Abortion Is Against Science And Common Sense, Its Murder

[Scrabaholic]

Adoption is ALWAYS an option. You feel, you cannot accept the responsibilities of raising a child, allow another family the opportunity.

Adoption is not an option for me. I am not a broodmare for the barren. Why should I risk my life to gestate and give birth just to pawn the child off on strangers to raise? It is not fair to the child or to me.

 

[Scrabaholic]

You're ignoring the health risks of having an abortion. That's no walk in the park either.

Gestation and childbirth are way more dangerous than legal abortion.

The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. - PubMed - NCBI

Once again, a woman can control her body parts. BUT an abortion is about killing an innocent human life, and removing it from their body.

Doesn't mean she can't remove it if she so chooses.

 

[maquiscat]

What does legalization of all drugs have to with Bodily autonomy?

Bodily autonomy would hold that you are allowed to put what ever you want into your body. Thus, by logical extension, making any type of drug illegal, in and of itself, is a violation of that bodily autonomy. For that matter, so are laws preventing suicide.


Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

There's a famous saying, it's not freedom, when you compromise other people's freedoms. In the case of pregnancies, we have two lives here. .

What 'freedom' is being compromised for the unborn? It has zero capacity to exercise any right of freedom. It is "wholly" dependent on the mother. When it is born *and capable of exercising it,* it will have the same right to freedom as other people.

 

[maquiscat]

What 'freedom' is being compromised for the unborn? It has zero capacity to exercise any right of freedom. It is "wholly" dependent on the mother. When it is born *and capable of exercising it,* it will have the same right to freedom as other people.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, when it is born but not yet capable of exercising freedom, does it have any actual rights?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Playing Devil's Advocate here, when it is born but not yet capable of exercising freedom, does it have any actual rights?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

How is a born infant incapable of exercising freedom? Freedom to express itself (crying, cooing, demanding attention, etc). It moves at will, untethered or unrestricted. Of course, all kids are restricted to some extent...cribs, playpens, fences, rules. Not only that, that freedom can be enabled by other people without violating the will or rights of the woman (within the law or with due process).

 

[maquiscat]

How is a born infant incapable of exercising freedom? Freedom to express itself (crying, cooing, demanding attention, etc). It moves at will, untethered or unrestricted. Of course, all kids are restricted to some extent...cribs, playpens, fences, rules. Not only that, that freedom can be enabled by other people without violating the will or rights of the woman (within the law or with due process).

Actually a newborn does not move at will. It has no control nor true awareness, especially not of self.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Actually a newborn does not move at will. It has no control nor true awareness, especially not of self.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Incorrect. They cry. They start making eye contact. They clench and unclench their hands. They are aware of stimuli and immediately start recognizing which of their actions (like crying) get attention. I wrote 'start,' they start that process pretty much immediately. It's a cognitive function. It recognizes comfort & discomfort and acts accordingly.

If you believe the unborn has no voluntary reactions & awareness after birth, I'd like to see that sourced.

 

[minnie616]

Bodily autonomy would hold that you are allowed to put what ever you want into your body. Thus, by logical extension, making any type of drug illegal, in and of itself, is a violation of that bodily autonomy. For that matter, so are laws preventing suicide.


Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Actually , you are confusing bodily integrity with body autonomy.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.

Bodiliy Integrity would mean you can do with your body what you want but it is not absolute. The Supreme Court does have limits on bodily integrity regarding illegal drugs , prostitution, seat belt laws , helmet laws etc.

 

[BrotherFease]

It is INSIDE OF AND ATTACHED TO a woman's body. So it could be said to be part of her body.

The baby is in the uterus. It's not an actual member due to the DNA. By that logic, a pregnant woman can have 20 fingers.

 

[BrotherFease]

Incorrect. They cry. They start making eye contact. They clench and unclench their hands. They are aware of stimuli and immediately start recognizing which of their actions (like crying) get attention. I wrote 'start,' they start that process pretty much immediately. It's a cognitive function. It recognizes comfort & discomfort and acts accordingly.

If you believe the unborn has no voluntary reactions & awareness after birth, I'd like to see that sourced.

You're correct. Now we're getting into the bad region of being small makes something irrelevant.

 

[BrotherFease]

What does legalization of all drugs have to with Bodily autonomy?

I do not support the killing of human life.

I support the individual pregnant woman’s right to privacy, bodily autonomy, and Religious Liberty.

It is her legal choice to decide whether she wishes to continue her pregnancy or to have an abortion within the parameters of Roe v Wade.

If your argument here is "my body, my choice. I should be allowed to do what I want with my body", then the logical progress is you should be allowed to take any drug you want. Sounds like you do not really believe women should have full control of their bodies.

You say you're against killing innocent human life, but you have no problem with people killing their unborn child. Yet another logical gap.

Again, a fetus doesn't have the mother's DNA. It's not really her body. Why do you want to deny other people their rights?

See two can play at your game.

 

[minnie616]

What does legalization of all drugs have to with Bodily autonomy?

I do not support the killing of human life.

I support the individual pregnant woman’s right to privacy, bodily autonomy, and Religious Liberty.

It is her legal choice to decide whether she wishes to continue her pregnancy or to have an abortion within the parameters of Roe v Wade.

If your argument here is "my body, my choice. I should be allowed to do what I want with my body", then the logical progress is you should be allowed to take any drug you want. Sounds like you do not really believe women should have full control of their bodies.

You say you're against killing innocent human life, but you have no problem with people killing their unborn child. Yet another logical gap.

Again, a fetus doesn't have the mother's DNA. It's not really her body. Why do you want to deny other people their rights?

See two can play at your game.

My argument is bodily autonomy regarding procreation.

I have been on this forum several years and have never argued my body my choice, in fact I have corrected others that use that phase quite often.

I do value the unborn, however I value the born more.

The woman is a moral agent and the choice regarding pregnancy and procreation is her choice regarding her faith, and her conscience.

From the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Good policy allows people of all religions to follow their own faiths and consciences in their own lives. In reproductive health, rights and justice, we define religious liberty as the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family and her faith.
The religious beliefs of others should not interfere.

The Moral Case – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

 

[prometeus]

If your argument here is "my body, my choice. I should be allowed to do what I want with my body", then the logical progress is you should be allowed to take any drug you want.

Tanking drugs is not illegal.

 

[Lursa]

You're correct. Now we're getting into the bad region of being small makes something irrelevant.

If you dont like the 'region' of this post's content, it would be nice if you addressed one of my other responses to you where I asked direct questions.

 

[GodlessBrandy]

What about the rights of sperm. Trillions of innocent sperm are killed every year by various birth control methods. Does sperm not have the right to exist. Are there any pro-sperm lobbys. This saddens me deeply that the right of sperm is completely ignored in this debate.

 

[code1211]

I did not ask for the definition, I made no comment on it, I asked you for the post number.

I tracked back to find it.

You can do the same.

 

[code1211]

I think you have been told that in spite of the U.S. Constitution blacks and women were denied rights in the early colonial days.

The Supreme Count determined that women and Blacks/slaves were persons with rights but decided the unborn were not persons and had no rights separate from the pregnant woman.

The US census counts women and blacks as persons.
The US census has never counted the unborn as a person.

As for morals an abortion can be a very moral decision.

From the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:




The Moral Case – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

In case you missed it, I have said repeatedly that I am not questioning whether or not the killing of the unborn is legal in the USA.

It obviously is.

I don't think that it always was legal in all states. This particular class of humans, the unborn, is unique from the others cited, slaves and women. The others started out in the USA with rights that were either severely limited or non-existent.

This one group of humans started out as a protected bunch and were then stripped of their protections by the Roe v Wade Decision.

This is the first time this notion ever crossed my mind. It's an interesting and unique little thingy. Have other very vulnerable groups been stripped of protections under our legal system?

Have there been other specifiable groups of humans stripped of protection(s) regardless of race, gender, creed, national origin or any other personally identifying features by our society in this country?

I suppose there might be a parallel in the genocide of the American Indian Tribes... Not sure that's a perfect parallel, though. There were treaties that were subsequently dropped.

Interesting concept.

Anyway, regardless of the morality or the ethics involved in this, the laws regarding the unborn have changed, the practice was and is ongoing and the act and the outcomes are generally the same across time.

As with the laws that were changed regarding women and with slaves, the laws regarding the unborn are only laws.

 

[minnie616]

In case you missed it, I have said repeatedly that I am not questioning whether or not the killing of the unborn is legal in the USA.

It obviously is.

I don't think that it always was legal in all states. This particular class of humans, the unborn, is unique from the others cited, slaves and women. The others started out in the USA with rights that were either severely limited or non-existent.

This one group of humans started out as a protected bunch and were then stripped of their protections by the Roe v Wade Decision.

This is the first time this notion ever crossed my mind. It's an interesting and unique little thingy. Have other very vulnerable groups been stripped of protections under our legal system?

Have there been other specifiable groups of humans stripped of protection(s) regardless of race, gender, creed, national origin or any other personally identifying features by our society in this country?

I suppose there might be a parallel in the genocide of the American Indian Tribes... Not sure that's a perfect parallel, though. There were treaties that were subsequently dropped.

Interesting concept.

Anyway, regardless of the morality or the ethics involved in this, the laws regarding the unborn have changed, the practice was and is ongoing and the act and the outcomes are generally the same across time.

As with the laws that were changed regarding women and with slaves, the laws regarding the unborn are only laws.

The unborn were never protected.

States have a right to protect it’s citizens against unsafe medical procedures and when they started making abortions illegal abortions were not safe for women. ( the first anti abortion laws were laws against selling poisons not abortion per say )

The unborn were never protected.

States have a right to protect it’s citizens against unsafe medical procedures and when they started making abortions illegal abortions were not safe for women. ( the first anti abortion laws were laws against selling poisons not abortion per say )

From the following :

Until the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before "quickening" (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). Colonial home medical guides gave recipes for "bringing on the menses" with herbs that could be grown in one's garden or easily found in the woods. By the mid eighteenth century commercial preparations were so widely available that they had inspired their own euphemism ("taking the trade"). Unfortunately, these drugs were often fatal. The first statutes regulating abortion, passed in the 1820s and 1830s, were actually poison-control laws: the sale of commercial abortifacients was banned, but abortion per se was not. is The laws made little difference. By the 1840s the abortion business—including the sale of illegal drugs, which were widely advertised in the popular press—was booming. The most famous practitioner, Madame Restell, openly provided abortion services for thirty-five years, with offices in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia and traveling salespeople touting her "Female Monthly Pills."

Read more:




By the 1970s when Roe was decided abortions before viability were safer for the women than pregnancy and childbirth therefore states can no longer ban abortions as an unsafe medical practice.

By the 1970s when Roe was decided abortions before viability were safer for the women than pregnancy and childbirth therefore states can no longer ban abortions as an unsafe medical practice.

 

[Cameron]

Abortion is against science and its against common sense, its murder plain and simple. We need to ban it altogether, this article hits the nail right on the head.
Penny Nance: World'''s tiniest surviving preemie shows abortion isn’t in line with science or common sense | Fox News

Abortion is not "against science," whatever that means. Unicorns and Christianity are against science.

As for "common sense," since more than 50% of the country thinks that abortion is not murder, hard to make that case as well.

 

[wellwisher]

Abortion is not natural. In nature, miscarriages do occur, but this is not based on a women's right to choose. If it was, then abortion/miscarriages could occur in the privacy of the home.

Science and technology have the ability to make provisions for unnatural choices, that do not exist in nature. The law implies, women has the right to be unnatural, and big Medicine has to right to make profits, by providing unnatural choices.

 

[vegas giants]

Abortion is not natural. In nature, miscarriages do occur, but this is not based on a women's right to choose. If it was, then abortion/miscarriages could occur in the privacy of the home.

Science and technology have the ability to make provisions for unnatural choices, that do not exist in nature. The law implies, women has the right to be unnatural, and big Medicine has to right to make profits, by providing unnatural choices.

Heart surgery is unnatural. And people make big money on it

 

[minnie616]

Abortion is not natural. In nature, miscarriages do occur, but this is not based on a women's right to choose. If it was, then abortion/miscarriages could occur in the privacy of the home.

Science and technology have the ability to make provisions for unnatural choices, that do not exist in nature. The law implies, women has the right to be unnatural, and big Medicine has to right to make profits, by providing unnatural choices.

Heart surgery is unnatural. And people make big money on it

People make big money on the unnatural knee or hip replacement surgery also.

 

[Quag]

People make big money on the unnatural knee or hip replacement surgery also.

Planes, trains and automobiles are not natural eithr but they are used everyday

 

[code1211]

The unborn were never protected.

States have a right to protect it’s citizens against unsafe medical procedures and when they started making abortions illegal abortions were not safe for women. ( the first anti abortion laws were laws against selling poisons not abortion per say )




By the 1970s when Roe was decided abortions before viability were safer for the women than pregnancy and childbirth therefore states can no longer ban abortions as an unsafe medical practice.

Interesting departure from fact in your post.

Abortion in the United States by state - Wikipedia

<snip>

​

Abortion laws in the US prior to Roe.

​

Illegal

​

Legal in case of rape

​

Legal in case of danger to woman’s health

​

Legal in case of danger to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus

​

Legal on request


<snip>