Abortions: Should Women be Allowed to Choose?

[NYcarbineer]

I'm pretty sure no one "owns" their own body unless, of course, you're going to argue dualism (i.e., you exist before you exist). And that's without pointing out that no one has complete rule to use and do to their body as they see fit as it is. I'm not sure why pro-choicers love to ignore the latter, but it's comical (especially when you see the same people using that line simultaneously trying to ban someone from smoking or drinking sugary drinks).

Constitutionally there was never any explicit protection for the fetus whatsoever. Barring the establishment of personhood rights for the fetus that equate to rights for you and me,

the fetus is a part of a woman's body, and nothing more.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

To believe that abortion should be legal is to believe that the fetus is not the same as a born person.

You believe abortion should be legal, therefore you don't even believe the crap coming from your own mouth about fetuses.

False dichotomy. If, say, you support a person's right to self-defense, does that mean you also support wanton murder?

There is no self-defense involved in an abortion that isn't being performed to protect the life or health of the mother. Think before you post, as a courtesy to those of us who do.

As per usual, my post goes way over your head.

There's a reason I called your post a false dichotomy. It isn't A or B, as you assume. Much like no one in their right mind would argue that because, say, you think that someone should have the ability to defend themselves against Individual A that you believe that Individual A can be killed "just because".

Constitutionally there was never any explicit protection for the fetus whatsoever.

And...? Before the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, neither did Blacks/slaves. The above isn't an argument in any form.

Barring the establishment of personhood rights for the fetus that equate to rights for you and me, the fetus is a part of a woman's body, and nothing more.

Never mind the fact that some never seemed to pass sixth grade biology, if the above quoted is true, then why isn't abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy?

 

[Dragonlady]

Never mind the fact that some never seemed to pass sixth grade biology, if the above quoted is true, then why isn't abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy?

It is legal in all nine months of pregnancy, although I know of no one who has ever had such a procedure much beyond 24 weeks. When I had amnio-centesus with my last pregnancy, if the test results were adverse, they wanted your decision to be immediate, because you were already well over 20 weeks.

 

[Londoner]

Gotta love New Right Christians for their:

1) Fascism: our morality is the only morality.

2) Love of Big Government: Washington shall control the outcome of every pregnancy.

3) God gives man the freedom to choose, and then judges his him based on those free choices. Washington - under Republican rule - does not give man the choice.

Welcome to Big Moral Government, where the wombs of women are the incubators of Washington Bureaucrats, who are posted at the foot of every bed.

Welcome to the republican nanny state.

(Part of creating a small government is giving man freedom and then letting him be judged by God)

God help us.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Never mind the fact that some never seemed to pass sixth grade biology, if the above quoted is true, then why isn't abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy?

It is legal in all nine months of pregnancy, although I know of no one who has ever had such a procedure much beyond 24 weeks. When I had amnio-centesus with my last pregnancy, if the test results were adverse, they wanted your decision to be immediate, because you were already well over 20 weeks.

The first part of the first sentence is wrong; the latter has no effect on the argument placed forward above.

Gotta love New Right Christians for their:

1) Fascism: our morality is the only morality.

2) Love of Big Government: Washington shall control the outcome of every pregnancy.

3) God gives man the freedom to choose, and then judges his him based on those free choices. Washington - under Republican rule - does not give man the choice.

Welcome to Big Moral Government, where the wombs of women are the incubators of Washington Bureaucrats, who are posted at the foot of every bed.

Welcome to the republican nanny state.

(Part of creating a small government is giving man freedom and then letting him be judged by God)

God help us.

Only in your mind does this make sense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

False dichotomy. If, say, you support a person's right to self-defense, does that mean you also support wanton murder?

There is no self-defense involved in an abortion that isn't being performed to protect the life or health of the mother. Think before you post, as a courtesy to those of us who do.

As per usual, my post goes way over your head.

There's a reason I called your post a false dichotomy. It isn't A or B, as you assume. Much like no one in their right mind would argue that because, say, you think that someone should have the ability to defend themselves against Individual A that you believe that Individual A can be killed "just because".

Constitutionally there was never any explicit protection for the fetus whatsoever.

And...? Before the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, neither did Blacks/slaves. The above isn't an argument in any form.

Barring the establishment of personhood rights for the fetus that equate to rights for you and me, the fetus is a part of a woman's body, and nothing more.

Never mind the fact that some never seemed to pass sixth grade biology, if the above quoted is true, then why isn't abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy?

Predicated on the doctrine of inalienable rights – rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, court, or man – then slavery was always un-Constitutional, and women have always enjoyed a right to privacy.

That the state failed to acknowledge and codify these rights until a certain point in time is therefore irrelevant.

The right to privacy didn’t ‘magically appear’ in 1965, as its always existed; and the legitimacy of that right isn’t undermined by the hate and ignorance of those who rejected privacy rights in the past, and those who continue to reject privacy rights today.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Predicated on the doctrine of inalienable rights – rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, court, or man – then slavery was always un-Constitutional, and women have always enjoyed a right to privacy.

A liberal bringing up the concept of inalienable rights is humorous, considering they've spent the last 50 or so years arguing against the very concept.

As it is, it figures a liberal wouldn't know history. Slavery was defended upon the basis that the government had no right to restrict its practice; that those enslaved had no standing under the Constitution as the Constitution never intended to include them; and that slavery was a deeply personal matter best left to men, their conscience, their religion and their posterity. Hmmm. Guess who uses those very same arguments today to argue in favor of abortion?

That the state failed to acknowledge and codify these rights until a certain point in time is therefore irrelevant.

And how do you know the right to privacy is an inalienable right? Do you know why there was no mention of "privacy rights" prior to the 20th century? Because there's no way to define them.

The right to privacy didn’t ‘magically appear’ in 1965, as its always existed; and the legitimacy of that right isn’t undermined by the hate and ignorance of those who rejected privacy rights in the past, and those who continue to reject privacy rights today.

LOL! Please. As liberals are always so quick to argue, how do you know a right exists without it being explicitly stated to exist? You don't, unless you assume that said right exists solely on the basis of you being a human, in which case you cannot argue that abortion is permissible as it to do so would be to deny some group of humans a basic right held by all other humans (a right to privacy has to be afforded to everyone, otherwise it's a privilege). Anyway, STFU about privacy rights. It's dishonest on your part. Democrats don't give two shits about privacy. The only time they bring up "privacy" is when arguing for abortion. Otherwise, they don't care. Just look at the fact that Democrats are passing laws dictating what and how much of something you can drink, are arguing in court that you don't have the right to eat what you want and are trying to restrict whether or not you can smoke. Seriously. GTFO the internet and take your gigantic fail with you.

 

[Freewill]

Where did I say anything about a law other then it is the law now that abortion is legal? And the definition of when a unborn child is protected is set by the law?

My opinion is that we let women know the truth not the hogwash the liberal left wants to feed them. We tell them that the life within them is a life not a blob of cells that the liberal left likes to claim. We give them a sonogram so they know for certain of what they are doing. We explain to the minorities the whole reason Planned Parenthood was started, it wasn't to make their life better it was to make less of them.

Tell the truth then let women make a freewill choice, I believe most will then make the right choice.

My whole focus with you is the misinformation you keep saying about when is a "fetus" a baby worth protection. There is nothing in any study, journal, scientific paper or anywhere that supports your life after birth BS. I specifically mentioned that the time is determined by law removing all connotation that it was anything but a moral decision based on morality not anything else and yes we legislate morality every single day.

You apparently have the idea that freewill is doing and believing exactly as you do, sorry you are wrong.

To believe that abortion should be legal is to believe that the fetus is not the same as a born person.

You believe abortion should be legal, therefore you don't even believe the crap coming from your own mouth about fetuses.

False dichotomy. If, say, you support a person's right to self-defense, does that mean you also support wanton murder?

Thanks for the back. But what he does point out is that for him to believe that abortion is not murder then the unbon child has to be just that, a blob of flesh. So he has to believe the liberal fairy tale of when life begins.

In his lame way he is just trying to box people into a sterotype of his choosing. One that he has all the ready answers and smear.

 

[Freewill]

Actually I think what you are against is manslaughter or murder. But right now abortion is neither so the argument is an argument of morality, unless laws change. It is a sad state of affairs that we have convinced the minorities that abortion is the answer, but that has been the goal of Planned Parenthood from the beginning.

The good thing is that the number of abortions are decreasing. Maybe because of better access by minorities to birth control. Maybe through education. Maybe because women are finding out the truth. At any rate here are the reasons for abortion from 2004.

A 2004 study by the Guttmacher Institute reported that women listed the following amongst their reasons for choosing to have an abortion:[44]
74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73% Cannot afford a baby now
48% Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38% Have completed my childbearing
32% Not ready for a(nother) child
25% Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22% Do not feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12% Concerns about my health
6% Parents want me to have an abortion
1% Was a victim of rape
less than 0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is it then, if someone murders a pregnant woman and her "fetus" that person is charged with murder of both the woman and the child? Why the child if that child is nothing but a lump of nothing? But yet a woman can end the life of that child with no consequences?

Because you don’t understand the difference between civil law and criminal law.

And you don't know the difference between sense and nonsense.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Abortions: Should Women be Allowed to Choose?

Hell....the women, in Congress, should be the only reps discussing & VOTING-on the issue!!!​

 

[Freewill]

I'm pretty sure no one "owns" their own body unless, of course, you're going to argue dualism (i.e., you exist before you exist). And that's without pointing out that no one has complete rule to use and do to their body as they see fit as it is. I'm not sure why pro-choicers love to ignore the latter, but it's comical (especially when you see the same people using that line simultaneously trying to ban someone from smoking or drinking sugary drinks).

Constitutionally there was never any explicit protection for the fetus whatsoever. Barring the establishment of personhood rights for the fetus that equate to rights for you and me,

the fetus is a part of a woman's body, and nothing more.

Did you take biology? If the unborn child is part of her body then how in the hell is it ever born???? Why does the unborn child not share the same DNA? It is a lie to say the unborn child is part of a woman's body.

But I guess in your opinion one can not be against abortion without going out and burning down abortion clinics. Yet you can say you are all for protecting children after they are born but I seriously doubt you give on ounce of caring for the 16 year old American killed, by alleged accident, by American drones.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.

And they have plenty of options to choose from. Birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and natural sex.

Those are all choices.

That's what they told YOU, huh??

*

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Actually anyone with an IQ above about 85, or the average nutball IQ, can easily understand the hypocrisies in the following:

1 - big government is the problem except when big government serves our party's interests

2 - free will is a good thing except when free will doesn't serve our party's interests

3 - America first except when it doesn't serve our corporate sponsors' interests

 

[JakeStarkey]

Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies?

This was resolved in Roe v. Wade.

 

[Freewill]

Actually anyone with an IQ above about 85, or the average nutball IQ, can easily understand the hypocrisies in the following:

1 - government is the problem except when big government serves our party's interests

Abortion lawas and democrats is the perfect example.

2 - free will is the thing except when free willk doesn't serve our party's interests

Gun Control, total control of the education system, and Obamacare, perfect examples.

3 - America first except when it doesn't serve our corporate sponsors' interests

Don't even know how to respond to the last one. I guess you mean like Clinton's "free" trade agreements, which have totally screwed America.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Actually anyone with an IQ above about 85, or the average nutball IQ, can easily understand the hypocrisies in the following:

1 - government is the problem except when big government serves our party's interests

Abortion lawas and democrats is the perfect example.

2 - free will is the thing except when free willk doesn't serve our party's interests

Gun Control, total control of the education system, and Obamacare, perfect examples.

3 - America first except when it doesn't serve our corporate sponsors' interests

Don't even know how to respond to the last one. I guess you mean like Clinton's "free" trade agreements, which have totally screwed America.

That is exactly right. Clinton is almost as much of a filthy cocksucking scum as Junebug was. The primary differences are that Clinton had enough sense not to kill thousands of American citizens chasing neocon unicorns through Asia Minor and Clinton was a wide open mama's boy and self-absorbed crook instead of a dope addled halfwit inheritor closet-case. No other US elected official ever took $10kk/a in payoffs masked as speech and consulting fees as Clinton did in his first eight years out of an office of public trust.

Be clear about this, Mr Free Will, neither party represents people like me. Nutball pipedreams notwithstanding, neither party has put America or US citizens ahead of its corporate sponsers since the bobbleheaded one rallied white trash behind neocons to take the fifty pieces of silver in 1980.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Great. So you want to punish the woman for getting pregnant by forcing her to have a baby she doesn't want. Not to mention your rotten views on rape.

GTFO of a woman's body. Abortion is HER decision, not yours.

I'll just restate what I said to you in the other thread (that you conveniently disappeared from). It's intellectual dishonesty to argue that abortion is about a "woman's body", since an abortion directly targets the body of another.

When are you "conservatives" gonna get REAL, about the subject??!!!

Your opinions are FAITH-BASED, and nothing-else!! (....Unless, of course, you merely enjoy being sadistic-pricks.)

The bottom-line, is....you folks DREAD DEATH....and, you're so fearful....if you don't speak-UP, on the issue....you're GOIN' TO HELL!!!

If your preference is to allow Fairy Tales determining your path....that's entirely up-to-you. You have ZERO Rights insisting upon others doing the same. Take care o' your own soul....and, allow others the SAME consideration!!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.

And they have plenty of options to choose from. Birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and natural sex.

Those are all choices.

Pregnancy isn't a choice; it's the outcome of a decision that had a choice.

And abortions aren't about a woman's body; they're about another body, very much alive, forming within the woman's body. So a woman's "right-to-choose" should be about what the woman does with her body; not the body of an infant she chose to have.

And if we can all agree that every human being is born with the inherent right to live, then abortions are clear violations of this right. As the baby is never consulted with when abortions are decided.

So which is it, are you advocating placing women and their doctors in prison, or are you making a philosophical argument only.

As we know, the right to privacy prohibits the state from interfering with what a woman elects to do, as the Constitution makes paramount the woman’s liberty.

Assuming you accept the right to privacy with regard to abortion, what are your proposals to end the practice that don't involve a privacy rights violation?

Whoa, hold on there. Who said anything about prison?

I'm just against abortions. If a woman gets pregnant then she has the baby. It's as simple that.

....And, that's your choice....and, that's where it ENDS!!!

You have no right insisting everyone makes the same choices YOU do!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Whoa, hold on there. Who said anything about prison?

I'm just against abortions. If a woman gets pregnant then she has the baby. It's as simple that.

If she doesn't want the baby she can give him or her up for adoption. She should have thought of that before she chose to have sex.

If a woman gets pregnant, she can do what she likes, because it is none of your damned business what she does with HER body, so kindly fuck off out of her uterus.

Thank you proving my point.

HER body. The abortion isn't about HER body. It's about the life of a living human being inside of her body that has no say in the situation.

And I will not fuck off. I have every right to fight for the lives of those that cannot.

....Especially if you expect that Golden Ticket that'll get you thru the Pearly Gates, right??

 

[hoosier88]

a fetus is called a fetus for a reason.

Its called that until it can survive on its own outside the uterous.


Yes it is a human fetus but it also is not viable on its own.

Oh and BTW this country has already decided that a woman has a right to deside what happens inside her own body.

Your never going to chang that here.

I suggest you move to Sadui arabia they agree with you

How old does an newborn have to be to survive on its own?

Where does one find that definition?

(My bold)

It varies, of course. As med tech advances, a fetus is viable outside of the womb earlier & earlier. @ some point, we'll have an artificial uterus - or the functional equivalent - & this whole line of questioning will be moot. Then it will shift to who is entitled to use these devices?

& of course no newborn is self-sufficient. The usual test here is whether or not the fetus can breathe on its own, without medical/technical assistance.