Supreme Court’s Roe ruling would trample the religious freedom of every Jewish American

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I love how you won't respond to that.

I have no idea what you're talking about or how it effects access to abortion or due process.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

This is about due process and only applies to the "state", i.e. the government, not private citizens. Due process isn't a right endowed on the unborn, as per the 14th Amendment.
...

That's YOUR CLAIM, it is not what the amendment states... Any person includes unborn human beings. They are living humans. No matter how much you want to claim they are not.

The very same people's whose argument you are in favor of, like far leftist philosopher Peter Singer also argues that certain adult humans at certain ages shouldn't be alive and should be killed as well...

This very argument you are trying to convey, which is based on lies because unborn humans are living human beings, is the same argument that wants to legalize after birth abortions, and genocide of certain humans like the nazis did...

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

SYDNEY, Australia (JTA) — He’s been brandished “the most dangerous man on earth,” accused of being a “public advocate of genocide” and likened to Josef Mengele, the notorious Nazi “Angel of Death.”

Yet he’s also been hailed as “one of the world’s 100 most influential people” and “among the most influential philosophers alive.”

Welcome to the contradictory world that surrounds Peter Singer, the Australia-born moral philosopher who has been a professor of bioethics at Princeton University in New Jersey since 1999. Loved and loathed, one thing cannot be refuted: Singer, 65, has provoked debate about controversial issues such as infanticide, euthanasia, eugenics and animal rights.
...

[url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/peter-singer-worlds-most-dangerous-man-or-hero-of-morality/] Peter Singer: ‘World’s most dangerous man’ or hero of morality?


Just like the nazis did far leftists/progressive professors, doctors, philosophers etc are arguing that animals and nature deserve more rights than "certain humans." Even Peter Singer admits that the argument in favor of abortion can and is used by far leftists like him to argue in favor of genocide, and infanticide. Which is part of the inhuman actions done by the nazis during the holocaust.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and who wanted to "segregate, forcibly sterilize and eventually exterminate "certain humans she called the weeds of civilization agreed with and included the arguments of nazi doctors like Ernst Rudin in her "Birth Control Magazine" issue of April 44th 1933.

Go to page 102 to find the essay Sanger included from nazi doctor Ernst Rudin.



Birth Control Review April 4th 1933

Who was Ernst Rudin?

Ernst Rüdin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ernst Rüdin (19 April 1874 – 22 October 1952)[1] was a Swiss-born German psychiatrist, geneticist, eugenicist and Nazi, rising to prominence under Emil Kraepelin and assuming his directorship at what is now called the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich. While he has been credited as a pioneer of psychiatric inheritance studies, he also argued for, designed, justified and funded the mass sterilization and clinical killing of adults and children.
...

Ernst Rüdin

To me it seems like you far leftists/pro-abortionists want an even worse holocaust caused by the nazi. The very same people who gave more rights to animals and to nature, but took away rights from humans and argued in favor of the murder of humans en mass, including children, the unborn, and adults...

Animal rights laws also illustrated how warped the Nazi ideology truly was. The life of a lobster was more valuable then the life of a Jew, Roma,Sinti, Homosexual.Jehovah Witness or a person with a disability.
...

Killing Humans is okay, but don’t boil a lobster-Nazi animal welfare.

Margaret Sanger, the very same person you pro-abortionists see as an idol that wanted to give rights to women can't even understand what she actually wanted to do through "Birth Control," and the eventual extermination of humans beings as through "abortions."

Her version of "human rights for women" were like this one.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Xcalibur254

So religious freedom for Jews is more important than the life of an innocent child?

Got a problem with the religious freedom of the Jewish people?

Also, neither a zygote, nor an embryo, is a "child."

Are you in charge of definitions, Kevin?

Just asking, Kevin, because it sure seems like you think you get to define what other people think, which is really authoritarian, Kevin.

What a base one *thinks* is not necessarily what the scientific community defines.

Since this isn't the pit, I won't debase myself further in response, or resort to pet names or insults.

Good day, Karen.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

If Jewish religious freedoms are being taken away we can welcome them to a big club.

Why is this so special. Are you concerned about any of the freedoms that have been taken from anyone else lately?

Did you speak up when the religious bakery was forced to bake a gay wedding cake?

Did you speak up when religious parents spoke out about child grooming in schools?

Did you speak up when people were coerced into the vaccination after voicing religious objections?

Maybe you did. If not maybe you can explain why this is different.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

1. I don’t understand what you are falsifying and what you are accusing me of thinking on this subject.
2. I am pointing out that such a religious “legality” for or against abortion is nonsense. You pointed this out in your statement. Biology.
3. I actually somewhat agree with you on the notion that it is a living, genetically unique human being. Though I think that rape, incest, and medical emergencies make this complicated and I think special consideration is necessary for these rare, extreme circumstances. My point on medical emergencies was that they should at least TRY to save the baby at any level of development.

4. My main point was that Roe vs Wade, ironically, was standing in the way of things like forced vaccinations and bodily autonomy (the basis of RvW) is not in favor with the current regime. This is why I think that it is foolish to think of this as a good thing. States rights are next in the chopping block.

5. Whether you agree with the bodily autonomy argument or not is meaningless. That was the legal precedent. A Precedent that could be used to prevent things like forced abortions or forced vaccinations.

6. Though there is definitely a human benefit to getting rid of this legislation from the bench, this is a Trojan Horse. It’s not about saving babies. It’s about destroying the legal precedent of bodily autonomy in totality. Even commies will sacrifice their favored legal precedents when it means that all people have less control over their own bodies. Look how fast they ditched freedom of speech. The left used to love it until they didn’t need it anymore.

-D

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Any person includes unborn human beings. They are living humans. No matter how much you want to claim they are not.

Please show me where a State is denying due process and ordering the execution of any unborn person. Show me a case where an embryo or a fetus has been tried and convicted of a capital crime in any State. She me a case where an embryo or a fetus has been tried and found "not guilty" of any crime.

a reply to: DINSTAAR

Your claim that Roe vs Wade is now about "forced vaccinations" or "bodily autonomy"is not true at all.

First of all, the very same people who claim "my body my choice," even though they are talking about the extermination of OTHER human beings which have a different dna make up as the mother, were the very same people demanding for people to get fired from their jobs, to not be allowed to buy or sell items for not having masks on, or for not being vaxxed. They were the very same people saying "for the good of the collective you have to wear a mask and you must be vaccinated, you must be boosted, super-boosted and triple super boosted."

Heck, criminal CEOs of these giant pharma companies have also argued that anyone who dares doubt and spread misinformation about their vaccines "is a criminal," and must be treated as criminals.

Pfizer CEO says people who spread misinformation on Covid vaccines are ‘criminals’

And we are talking about info such as the efficacy of their vaccines, which have been proven to not be 95% as they claim...

Charité researcher calls for outpatient clinics for vaccine victims.

The number of serious complications after vaccinations against Sars-CoV-2 is 40 times higher than previously recorded by the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI). This is one of the results of a long-term observational study by the Berlin Charité. The head of the study, Professor Harald Matthes, is now calling for more contact points for those affected.

Observation of around 40,000 participants For a year now, research has been underway on the aspect of "Safety Profile of Covid-19 Vaccines" (short "ImpfSurv"), which focuses on the effects and side effects of the various vaccines. Throughout Germany, around 40,000 vaccinated people are surveyed at regular intervals. Participation is voluntary and takes place regardless of how the vaccines work in the subjects.
...

Corona Vaccination Side Effects

This type of info many CEOS of big pharma wanted and still want to make it into a crime if anyone decides to share such information.

Second, there were literally millions of Americans whom were forced to either choose to have a job by being forced to wear masks, that have holes that are 1,000 times larger than a virus, and even millions of Americans were forced to not just get the experimental vaccines, but to get boosters, more vaccines, etc.

Roe vs Wade did not stop corrupt China Biden and democrat leaders/RINOs from forcing Americans to "put things in their bodies without their consent and experiments which had no long term studies done." In fact the opposite happened.

I find it ludicrous for you to sit there and now claim "but Roe vs Wade gives you a right to your body..." It doesn't, and it didn't. So that argument is completely made up.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Please show me where a State is denying due process and ordering the execution of any unborn person. Show me a case where an embryo or a fetus has been tried and convicted of a capital crime in any State. She me a case where an embryo or a fetus has been tried and found "not guilty" of any crime.

Having abortion on demand when the large majority of abortions are because "the woman decides she is not ready" or she doesn't have enough money, etc, in fact does minimizes the life of human beings whom are in the womb and at least up to the date they are to be born.

As for your asinine argument of: "show me a case in which an embryo or a fetus has been tried and found not guilty of any crime."

I just have one thing to say... Show me a case in which newborns or a baby has been tried and found not guilty of any crime..."

There goes your argument huh?... Because if we followed your illogical argument, then newborns and babies can be murdered as well and it shouldn't be a crime "in your view..."

a reply to: Sookiechacha

This is about due process and only applies to the "state", i.e. the government, not private citizens. Due process isn't a right endowed on the unborn, as per the 14th Amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 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.

I think you're confused again.

There is a legal principle that states that legal documents should be considered to not be redundant. In other words, a legal document that says "a person operating a motor vehicle while driving" would infer that it is possible to operate said motor vehicle without actually driving. So the very first line of the 14th Amendment states "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" and therefore infers that there are persons who are not born and persons who are not naturalized in the United States.

You are correct in that the statement "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" does not apply to individuals. Good call on that one. It specifies what the state cannot do, and thus does not concern the abortion issue except that a state cannot pass a law ordering abortions... that would be depriving a person of life, since a person can exist without being born due to the assumption against redundancy.

However, it then states, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Well, does the state make it a crime to kill an adult? I believe the answer is "yes." Therefore the state provides protection to adults from being killed. Since this same Amendment also infers that there are persons who are not born, and this prohibition applies to persons, not "persons born or naturalized in the United States," it follows that this could be legally argued as a prohibition against abortion where the mother's life is not in danger. That would be exempted because an adult may be killed with self-defense used as a legal remedy.

In short, this could be argued as legal evidence that an unborn human is indeed a person and subject to the exact same laws that would apply to a born person and guarantee the right to not be killed without just legal cause.

I have to commend you this time: you are getting better at reading the laws. Keep working at it.


TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Only the Jewish population living in states that choose to restrict abortion. The diaspora in NCY and pretty much every other similar community will be largely unaffected. The option of returning to Israel for an abortion is also still open.

Of course, the abortion rate among observant Jews is exceedingly low. Declining birth rates are more of an issue.

An interesting picture emerges when you review what various religions have to say about abortion, or their stance, i.e. getting a lay of the land. Here's such a review from 1993:

Do These Religions Have the Answer? (Awake!—1993)

IN A moral quandary over the abortion question, many seek the guidance of their spiritual leaders. How do these respond?

The Catholic Church takes a staunch position against abortion, teaching that life begins at conception. Some priests are politically involved and call on the pope to excommunicate Catholic politicians who cast pro-abortion votes. Nevertheless, many Catholics are for abortion and call for liberalization.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) reports that 46 percent of pastors “do not believe the Bible teaches that abortion is wrong.” The church’s official stand is pro-abortion.

The 16th General Synod of the United Church of Christ resolved that it ‘upholds the right of men and women to have adequate family planning services and to safe legal abortion as one option.’

The Evangelical Lutheran Church policy states that abortion “ought to be an option only of last resort”; yet it refused to call abortion a “sin” or to say that “life begins at conception.”

The Southern Baptist Convention is strongly antiabortion. But the American Baptist Church states: “We are divided as to the proper witness of the church to the state regarding abortion. Consequently, we acknowledge the freedom of each individual to advocate for a public policy on abortion that reflects his or her beliefs.”

Judaism is divided, the Orthodox branch taking a largely antiabortion stand, while Reform and Conservative Jews largely favor abortion.

Islam allows abortion for any reason for the first 40 days of life but only for a threat to the mother’s life thereafter. The Hadith says that the fetus is “40 days in the form of a seed, then he is a clot of blood for a like period, then a morsel of flesh for a like period, then . . . there is sent to him the angel who blows the breath of life into him.”

Shintoism holds no official position and leaves abortion to personal choice.

Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs teach a general respect for life. But they are not embroiled in debate on the abortion issue, since they believe in reincarnation; abortion merely sends the unborn baby on to another life.

I wonder in what manner these views have developed and/or changed, if at all. That page is the last page of a series of articles on the subject by the way, here are the rest:

The Abortion Dilemma—Are 60 Million Killings the Solution? (Awake!—1993)
Abortion’s Tragic Toll
Life​—A Gift to Be Cherished

originally posted by: whereislogic
Do These Religions Have the Answer? (Awake!—1993)

...
The Catholic Church takes a staunch position against abortion, teaching that life begins at conception. ...

...

The Evangelical Lutheran Church policy states that abortion “ought to be an option only of last resort”; yet it refused to call abortion a “sin” or to say that “life begins at conception.”

...

If you're wondering why that article keeps bringing up that bolded point, this article may also be of interest (there are a bunch of links in that article but I won't copy-paste them):

Fact Check: Yes, Human Life Begins at Fertilization (by Michael Egnor)

The debate about abortion in our country is obviously a matter of great importance for public policy and for the lives of our children and our neighbors who are caught up in the controversy. But the abortion debate is also important for a clear view of the integrity of our scientists. This understanding of the integrity of the scientific profession has far-reaching consequences for the relationship between science and public policy.

Science has quite a bit to contribute to our debate about abortion as a matter public policy. Of course the abortion debate also includes questions of ethics, questions of legality, and questions of prudent public policy. These other questions can only be answered thoughtfully on a foundation of scientific facts about human life.

What does the abortion debate teach us about the integrity of the scientific community? It teaches this: the scientific issues regarding the beginning and nature of human life were settled in the early 19th century. Human life begins at fertilization of the egg by the sperm. After that point, every fertilized egg is a distinct separate human being. There is no scientific debate about this fact. It is a fact as certain as gravity or that the earth orbits the sun.

Genuine Settled Science

So how has the scientific community contributed to this debate? Much of the scientific contribution has been, to put it mildly, reprehensible. Despite the fact that it is a scientific fact that each human life begins at fertilization, many scientists have argued publicly and strenuously that children in the womb — from zygote to embryo to fetus to emerging newborn — are not human beings. They have been described as tissue, parts of the mother’s body, etc., and some scientists go so far as to describe them as a kind of parasite or cancer. [whereislogic: in my thread someone compared "removing" a "fetus" to "removing a tumor".* Another used the expression "some cells" to describe a living human being. I say "living human being" because that's actually an accurate description given the "scientific fact that each human life begins at fertilization". *: The irony, this point about "removing a tumor" came right after the complaint: "PLEASE stop this over-dramatic nonsense terminology and 'shocking language' about 'murdering babies' or 'unborn children'. It's SO manipulative and transparent." The term "murdering babies" wasn't actually used in the opening post of that thread, which was what was being responded to, but I can definitely see some manipulative and transparent language and way of phrasing things being used by someone at least...2 someone's if you count the other one talking about "some cells".]

I reiterate: the science regarding the beginning of human life is settled and has been settled for 200 years. There is no debate on the science. There remain profound questions of ethics, law, and public policy regarding respect for human life, which are valid issues for debate. There remain no questions regarding the science of the beginning of human life.

Where are the major scientific organizations on this issue? Why has not the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or the American Medical Association stated clearly and publicly the basic scientific fact that human life begins at fertilization? The answer is obvious: many scientists in these organizations are willing to do what it takes to advance their ideology, and scientists who do understand and embrace the truth about the beginning of human life are generally too cowardly to press the issue. It’s an enormous scandal.

A Profound Problem

So what are we to make of a scientific profession in which scientific experts consistently distort the science of human life? The conclusion we should draw from this is obvious: there is a profound problem with integrity in the scientific profession. Science is everywhere tainted by ideological bias that has no basis in evidence or reason.

The take-away lesson from the scientists who twist the truth about the nature of human life to advance their own personal opinions about abortion is this: claims about science in public policy debates are not to be trusted. There is a deep corruption in the scientific profession, and on matters such as abortion, as well as matters such as evolution, climate, and cosmology, scientists should be understood as narrowly educated specialists who have no qualms whatsoever about publicly misrepresenting scientific facts in order to advance their own personal ideology.

We have much to learn from the abortion debate about the scientific profession, and it’s ugly.

This article was originally published in 2019.

There's another one by Michael Egnor from 2020 recently re-posted on the same site, called:

When Does Human Life Begin?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
...
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and who wanted to "segregate, forcibly sterilize and eventually exterminate "certain humans she called the weeds of civilization agreed with and included the arguments of nazi doctors like Ernst Rudin in her "Birth Control Magazine" issue of April 44th 1933.
....

An interesting fact emerges if you look at the historical statements made by International Planned Parenthood, as discussed in my own thread about the subject of abortion, zooming in on the central question to this debate: 'When Does a Human Life Begin?'

originally posted by: whereislogic
...

This changed thinking is illustrated by International Planned Parenthood. Founded by Margaret Sanger, who strongly opposed abortion, it was meant to promote the use of contraceptives and thereby prevent the need for abortions. In 1964 Planned Parenthood stated: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life.”

In a dramatic about-face, today Planned Parenthood promotes abortion as a means of population control. ... Its former statement, “An abortion kills the life of a baby,” no longer appears in its literature. However, that truth does appear in an editorial in the September 1970 California Medical Journal:

“The reverence of each and every human life has been the keystone of western medicine, and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong, and enhance every human life. Since the old ethic has not been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been the curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone knows, that human life begins at conception, and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death.”

Also note the chosen terminology “baby”, instead of “fetus”, “tissue”, “some cells”, etc., in light of my previous commentary and the context where I plucked the above from. I actually mean the next comment in that thread that quotes the word “tissue” and a later comment that mentions the following:

originally posted by: whereislogic
...

Many volleys fired in this conflict deal with the question of when life begins. Few will argue the point that the fertilized egg cell is living. The question is, living as what? Mere tissue? Or is it human? Is an acorn an oak tree? Then, is a fetus a person? Does it have civil rights? The wrangling over words is endless.

...

Abortion—A Citizens’ Guide to the Issues states that in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, “the tiny amount of tissue in a gelatinous state is very easy to remove.” Can abortion rightly be regarded as “removing a blob of tissue” or “terminating the product of conception”? Or are these sugarcoated terms designed to make the bitter truth palatable and put troubled consciences to rest?

That unwanted piece of tissue is a growing, thriving life, complete with its own set of chromosomes. Like a prophetic autobiography, it tells the detailed story of a unique individual in the making. Renowned research professor of fetology A. W. Liley explains (as quoted before): “Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the foetus is a mere appendage of the mother. Genetically, mother and baby are separate individuals from conception.”

Note the correct and appropiate scientific terminologies as opposed to that which is rather transparently manipulative and in light of what the victim of so-called "pro-choice" propaganda, has been taught to argue or conditioned to think regarding this issue of which terminology is used:

originally posted by: Shoujikina
a reply to: whereislogic
...
PLEASE stop this over-dramatic nonsense terminology and 'shocking language' about 'murdering babies' or 'unborn children'. It's SO manipulative and transparent.

A fetus is not a baby or a child, removing fetus from a body is no more murder or killing than removing a tumor from a body is.

...

A nice example of someone seeing that which is actually honest and appropiate terminology as "over-dramatic nonsense terminology" that is "manipulative and transparent" and that which is a rather transparently manipulative use of language and terminology, producing nonsensical reasoning about the subject*, as the honest description of the subject (*: especially in those who don't recognize the manipulative and propagandistic nature of the way they are talking about this "tissue" or "fetus" that "is not a baby").

Incidentally, it is the pattern of human behaviour described at Isaiah 5:20,21.

Oh, not that important, but as mentioned in my previous comment (in the middle of the article written by Michael Egnor I talked about the comment above), the post Shoujikina was responding to didn't actually use the term "murdering babies". It did use the verb "killed" at the end. And in my subsequent commentary the following remarks were made:

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Hecate666
...

John Szenes, M.D., believes in the woman’s right to abortion and that is his primary consideration. However, he does admit the saline abortion takes some getting used to: “All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s, to all intents and purposes, the death trauma.” And he then adds: “So I can imagine, if I had started doing 24-weekers right off the bat, I would have had much greater conflict in my own mind whether this is tantamount to murder.”

...
At the opening of the abortion era in Britain, the Daily Mail reported Professor Ian Morris as saying: “If I were just beginning my career knowing what I know now about abortions, I would never choose gynaecology.” He added: “I detest the operation. It is a complete reversal of all my medical training. The whole aim is to save life, not perform this particular form of homicide.” Strong words, indeed, and not every doctor will agree with them. But they do convey some idea of the revulsion to the practice some doctors instinctively feel.

...

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
When the male sperm unites its 23 chromosomes with a like number in the female ovum, a new human life is conceived. From this time of conception, the sex and other personal details are immutably established. The only change will be in growth during the nine-month term of pregnancy. “It is a statement of biologic fact to say that you once were a single cell,” writes Dr. John C. Willke.

...

So does life begin at the moment of conception? Many simply answer yes. For those who think this way, abortion at any time is tantamount to murder. ...

The expression there at the end using the same expression as John Szenes, M.D.

a reply to: whereislogic

The lack of science in the debate is what is actually causing the divide. The unborn child is alive; that is a scientific fact. At no point is it not alive, therefore life does not "start"... it continues. It is human; the egg cell, the sperm cell, the fertilized egg cell, and everything that comes after are always human. It is not a part of the woman's body... the egg cell itself, even before fertilization, is not technically a part of the woman's body. It is a product of the woman's body, just as the sperm is a product of the man's body. It is dependent on the woman's body from the moment of implantation, but this continues until well after birth and thus is not a convincing argument. At the moment of conception, the fertilized egg cell contains unique DNA that is disparate from the woman's or the man's DNA, and it is therefore a separate instance of human life.

Those are hard facts. Any dispute over these facts only serves to cloud the issue and identify the one arguing against them as staunchly "anti-science."

Now, if someone wants to talk sentience... existence of a soul or a spirit... self-awareness... ability to feel and respond to pain... presence of a personality... these things are legitimate debate topics that have not yet been answered with any real certainty. I'll debate those and listen to the concerns of others. An argument on those fronts can shift my opinion. But arguing with science cannot. All that can do is make me less welcoming to any actual points that may be made.

I know, for instance, that the fertilized egg cell is not capable of thought, and therefore not capable of sentience or able to feel pain or respond to stimuli. I also know that at some point (21 weeks last I heard), the unborn child is able to feel pain, respond to stimuli, and move. I believe the child, at that point, can think and has sentience... a soul or spirit. Somewhere in between is a transition, and my only concern with abortion is that, whenever possible, any abortion be made before that point.

That's why I have no issue with contraception (an unfertilized egg cell is alive, human, but not a separate individual), the pill (an unimplanted, fertilized zygote is highly likely to not be sentient), or even the morning after pill (for the same reason). I do have an issue with late term abortion, as the child is, at that point, likely sentient and an abortion becomes murder. In between? I do not know. No one does.

If the mother's life is at risk, then it becomes, to me, a case of self-defense. The mother may indeed be murdering her child, but she is doing so to save her own life. One may kill another who is attacking them, which makes them guilty of murder, but self-defense is an accepted legal remedy for murder and renders the murder not prosecutable. This same principle should apply to the mother carrying a child which threatens her life.

Miscarriage is an act of God. It cannot be made illegal.

I do not even support penalizing the mother should she have an illegal abortion. Why? Because she has already lost the most precious thing anyone can have: her child. What more can we do to her? Why would we do more to her? The punishment from the act is punishment enough. I do think that after, say, three illegal abortions, a woman should be sterilized; she is using abortion as birth control, and that needs to be stopped. But that should be the maximum extent to which any woman should be subjected to the law, and then only after repeated offenses.

Of course, I also believe that repeat sex offenders should be sterilized as well. Fair is fair.

All I really want is for abortion to be rare and safe. But the path we have been on since 1973 is far from effective at making abortion rare... if anything, it has led to continually more and more lax restrictions. That's how one removes their ability to do a thing, not how one keeps their ability to do the thing: it is abuse of a privilege/right. And that's why we are here talking about abortion.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: DINSTAAR

I find it ludicrous for you to sit there and now claim "but Roe vs Wade gives you a right to your body..." It doesn't, and it didn't. So that argument is completely made up.

You’re not understanding me. You cannot even remotely describe what I said, and the idea of legal precedent is flying right over your head.

I’m not engaging with copypasta midwits anymore. Read more, write less.

-D

a reply to: TheRedneck

the founding fathers were so shortsighted, they never envisioned a group of people would fight for the right to kill babies. Go figure.

a reply to: network dude

That's because although premarital sex was punishable. Abortion was not. They didn't consider that what was not illegal would be pushed to become illegal.

Nor was there present in colonial American any stigma attached to the woman who chose to terminate her pregnancy through abortion. Strong healthy families were prized in the early American communities, but it was also recognized that families unable to provide their own support could be a burden on the community. Abortion was accepted in these communities without question and were accomplished openly, the midwife a valued member, rather than a pariah lurking on the edge of town.

America’s continuing roiling debate over the issue of abortion was non-existent in colonial days prior to the Revolution, indeed prior to the 1800s. Surprisingly to many, this is not because abortion did not yet exist. It’s because there were no laws against abortion. In the colonies, abortion was readily available, relatively safe given the medical knowledge and practices of the time, and completely legal up to the time when the mother felt the first kick of her baby, the quickening. Falsification of the history of abortion notwithstanding, the evidence of the legality and availability of abortion in colonial America is there for whoever wishes to know the truth.

History

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: whereislogic

The lack of science in the debate is what is actually causing the divide.

I would say it's the pro-choice side refusing to include science, ignoring the science, and saying everyone against it only has religious reasons because there are no others.

a reply to: frogs453

So if I look back I won't see any trials/convictions for abortion from the 1600s?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
So if I look back I won't see any trials/convictions for abortion from the 1600s?

Probably not considering it wasn't illegal.