women should be able to choose have an abortion" has always been your argument. Nobody here is arguing that it isn't, is it?

The argument you brought up for debate leading up to this point is about the HELLP syndrome that you claimed women would die if abortion is made illegal? So, why are you suddenly switching the debate point, which you yourself have brought, when defeated instead of simply conceding that you are wrong?

So, you have this tendency to jump from one debate issue to other issue and then further into another issue and back again whenever you're defeated as a way to run away from acknowledging wrong. So then later down the line you will bring up the same old lies again and again in other threads as if they hadn't been addressed, year after year. That's you M.O.
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

Why didn't you post the link when I previously asked you to share it? Now, the article states:


"...during those years he was the object of much criticism and barely escaped impeachment."​

The article does not say what the threat of impeachment was about. You tried to relate it to his debt.

....

From the following article:

Wilson, who wrote only a few opinions, did not achieve the success on the Supreme Court that his capabilities and experience promised. Indeed, during those years he was the object of much criticism and barely escaped impeachment. For one thing, he tried to influence the enactment of legislation in Pennsylvania favorable to land speculators. Between 1792 and 1795 he also made huge but unwise land investments in western New York and Pennsylvania, as well as in Georgia. This did not stop him from conceiving a grandiose but ill-fated scheme, involving vast sums of European capital, for the recruitment of European colonists and their settlement in the West.

Read more:

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention: James Wilson
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

Yes, the belief that "Women should be able to choose have an abortion" has always been your argument. Nobody here is arguing that it isn't, is it?

The argument you brought up for debate leading up to this point is about the HELLP syndrome that you claimed women would die if abortion is made illegal? So, why are you suddenly switching the debate point, which you yourself have brought, when defeated instead of simply conceding that you are wrong?

So, you have this tendency to jump from one debate issue to other issue and then further into another issue and back again whenever you're defeated as a way to run away from acknowledging wrong. So then later down the line you will bring up the same old lies again and again in other threads as if they hadn't been addressed, year after year. That's you M.O.

I never said women who have help syndrome should abort.

Women who have ectopic should however abort if the pregnancy is not already self aborting.

I made the statement that:

So about 1 out 10 pregnancies can be life threatening just from 2 of the many types of life threatening complications.... eclampsia variants and ectopic pregnancies.


You concluded on your own that I was saying women who got HELLP syndrome should abort even though I said my daughter was very ill when she had HELLP syndrome and the doctors performed an emergency c-section.

The doctors saved her life when they took the blood tests and knowing she had HELLP syndrome they performed the c-section.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I have stated many times that women who want children will knowingly ( not willingly ) risk their health because they want an addition to their family. They want to give birth but those who do not want to continue a pregnancy before viability should never be
forced to as their health may be adversely affected or they might even lose their life against their will.
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

Actually, I thought it was quick and clever
Yea, you would, but let me dispel your delusion. It was stupid and it was so because it had no basis, I did not attempt to explain scripture or offer an opinion on who understands it. That was you.
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

Yea, you would, but let me dispel your delusion. It was stupid and it was so because it had no basis, I did not attempt to explain scripture or offer an opinion on who understands it. That was you.

But you're the one that's implying I'm twisting and distorting the Bible to mislead people. Just like you're doing here...just like the other post...and just like the Muslim within that post.

Forget it. Logic doesn't seem to be a strong suit with you guys either....
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

You highlighted from the article the following:


'For one thing, he tried to influence the enactment of legislation in Pennsylvania favorable to land speculators."​


You presented no details of what that favorable "influence" was about, yet you present it as though that in itself is enough a conviction of Wilson's fraudulent character?

Land speculation was an American frontier movement phenomenon that began with the first settlement beginning with the first days of European settlement on the Atlantic coast and the eastern rivers. Colonial leaders such as George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, Benjamin Franklin, the Whartons, and George Croghan were also involved in land speculation.

The land speculation phenomenon of settlement expansion across the wild west is far different from our present day land and property speculation of the 2007 - 2008 housing bubbles crisis that rippled worldwide. Not only the financial tycoon CEOs behind all these devious trading practices that lined their own pockets with obscene profits at the expanse of average Joes' life savings, but also they were rewarded with bonuses when Congress and Obama stepped in and bailed them out with tax payers' hard earn money instead of letting them file bankruptcy.

Wilson took the hit himself with the burst of the land speculation bubble and lost what he owned. He did not pocket blood and sweat money from scamming others. He was in jail for a time and became destitute to the day he died. He had to flee because there was no bankruptcy laws then to protect debtors from angry creditors who would demand full payment at once. If Wilson had to suffer the persecution, shouldn't the financial swindlers of our time of the 2007-2008 housing bubbles they created be put in prison for their scams and the President and Congressmen who approved the bailout be impeached and sent to prison also?


Having said that, again, this thread topic is not about a person's character. Debate the the premise of the argument pertaining to this topic. Enough of this red herring discussion. So, please stay on topic, will you?
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86


I never said women who have help syndrome should abort.

Women who have ectopic should however abort if the pregnancy is not already self aborting.

I made the statement that:

So about 1 out 10 pregnancies can be life threatening just from 2 of the many types of life threatening complications.... eclampsia variants and ectopic pregnancies.


You concluded on your own that I was saying women who got HELLP syndrome should abort even though I said my daughter was very ill when she had HELLP syndrome and the doctors performed an emergency c-section.

The doctors saved her life when they took the blood tests and knowing she had HELLP syndrome they performed the c-section.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I have stated many times that women who want children will knowingly ( not willingly ) risk their health because they want an addition to their family. They want to give birth but those who do not want to continue a pregnancy before viability should never be
forced to as their health may be adversely affected or they might even lose their life against their will.
So now you are going to drag this debate into ectopic pregnancy instead of admitting that you're wrong on HELLP?

Where did I ever claim that you said women who have HELLP syndrome should abort? Can you please be honest in your debate tactics instead of being so devious? I said you claimed women would die (referring to preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome) if abortion is made illegal? Is that not your position?

Yes, the doctors in the hospital saved your daughter's life when they took the blood tests that not only confirmed she had HELLP syndrome but her platelet count is dropping fast. They had the operating room to immediately performed the c-section. Had she gone to the abortionist with the $25,000 upfront to pad his pocket, she would be dead on the abortion table for sure. The same goes with ectopic pregnancy. In early ectopic pregnancy without bleeding, if it had not result in natural miscarriage, medical treatment is an option that can be done in the medical facility by actual doctors. In later stage, surgery is the only option which the abortionists cannot perform and the risk of rupture is also a factor. So, either way, outlawing abortion mills and PPH by old State antiabortion laws will not affect pregnant women with life-threatening medical conditions.

The issue about those "do not want to continue a pregnancy before viability should never be" had been debated thoroughly for almost a thousand post that bring us to this point about life-threatening medical situation. We had gone through the DOI, the 5th and 14th amendments plus others in the Constitution, Roe v Wade, right to privacy, medical privacy, right to abortion, viability, 1 U.S. Code § 8, personhood, Science of Human Embryology, Congressional testimonies, views from law professors and constitutional legal scholars, etc ... etc ... up to this life threatening medical issue and now you want to go back to square one to rehash everything all over again?
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

But you're the one that's implying I'm twisting and distorting the Bible to mislead people.
You should improve your reading comprehension before commenting on logic.
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

Awesome!!!
over 1000 posts and the OP is still failing, it has been factually debunked since its author has views that also deprive life and violated a person's right to life LMAO :shrug:
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

So now you are going to drag this debate into ectopic pregnancy instead of admitting that you're wrong on HELLP?

Where did I ever claim that you said women who have HELLP syndrome should abort? Can you please be honest in your debate tactics instead of being so devious? I said you claimed women would die (referring to preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome) if abortion is made illegal? Is that not your position?

Yes, the doctors in the hospital saved your daughter's life when they took the blood tests that not only confirmed she had HELLP syndrome but her platelet count is dropping fast. They had the operating room to immediately performed the c-section.

I was never wrong about HELLP syndrome.
I never said having an abortion would save a woman once she got HELLP syndrome.

You do not understand the difference apparently.
I said all that stuff you said about late term abortions was irrevelant.
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

I was never wrong about HELLP syndrome.
I never said having an abortion would save a woman once she got HELLP syndrome.

You do not understand the difference apparently.
I said all that stuff you said about late term abortions was irrevelant.
OK then, for the record, please tell us exactly what you want to say about HELLP when you bring it up in this abortion debate. Please be very clear and concise, what you intent to say so there will be no misunderstanding. Go!
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

OK then, for the record, please tell us exactly what you want to say about HELLP when you bring it up in this abortion debate. Please be very clear and concise, what you intent to say so there will be no misunderstanding. Go!

I will say what I have said before.


Any pregnancy complication can become life threatening.
We never know when a loved ones pregnancy might turn life threatening.


About 8 percent of all pregnancies carry the risk of death due to preeclampsia,eclampsia, HELLP syndrome and other variants of the syndrome. Each one of the 8 percent who gets those syndromes may end up dying.



My daughter had HELLP syndrome with her pregnancy and she was very close to death when they performed the emergency
C section.


She went to the ER a few weeks before her due date because she was getting a horrible pain in her back.


Her OB/GYN was shocked when her test results came back showing she had HELLP syndrome. She had just seen him a couple days before and everything with the pregnancy appeared fine then.

My daughter was one the up to 8 percent of women in the US who every year developes 'preeclampsia, eclampsia, or a related condition such as HELLP syndrome." Thankfully she was not one of the roughly 300 US women who do die every year but she was one of the roughly 75,000 US women every year who are counted as near misses.

From the following article:

Every year in the U.S., up to 8 percent, or 300,000, of pregnant or postpartum women
develop preeclampsia, eclampsia, or a related condition such as HELLP syndrome.

Roughly 300 women die, and another 75,000 women experience “near misses”—severe complications and injury such as organ failure, massive blood loss, permanent disability, and premature birth or death of their babies.

Usually, the disease resolves with the birth of the baby and placenta. But, it can occur postpartum—indeed, most maternal deaths occur after delivery.

'''Downton Abbey''' death: Preeclampsia still kills today - TODAY.com

Beyond Downton Abbey: Preeclampsia Maternal Deaths Continue Today - The Daily Beast


No one knows why some women get HELLP syndrome.

More about HELLP syndrome:

HELLP syndrome is a life-threatening pregnancy complication usually considered to be a variant of preeclampsia.

HELLP syndrome was named by Dr. Louis Weinstein in 1982 after its characteristics:

H (hemolysis, which is the breaking down of red blood cells)
EL (elevated liver enzymes)
LP (low platelet count)


HELLP syndrome can be difficult to diagnose, especially when high blood pressure and protein in the urine aren't present.

Its symptoms are sometimes mistaken for gastritis, flu, acute hepatitis, gall bladder disease, or other conditions.

The global mortality rate of HELLP syndrome has been reported to be as high as 25%.
....

Risk of Getting HELLP in Future Pregnancies

Women with a history of HELLP syndrome are at increased risk of all forms of preeclampsia in subsequent pregnancies. The rate of preeclampsia in subsequent pregnancies ranges from 16 to 52%, with higher rates if the onset of HELLP syndrome was in the second trimester. The rate of recurrent HELLP syndrome ranges from 2 to 19%depending upon the patient population studied.

HELLP Syndrome: Preeclampsia Foundation
 
Last edited:
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

I will say what I have said before.


Any pregnancy complication can become life threatening.
We never know when a loved ones pregnancy might turn life threatening.


About 8 percent of all pregnancies carry the risk of death due to preeclampsia,eclampsia, HELLP syndrome and other variants of the syndrome. Each one of the 8 percent who gets those syndromes may end up dying.



My daughter had HELLP syndrome with her pregnancy and she was very close to death when they performed the emergency
C section.


She went to the ER a few weeks before her due date because she was getting a horrible pain in her back.


Her OB/GYN was shocked when her test results came back showing she had HELLP syndrome. She had just seen him a couple days before and everything with the pregnancy appeared fine then.

My daughter was one the up to 8 percent of women in the US who every year developes 'preeclampsia, eclampsia, or a related condition such as HELLP syndrome." Thankfully she was not one of the roughly 300 US women who do die every year but she was one of the roughly 75,000 US women every year who are counted as near misses.

From the following article:


'''Downton Abbey''' death: Preeclampsia still kills today - TODAY.com

Beyond Downton Abbey: Preeclampsia Maternal Deaths Continue Today - The Daily Beast


No one knows why some women get HELLP syndrome.

More about HELLP syndrome:



HELLP Syndrome: Preeclampsia Foundation
I asked you to tell us specifically about why you brought it up in this abortion debate. So, you're just posting a bunch of medical information for the sake of providing medical information without make any statement or connection whatsoever about abortion in the abortion forum? What next? Are you going to post something about blackheads, whiteheads and acne treatment or Anorexia Nervosa?


Well, I know there's no medical info & advice sub-forum on DP, perhaps next time if you feel like posting medical or health info you might want to post them at Self-help & advice sub-forum.
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

I asked you to tell us specifically about why you brought it up in this abortion debate. So, you're just posting a bunch of medical information for the sake of providing medical information without make any statement or connection whatsoever about abortion in the abortion forum? What next? Are you going to post something about blackheads, whiteheads and acne treatment or Anorexia Nervosa?


Well, I know there's no medical info & advice sub-forum on DP, perhaps next time if you feel like posting medical or health info you might want to post them at Self-help & advice sub-forum.

I will bring up the info when others make comments to the effect ....that the woman cannot/should not make her own health decisions regarding a pregnancy.

I was responding to one such poster on this thread when I brought up Preeclamsia/eclampsia/HELLP syndrome ( which are all considered variants of eclampsia ) and ectopic pregnacies which are only 2 of the many life threatening complications a woman may have during pregnancy.

No woman should ever be forced to a continue a pregnancy before viability if she chooses not to take the very real threat of a pregnancy complication.
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

I will bring up the info when others make comments to the effect ....that the woman cannot/should not make her own health decisions regarding a pregnancy.


I was responding to one such poster on this thread when I brought up Preeclamsia/eclampsia/HELLP syndrome ( which are all considered variants of eclampsia ) and ectopic pregnacies which are only 2 of the many life threatening complications a woman may have during pregnancy.


No woman should ever be forced to a continue a pregnancy before viability if she chooses not to take the very real threat of a pregnancy complication.
The one such poster you're referring to is csense. He was responding to Korimyr's post about "the right to self-defense trumps the right to due process". And Korimyr was replying to my post about the Constitution prohibiting the govt from depriving life. Nothing in those debate was about medical emergency situation until you draw a red herring that ended up a flop.


Your original post to csense was post #912. Your last post was a copy and paste job from post #912 and post #931 except you conveniently left out your statement about abortion where you said:


"But after my personal experiences I could never support a law or a country that would force a woman to risk her life and not allow an abortion.


On the other side of the coin I would never support a law or a country that would force a woman to have an abortion."​


Why did you purposely left out that part? Because you know I have defeated that baloney. If you were to bring it up you know I'm going to tear it apart as I had already did previously. And that is, allowing an abortion at abortion mill or PPH will only risk a woman's life in any medical life-threatening situation. Pregnant women with medical life-threatening situation can only have a saving chance at the hospital where they will attempt to save both her life and her unborn baby's life. And that procedure is allowed when abortion was a crime by States' antiabortion law.
 
Last edited:
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

I asked you to tell us specifically about why you brought it up in this abortion debate. So, you're just posting a bunch of medical information for the sake of providing medical information without make any statement or connection whatsoever about abortion in the abortion forum? What next? Are you going to post something about blackheads, whiteheads and acne treatment or Anorexia Nervosa?


Well, I know there's no medical info & advice sub-forum on DP, perhaps next time if you feel like posting medical or health info you might want to post them at Self-help & advice sub-forum.

I think what Minnie is trying to say is women are justified in killing prenatal humans since there is a chance the pregnancy may turn life threatening. That's what I got out if her recent posts from skimming them. I could be wrong though.
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

I think what Minnie is trying to say is women are justified in killing prenatal humans since there is a chance the pregnancy may turn life threatening. That's what I got out if her recent posts from skimming them. I could be wrong though.
Then we are back to square one on the original discussion about the US Constitution. The 5th and the 14th amendment specifically prohibit depriving life. That was the debate minnie jumped in with her medical life-threatening baloney. It's still a flop either way.

Oh, btw, a pregnant woman with medical life-threatening condition will have absolutely no chance at the abortion mills or PPH.
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

The one such poster you're referring to is csense. He was responding to Korimyr's post about "the right to self-defense trumps the right to due process". And Korimyr was replying to my post about the Constitution prohibiting the govt from depriving life. Nothing in those debate was about medical emergency situation until you draw a red herring that ended up a flop.


Your original post to csense was post #912. Your last post was a copy and paste job from post #912 and post #931 except you conveniently left out your statement about abortion where you said:


"But after my personal experiences I could never support a law or a country that would force a woman to risk her life and not allow an abortion.


On the other side of the coin I would never support a law or a country that would force a woman to have an abortion."​


Why did you purposely left out that part? Because you know I have defeated that baloney. If you were to bring it up you know I'm going to tear it apart as I had already did previously. And that is, allowing an abortion at abortion mill or PPH will only risk a woman's life in any medical life-threatening situation. Pregnant women with medical life-threatening situation can only have a saving chance at the hospital where they will attempt to save both her life and her unborn baby's life. And that procedure is allowed when abortion was a crime by States' antiabortion law.

You did not defeat what I said.

I have made that statement many dozens of times and you are the only one who seems to say/imply I was taking about abortions for a women in the last trimester who had HELLP syndrome .


And I will reintegrate that after my personal experiences I never would support a law or country that forced a woman risk her life and not allow an abortion. [ ( before viability ) I should have said.]

And on the other side of the coin I would never support a law or a country that would force an abortion.
~~~~~~~~<<<

In many threads I add I would not support forcing an abortion even if the preemie/ infant would be so malformed it would cost taxpayers millions of dollars in medical bills.

Each woman should decide whether or not she wishes to a continue a pregnancy ( before viability).
 
Last edited:
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

You did not defeat what I said.

I have made that statement many dozens of times and you are the only one who seems to say/imply I was taking about abortions for a women in the last trimester who had HELLP syndrome .


And I will reintegrate that after my personal experiences I never would support a law or country that forced a woman risk her life and not allow an abortion. [ ( before viability ) I should have said.]

And on the other side of the coin I would never support a law or a country that would force an abortion.
~~~~~~~~<<<

In many threads I add I would not support forcing an abortion even if the preemie/ infant would be so malformed it would cost taxpayers millions of dollars in medical bills.

Each woman should decide whether or not she wishes to a continue a pregnancy ( before viability).

We are talking about the Constitution of the USA, not any other countries. Nor are we talking about communist China. So, please stop with your constant red herring.

Tell me, when in the history of our country did States' antiabortion laws forced a woman to risk her life and not allowed an abortion at any stages for a medical life-threatening situation?

The Constitution prohibits depriving life without due process whether you're a woman or a man. So, she can't just decide whether or not she wishes to a continue a pregnancy "before viability" to deprive life. And why "before viability"? So, in your world of "women's right to privacy", "women's right to abortion" and "women's right to her body", all these proabortion mantras just evaporate into the thin air after that magical moment where they are still left with a much bigger, riskier and heavier load?
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

I think what Minnie is trying to say is women are justified in killing prenatal humans since there is a chance the pregnancy may turn life threatening. That's what I got out if her recent posts from skimming them. I could be wrong though.

There are many inherent risks to pregnancy.

My pregnancy should have been healthy. Right age, right health, great childbearing hips.

By the time was said and done, I had a life threatening condition - because of great medical care and atop notch MD - was caught early enough to prevent total organ (kidney) failure.
There was a further complication having nothing to do with the life threatening condition that demanded a C-section.

All and all, I had some kidney damage, vascular damage, surgery with general anesthesia. 6 months off work.

If I was a typical woman seeking abortion with scant personal and financial resources, the end point could have included dialysis and homelessness. Or death.
 
Back
Top Bottom