Why don't pro-lifers think rationally?

Lursa said:

Um, that's not true. And Removable Mind used to be here alot. I miss him.

Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:

I'm not changing anything, but pointing out the distortion in your opinion as it relates to "reality".

If a woman's pregnancy is terminated by either nature or civil authorities, then obviously that is not "choice". In this country civil authorities can't force a woman to have an abortion. But in this country a woman has the legal right of "choice" to terminate or not terminate based on constitutional grounds, but not without restrictions.

As of this date, Roe v. Wade does define "choice" because it sets the legal precedence that when a woman goes to a medical provider that that relationship is private, not for public access. That also includes medical procedures that are performed, which is the direct result of a woman's "choice" and consent to be the recipient of such a procedure that involves terminating a pregnancy within the boundaries of the law.

The exception to that privacy is that states the right to statistical information...only. Meaning that a record is maintained regarding statistical data for fetal deaths, which include abortions. No incriminating data should be collected or disseminated for pubic use.

Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:

Well, it seems that some organizations who are leaders in the pro-choice movement don't agree.



You do understand what "OPTION TO CHOOSE" means....????

Abortion :: NARAL Pro-Choice America

When I've seen rallies, more in particular in Austin, the arguments before the Texas legislators have always centered about the "right to choose".

Option to choose, right to choose...is the core argument because what your implying is that all pro-choice are pro-abortion. That's simply not the case.

Pro-abortion advocates don't necessarily subscribe to the same boundaries per se as pro-choice. A hell of a lot of pro-choice advocates...those who won't ever be in a situation to have to make that "choice" or some even say, "I personally would never choose to have an abortion, but I support the right to choose for all women.

Obviously, you and I aren't going to agree on this. And both of us could google ourselves till hell freezes over. So, I suggest that we agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

Um, that's not true. And Removable Mind used to be here alot. I miss him.

Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:

Because of the limited number of characters allowed in a single post, I've made Part I and Part II on this topic.

Unintended Consequences of Constitutional Personhood Part I​

I’ve seen a number of pro-life posters in DP make the assertion that “Personhood for the Unborn” should be Constitutionally mandated. My observation is that most, if not all, pro-life advocates are simply not aware of the consequences of bestowing personhood on any or all stages of development.


Legislative efforts in various states have failed to enact bills for "personhood" for all stages of the unborn.


If passed and enforced, a "personhood" measure would affect the meaning of the criminal law, mandating harsh legal penalties for harm done to zygotes, embryos, and fetuses. Intentionally harming a zygote would be a crime of the same magnitude as harming a born infant, and intentionally killing a zygote would be murder.

Consider this: A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if, after deliberation, and with the intent to cause the death of a person. Thus, if a zygote is legally a person from the moment of fertilization, then any intentional act of preventing it from implanting (such as by taking the "morning after" pill) or aborting an embryo or fetus would be first-degree murder.

In my humble opinion, "personhood" bills presented thus far, if enacted and enforce would create a police-state nightmare for countless women, their partners, and their doctors.

The following is a partial list of “Unintended Consequences of Personhood”, which, for the most part, haven’t been presented to constituents by legislators when attempting to hustle them into voting in personhood laws:


1. Personhood would outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, terminally deformed fetuses, and danger to the woman's health. It would prohibit doctors from performing abortions except perhaps in some cases to save the life of the woman, thereby endangering the lives and health of many women.


2. Personhood measures would provoke many years of legal battles in legislatures and courts, ensnaring women and their partners and doctors in expensive, time-consuming, and potentially liberty-infringing civil or criminal proceedings.


3. By giving a fertilized egg, an embryo, or a fetus “all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to born persons who are qualified citizens” Personhood Status. In other words, Personhood Status for the unborn is also creating a new class of legal persons. However, personhood status for the unborn automatically creates an underclass - fertile women – that would no longer be deserving of equal treatment under the law. It would subject them to severe legal restrictions, police controls, and in many cases protracted court battles and criminal punishments.

4. By granting the embryo equal protection of the laws, the state would be forced to deny the same to the woman.


5. A man’s body would not be subjected to the same scrutiny.


6. Personhood laws would allow the government to infringe upon one of citizens’ most fundamental rights, the right to privacy free from governmental intrusion.


7. By the new definition, a miscarriage is essentially an unexplained death of a “person”. Must the state then issue a death certificate, investigate every pregnancy loss, and consider the womb a crime scene or require a coroner’s report?


8. If we bestow a person status on any embryo, must we then transfer any embryo, healthy or not, into the womb during the in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure? Should a laboratory technician be prosecuted for murder if some embryos do not survive laboratory conditions?

9. The 14th Amendment instructs us to carry out a census every 10 years. Must we then count all millions of embryo “persons” in frozen storage in IVF labs throughout the U.S.? Granting personhood to an embryo could potentially result in questioning census results.


10. Since both Federal and State Tax Codes will be affected. If you have a woman who might experience two, three, four miscarriages in a year, can she claim those unborn people on her taxes?

...

Again, there are so many consequences and too many to list all in one thread so…..

PLEASE GO TO “UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of CONSTITUTIONAL PERSONHOOD PART II

Click to expand...