France makes abortion a constitutional right in historic vote

a reply to: Another_Nut

But, to answer your question..there are none, yet ... They are coming though

This is disturbing to say the least... you're saying there's an agenda being pushed? And who is going to be in charge of creating these laws for hypothetical unborn citizens?
Where will these laws stop and not be subjected to controlling who breeds with who and such?

a reply to: andy06shake

The property rights of the unborn child are as old as the common law itself. Blackstone has stated:
An infant in [sic] ventre sa mere, or in the mother's womb, is supposed in
law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a
surrender of a copyhold estate, made to it. It may have a guardian assigned
to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to take after-wards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born. And in this point the civil law agrees with ours.1 3
"Why should not children en ventre sa mere be considered generally as in existence? They are entitled to all the privileges
of other persons.""m The same court, in reply to the contention that a devise for the life of a child en ventre sa mere was void because such a child was a non-entity, said:
Let us see, what this non-entity can do. He may be vouched in a recovery,
though it is for the purpose of making him answer over in value. He may
be an executor. He may take under the Statute of Distributions. . .. He
may take by devise. He may be entitled under a charge for raising portions.
He may have an injunction; and he may have a guardian.2
Several years later,the Indiana Supreme Court held that where a testator
devised property to his daughter "and her children" and a child .was en ventre sa mere at the time of the testator's death, the unborn child could take as a tenant in common with his own mother.2" The unborn child, therefore, had equal right and title to the property with his mother.
In 1941, a New York court in In re Holthausen's Will' 3 summed up the
evolution of the law to that point concerning the property rights of the unbornchild:
It has been the uniform and unvarying decision of all common law courts
in respect of estate matters for at least the past two hundred years that a
child en ventre sa mere is "born" and "alive" for all purposes for his
benefit.34"

scholarship.law.nd.edu...

a reply to: Another_Nut

And the extent and recognition of those rights can vary depending on the specific legal jurisdiction and the context of the situation.

Again under most legal systems, unborn children do not have separate legal recognition from their parents unless specific criteria are met.

Instead, their legal rights and interests are typically intertwined with those of their parents.

a reply to: strongfp

im saying , when people dont have an agenda and instead, apply the biology, constitution, history and law

then the natural result is that a viable human starts at implantation and has all the rights of any person from that point on ... including the right to life.

and those arguments are coming .. i can make it now , unfortunately people with an agenda cant look , objectively, at the facts ... take the 14th ammendment...

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.

"all persons" must undergo an act to become citizens .. what act do these "persons" have to undergo?

if only a person can undergo this act then we have a problem .. dont we?

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Venkuish1

If there was such a referendum or constitutional amendment put on the national ballot right now, on the same ballot as this year's presidential race, it would overwhelmingly pass here, in the USA, too.

Abortion was put to a vote just like it should have been.

I think we should vote on all male babies having a vasectomy at birth. And only reversal surgery when they’ve proven they can support children/family for the rest of their life.

We believe you.

Good.

Cuz I'm not joking.

a reply to: Annee

Are you willing to do the same for female babies and tie their tubes as soon as they come out?

I only ask again since you ignored the first time I made the comment

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Venkuish1

If there was such a referendum or constitutional amendment put on the national ballot right now, on the same ballot as this year's presidential race, it would overwhelmingly pass here, in the USA, too.

Abortion was put to a vote just like it should have been.

I think we should vote on all male babies having a vasectomy at birth. And only reversal surgery when they’ve proven they can support children/family for the rest of their life.

That's one way to tip the demographic scale back in the direction it came from.

And I'm serious.

How, do you think that will go over with all the -- "we have a voting right to a woman's reproductive choices".

I think we can all agree that baby genital mutilation is wrong no matter the sex and should be frowned upon.

a reply to: Venkuish1

but is it a viable human? many fertilized eggs exit the body without implantation... what is the definition of viable again?

viable /vī′ə-bəl/
adjective

Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
"viable spores."

in its natural condition a sperm cannot develop into a human
nor can an egg
nor can a fertilized egg

it isnt until implantation that a pregnancy starts

When does a pregnancy officially begin?
When the uterus detects the blastocyst, it releases enzymes to break down the blastocyst’s outer membrane. Once that barrier is broken down, the blastocyst can attach to the endometrium (1). This is when a pregnancy officially begins.

It’s a complicated process
However, sometimes a fertilized egg doesn't make it to implantation.

For every 10 fertilized eggs, between 4 and 6 won’t make it to implantation (9,10).


Illustrations of a pregnancy test and Clue app with a "period late" notification
Miscarriage

Am I having a miscarriage?
When a miscarriage occurs very early in pregnancy, it can be difficult...

by Maegan Boutot
These losses generally aren't considered miscarriages, as most healthcare professionals consider a pregnancy to have begun at implantation. However, people who think or know they lost a fertilized egg (such as people using artificial reproductive technologies) may consider this to be akin to a more traditional miscarriage.

link

a reply to: Annee

Almost all vasectomies can be reversed. However, this doesn't guarantee success in conceiving a child. Vasectomy reversal can be attempted even if several years have passed since the original vasectomy — but the longer it has been, the less likely it is that the reversal will work.

Mayo Clinic


You really have a thing for backing long term damage to kids all in the name of ideology.

get help.

ETa for posterity.

I think we should vote on all male babies having a vasectomy at birth. And only reversal surgery when they’ve proven they can support children/family for the rest of their life.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Annee

Are you willing to do the same for female babies and tie their tubes as soon as they come out?

I only ask again since you ignored the first time I made the comment

Yes, I am. And the need may come in the future.

But, the current issues is: those who think it's their right to vote on women's reproductive choices.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Annee

Are you willing to do the same for female babies and tie their tubes as soon as they come out?

I only ask again since you ignored the first time I made the comment

Yes, I am. And the need may come in the future.

But, the current issues is: those who think it's their right to vote on women's reproductive choices.

But why do you think you have the right to vote on anyone's reproductive choices?

Why do you get to have that opinion and want to make those choices if you don't want anyone else to?

We see trans rights.

Black Lives Matter.

Gay rights, even months dedicated to it.

But very few champion the rights of the unborn. The on e population group that cannot speak for itself.

Hell, Bald Eagles have more rights than the unborn.

Try frying a bald eagle egg with some bacon and toast.

It's sad.

I honestly see those who champion abortions as the same as those who would champion slavery.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Venkuish1

but is it a viable human? many fertilized eggs exit the body without implantation... what is the definition of viable again?
viable /vī′ə-bəl/
adjective

Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
"viable spores."
in its natural condition a sperm cannot develop into a human
nor can an egg
nor can a fertilized egg

it isnt until implantation that a pregnancy starts

When does a pregnancy officially begin?
When the uterus detects the blastocyst, it releases enzymes to break down the blastocyst’s outer membrane. Once that barrier is broken down, the blastocyst can attach to the endometrium (1). This is when a pregnancy officially begins.

It’s a complicated process
However, sometimes a fertilized egg doesn't make it to implantation.

For every 10 fertilized eggs, between 4 and 6 won’t make it to implantation (9,10).


Illustrations of a pregnancy test and Clue app with a "period late" notification
Miscarriage

Am I having a miscarriage?
When a miscarriage occurs very early in pregnancy, it can be difficult...

by Maegan Boutot
These losses generally aren't considered miscarriages, as most healthcare professionals consider a pregnancy to have begun at implantation. However, people who think or know they lost a fertilized egg (such as people using artificial reproductive technologies) may consider this to be akin to a more traditional miscarriage.

link

Fetus viability occurs only after the 24 week period. So you are looking at around 6 months into the pregnancy at the very least and not many can survive if they are born prematurely and so early.

a reply to: andy06shake

ive provided evidence..and there is more... that the law disagrees and , in fact, the unborn have rights that are not linked to their parents. and this is over hundereds of years.. so ...so far... ive goiven evidence of , not only the law, but the constitution, history and biology....

and so far you have only hand waved it because it doesnt fit your agenda... and most importantly...

you cant refute any of it

like me , and many others have said ...

it doesnt matter what the facts are when you already have the destination .

originally posted by: DBCowboy
We see trans rights.

Black Lives Matter.

Gay rights, even months dedicated to it.

But very few champion the rights of the unborn. The on e population group that cannot speak for itself.

Hell, Bald Eagles have more rights than the unborn.

Try frying a bald eagle egg with some bacon and toast.

It's sad.

I honestly see those who champion abortions as the same as those who would champion slavery.

You are exaggerating.

French people took a very serious issue very seriously and overwhelmingly support the right of women to abortion.

What does the trans/gay issues have to do with
abortion?

a reply to: Venkuish1

a denial of basic biology, to start

eta

i should say an ideology of denialism of basic biological facts

a reply to: Venkuish1

I'm talking about rights being denied an unborn person simply because it is inconvenient for him/her to exist.

This isn't a "reproductive choice".

A reproductive "choice" is, do I have sex or don't I.

After a child starts developing, that "choice" has already been made.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Venkuish1

I'm talking about rights being denied an unborn person simply because it is inconvenient for him/her to exist.

OK, mandator vasectomy at birth for all males.

Wouldn't want one of those little "sperm buggers" (accidently on purpose) escaping into a woman -- so we can blame the woman.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Venkuish1

I'm talking about rights being denied an unborn person simply because it is inconvenient for him/her to exist.

OK, mandator vasectomy at birth for all males.

Wouldn't want one of those little "sperm buggers" (accidently on purpose) escaping into a woman -- so we can blame the woman.

And as authoritarian as ever.

How about personal responsibility, taking responsibility for your actions.