Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

reply to post by Southern Guardian
The difference between Pro-lifers and the "liberal city" where you live is that the families who have jobs and take care of themselves and their unplanned children's children is that we aren't out there crying about it and asking the gov't to help.

Young people make bad decisions to have sex and even with "birth control", unplanned pregnancies happen.

When the media and liberals are promoting this, and saying the gov't will take care of you, or that "just kill the baby" it becomes a problem.

And an agenda.

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by Raelsatu

 

Using the birth control pill is tantamount to pre-meditated abortion. The pill tells your body it is all ready pregnant, not allowing the conceived fetus to implant, then when you stop taking the hormone pill, you have your period.

That's why the Catholic Church is against the birth control pill.

Premeditated?? Your point being? I was stating that using birth control is not morally or logically equivalent to murdering a teenager...

As for the Catholic Church being against the pill, that doesn't mean the anything to me. The Roman Catholic Church is infamous for being an institution directly complicit in some of the most heinous atrocities in known history.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

You will find the one thing that I am not wrong about is law.

It could be because I have one heck of an education.
Or it could be because maybe I have a reason for posting here.

any "expert" in abortion law knows that the issue with abortion is full of ifs and buts
the 9th amendment is so broad and general that it could even be used to argue that abortion should be only legal if the father also agrees with it
your arrogance and your constant assurance that you are absolutely correct has stripped you from any legitimacy
I hope you at least have a JD to claim so adamantly your position is right
there is a reason why there is such a big controversy about abortion even among lawyers
"it's the law" is not a valid argument

Originally posted by kyviecaldges


But the unborn do have rights according to the Roe decision.

This has already been decided.

Their rights begin at around 24 weeks gestation.

The fetus is not considered viable until then.

go here:
www.medicinenet.com...
and click the arrows until week 20 shows
the short description says:
"Fetal development at 20 weeks
The baby weighs about 9 ounces and is about six inches long. The uterus should be at the level of the belly button. The baby can suck a thumb, yawn, stretch, and make faces. Soon -- if you haven't already -- you'll feel your baby move, which is called "quickening.""
now can anyone with a straight face say that abortion at 20 weeks is just like getting rid of a lump of cells?


also how weird
a medical website calls the fetus a "baby" How unscientific

reply to post by quietlearner


And I like to point out that the woman involved with Roe vs. Wade, had her baby and is anti=abortion because of it.

After reading most of the comments on this section, there is one thing that disturbs me the most. Calling a baby a parasite is troubling. I am a proud father of 7 kids. Luckily, I am a doctor as well. As for calling the baby a parasite is correct, why would you? What is the purpose of dehumanizing something that is inherently human? I understand the reasons for some abortions. I do not agree with them, but I have no issues with abortion as used early prior to a heartbeat. Why a heartbeat.....I do not have an answer. That is my arbitrary point. I disagree with using abortion as a means of birth control. There are many options prior to it getting to that point. As for rape, incest and mothers life, there shouldnt be a limit, unless the baby is viable outside the womb. I do not think that most rape victims would allow a pregnancy to get to that point and my sympathies are with women who are raped. Such a traumatic experience. Not just during but for the rest of her life.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Roe V Wade CAN be repealed if the Supreme Court rules to.

How many times has the constitution been amended, laws changed etc....

You are misguided. Are you a Supreme court justice?

reply to post by NavyDoc


And then they were changed....
well, will you look at that, you can change things.

Constantly trying to bully people into thinking they can't change the way things are won't work....we are all not that dumb....sooner or later they will figure this out

reply to post by dawnstar



A hysterectomy is.....

reply to post by bennett9


the first heart beat start around 6 week right?
I read it from here
www.mayoclinic.com...

It's just not right that the time limit on abortion through most of the USA states are 20 to 24 weeks
I think that's too late

here is also a nice document with a very informative table about individual state policies
www.guttmacher.org...
I don't know how dependable it is
but I think it will be of interest to posters in this thread

www.guttmacher.org...
seems to have a lot of material related to this thread
anyone know if it is a legitimate site?

reply to post by Cuervo


How about this for really mixing it up?

I don't even care if SINGLE people adopt.....who cares as long as they are caring and capable!!!!!

How ironic it is….when Mom, Dad, and whoever else complains about who should have say in the matter. I have to wonder what the baby would say if he/she had the opportunity to speak …?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Yes....MR Know it all....I have more than once.

You keep thinking if we experience it we would magically be for it?

My experiences with family members....helping them, accompanying them to the appt etc...and seeing their lives after....mistakes, painful mistakes that have also hurt me deeply...and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

I'm sorry but none of the so called pro-lifers here appear to me to give a damn about the circumstances these women face, or even the future of their pregnancies and potential children. All many of you care about is criticizing and attacking those women who find themselves in these situations, once the child is born you couldn't give a damn. Many of these members who posted here were the same members I encountered in other threads supporting cuts to social programmes, those programmes that many of these single mothers rely on.

I have two words for you
Ad Hominem

from wikipedia:

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.[5]"

from the second google search for Ad hominem:

"Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say.""

sorry it was too perfect for me not to post it

P.S. I never said anything about social programs so it must be the "many" others

A man doesn't have to carry the baby for 9 months and then who's to say if he will even be there to take care of the child when it is born?

Although it's not an impossibility, I find it very unlikely that a man arguing his case against a mother's choice to abort what is essentially half of him would do so only to turn around and want nothing to do with the child after it were born.

If a guy knew he didn't want the responsibility that comes with parenthood (admittedly or not), AND he were against abortion, he would argue against it... but not very strongly. He would instead choose to distance himself from her, then make her out to be some kind of "unreasonable monster" to justify his actions. That... seems like a more likely scenario.

Pretty sad how people work.

Possible Hysterectomy Side Effects


Early menopause even if your ovaries are not removed
Hot flashes
Hair Loss
Dry skin
Night sweats
Weight gain
Severe pain
A loss of menstrual bleeding
A lack of fertility and inability to conceive or carry a child
Vaginal dryness
Mood swings
A loss of sexual pleasure
Painful sexual intercourse
Missed time from work
Damage to other organs caused by the surgery
Complications from anesthesia
Nausea
Infections
Constipation
Fatigue
Pelvic pain which is unknown in origin
Cardiovascular Diseases
Bone density loss
Height loss
Cervical cancer if a partial hysterectomy was performed and the cervix was left in place
Decrease hormone levels
Vaginal vault shortening
Vaginal prolapse
A psychological sense of loss and the feeling of not being a complete woman anymore

www.hysterectomyadvice.com...

reply to post by timetothink


so, you are saying that you would rather your wife, (or yourself) take the roll of the dice on these side effects than face a married life without sex once one of yous decide that you've had enough children??
just wondering here???
those who preach abstinance should be prepared to live the life, even if married and respect the wishes of their wives/husbands enough to not do the crime if their partner doesn't want to do the time!!!

even tubal litigations aren't 100% effective......

I think it's a matter of case law (Roe v. Wade) rather than civil rights but possibly you don't have the US Declaration of Independence's "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" until you are born (you certainly are not guaranteed liberty while in the womb).

Originally posted by Elton
I think it's a matter of case law (Roe v. Wade) rather than civil rights but possibly you don't have the US Declaration of Independence's "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" until you are born (you certainly are not guaranteed liberty while in the womb).

A civil rights argument to the Supreme Court might be effective, but I'm not a lawyer.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

Roe V Wade CAN be repealed if the Supreme Court rules to.

How many times has the constitution been amended, laws changed etc....

You are misguided. Are you a Supreme court justice?

If I am misguided, then please give me ONE example of an incorporated civil right being repealed.
If I am so wrong and misguided as you seem to think, then this should be no problem.

Just one example.

Patiently waiting....

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Elton
I think it's a matter of case law (Roe v. Wade) rather than civil rights but possibly you don't have the US Declaration of Independence's "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" until you are born (you certainly are not guaranteed liberty while in the womb).

A civil rights argument to the Supreme Court might be effective, but I'm not a lawyer.

You are right.

You are not a lawyer.

Your argument would NOT be effective.

And your argument has already been settled.
I have told you this about a bajillion times.

The SCOTUS has already decided upon the viability of the fetus.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE DECISIONS MADE IN ROE V. WADE.