Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding

[Anguille]

i think there is a period in which a woman can choose to terminate her pregnancy which has been solidified by Roe v Wade, which is up to 12 weeks, and after that point I believe the individual states should ban abortions, unless for the health of a mother.

I think the woman has plenty of time within this federally protected period by Roe to make a choice on whether she can or can not see herself as a mother so NO ONE would be forcing anyone in to motherhood?

I think it's an unrealistic expectation that one can predict during the first 12 weeks all the various situations which can arise during the entire 9 months a woman is pregnant. I can imagine several situations which I would agree were good reasons to abort after 12 weeks, but that's beside the point. It's simply not any of my business why or when another woman chooses to abort. No woman is under any obligation to reveal to anyone else her personal reasons for wanting or not wanting an abortion to anyone else and no one has the right to deny her her right to make that decision for herself. As long as the fetus is part of her body she makes the decisions, no one else.

An unborn potential human is not capable of expressing it's wishes and no one has any grounds for presuming what these wishes might be or if they even exist. Assuming, for the sake of argument that fetuses had opinions on rights to life and these opinions could be known, regardless, their rights do not trump those of the human whose body they are a part of.

Personally, I think with the advances in Medical Science that is capable of showing us more and more a closeup of the stages by week of pregnancy along with pregnancy tests that can determine such earlier and earlier, that 12 weeks should legally be reduced to a shorter window period.



Care

So you would limit a woman's right to choose even further?

 

[Anguille]

Are you really still peddaling this bullshit? I've posted the definition of fetus three times you twit. A fetus is a developing human.

Right retard. It is a developing human - not a human, but developing. Thanks for clearing that up..

HUMAN being the operative word here.

Yes, pregnant women are humans not breeding mares, try to remember that.

 

[Anguille]

Thanks for getting the thread back on topic Willow.

What do the pro-choice advocates say about this?

I'm happy with Obama's decision to allow groups that discuss abortion as an option to be included in receiving international assistance. If it's already budgeted; I have no problem with these groups receiving it as well. However I don't argue with those that said earlier that we have a lot of problems in this country that the foreign aid could be going to instead. I agree that we should make sure our own citizens are taken care of first with any federal monies.

If the government has no business in a woman's uterus, as several on here have posted, then why is it ok for the government to put my tax money in a woman's uterus (thus, ripping out the unborn)?

Because it's healthcare and it's good for the country that the birthrate is kept low and unwanted kids don't end up in government paid for foster care. I'm sure there are some things you benefit from that and that my tax dollars pay for but which I'd rather they didn't.

 

[Anguille]

Really? Why was Scott Peterson convicted on two counts of murder if the unborn are part of the woman? When a woman has an abortion, tell me exactly what part of her body no longer exists and functions? Her arms? Her heart? Her skin? Everything is entact in a woman after an abortion; she can even go on and have children later. What part of the child is still entact? Nothing.

What part of your brain is intact?

 

[Anguille]

It means that, as most pro-abortion eugenecists, she will deny that it is about dictating the types of babies who should be allowed to breathe.

Despite the posts that squawk "if you can't afford it, don't have it", or "those babies would just be criminals anyway" "people like that shouldn't breed" "each additional child just makes each child less valuable" or my personal fave: "Margaret Sanger was really a conservative".

Are you addressing that to me?

I've never said any of those things.

 

[Anguille]

A fetus isn't human? A fetus has no rights? Wrong.

Currently, at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 19 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"), indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Fetal Homicide Laws

From your link, :
"The debate over fetal rights is not new to the legislative arena. Every year pro-life and pro-choice advocates vie for the upper hand in this contentious issue. In recent years, states have expanded this debate to include the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women. In some states, legislation has increased the criminal penalties for crimes involving pregnant women. These laws have focused on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus.
Other legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws. Such legislation is hotly debated under names such as the Fetal Protection Act, the Preborn Victims of Violence Act and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act. Those supporting these acts, often pro-life advocates, say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. They assert that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize these cases and provide an opportunity to protect unborn children and their mothers.
Those on the other side feel that laws to protect a fetus could become a "slippery slope" that could jeopardize a woman's right to choose an abortion. Pro-choice advocates say such laws grant a fetus legal status distinct from the pregnant woman - possibly creating an adversarial relationship between a woman and her baby. They are also concerned that the laws could be interpreted to apply to a woman's behavior during her pregnancy (such as smoking, drinking or using drugs). They prefer criminalizing an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the only victim."

Clearly some of these laws are of questionable wisdom or constitutional legitimacy.

So far none of these laws have been or could be applied to prosecute practitioners of legal abortion.

 

[Avatar4321]

So yes if you are going to have sex, you should be responsible for the consequences. Especially when they involve another human life.

Which is exactly why having an abortion is the right choice for some.

How are you being responsible when you try to run away from your actions? How the hell is it responsible to murder someone?

What kind of twisted people are you? Running away is not taking responsibility. It's not facing the consequences. Grow the heck up. If your actions created another life, you are responsible for it. Killing it is not taking responsibility for your actions. Dont even try to pretend that it is because it never will be.

If you cant be responsible for a child, you shouldnt have sex. Yeah, but heaven forbid you actually keep your pants on. No youd rather play with fire and then whine about how you get burned. But rather than just screw up your own life. You have to screw up billions of lives instead. How totally responsible!

 

[Anguille]

So yes if you are going to have sex, you should be responsible for the consequences. Especially when they involve another human life.

Which is exactly why having an abortion is the right choice for some.

How are you being responsible when you try to run away from your actions? How the hell is it responsible to murder someone?

What kind of twisted people are you? Running away is not taking responsibility. It's not facing the consequences. Grow the heck up. If your actions created another life, you are responsible for it. Killing it is not taking responsibility for your actions. Dont even try to pretend that it is because it never will be.

If you cant be responsible for a child, you shouldnt have sex. Yeah, but heaven forbid you actually keep your pants on. No youd rather play with fire and then whine about how you get burned. But rather than just screw up your own life. You have to screw up billions of lives instead. How totally responsible!

Innocent children do not deserve to be brought on this earth as punishment for having sex. Banning abortion is the ultimate shirking of responsibility.

 

[Care4all]

i think there is a period in which a woman can choose to terminate her pregnancy which has been solidified by Roe v Wade, which is up to 12 weeks, and after that point I believe the individual states should ban abortions, unless for the health of a mother.

I think the woman has plenty of time within this federally protected period by Roe to make a choice on whether she can or can not see herself as a mother so NO ONE would be forcing anyone in to motherhood?

I think it's an unrealistic expectation that one can predict during the first 12 weeks all the various situations which can arise during the entire 9 months a woman is pregnant. I can imagine several situations which I would agree were good reasons to abort after 12 weeks, but that's beside the point. It's simply not any of my business why or when another woman chooses to abort. No woman is under any obligation to reveal to anyone else her personal reasons for wanting or not wanting an abortion to anyone else and no one has the right to deny her her right to make that decision for herself. As long as the fetus is part of her body she makes the decisions, no one else.

An unborn potential human is not capable of expressing it's wishes and no one has any grounds for presuming what these wishes might be or if they even exist. Assuming, for the sake of argument that fetuses had opinions on rights to life and these opinions could be known, regardless, their rights do not trump those of the human whose body they are a part of.

Personally, I think with the advances in Medical Science that is capable of showing us more and more a closeup of the stages by week of pregnancy along with pregnancy tests that can determine such earlier and earlier, that 12 weeks should legally be reduced to a shorter window period.



Care

So you would limit a woman's right to choose even further?

yes I would Anguille.....but i would not call it limiting it....every woman would STILL have the ability to choose an abortion, not one would be kept from having one if they so choose.

Why in the world would any woman, not be able to abort their child within the first 8 weeks? This is less hazardess to the mother to be as well and reduces complications from abortions that can happen to the mother.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Really? Why was Scott Peterson convicted on two counts of murder if the unborn are part of the woman? When a woman has an abortion, tell me exactly what part of her body no longer exists and functions? Her arms? Her heart? Her skin? Everything is entact in a woman after an abortion; she can even go on and have children later. What part of the child is still entact? Nothing.

What part of your brain is intact?

I figured you wouldn't have an answer for this.

 

[jillian]

Really? Why was Scott Peterson convicted on two counts of murder if the unborn are part of the woman?

Actually, that's a good question. I said then it was stupid and it would only give the religious right a (specious) argument to try to use in furtherance of their anti-choice rhetoric. Slippery slope and all....

so let's not slide down that hill.

 

[Zoom-boing]

A fetus isn't human? A fetus has no rights? Wrong.

Currently, at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 19 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"), indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Fetal Homicide Laws

From your link, :
"The debate over fetal rights is not new to the legislative arena. Every year pro-life and pro-choice advocates vie for the upper hand in this contentious issue. In recent years, states have expanded this debate to include the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women. In some states, legislation has increased the criminal penalties for crimes involving pregnant women. These laws have focused on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus.
Other legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws. Such legislation is hotly debated under names such as the Fetal Protection Act, the Preborn Victims of Violence Act and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act. Those supporting these acts, often pro-life advocates, say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. They assert that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize these cases and provide an opportunity to protect unborn children and their mothers.
Those on the other side feel that laws to protect a fetus could become a "slippery slope" that could jeopardize a woman's right to choose an abortion. Pro-choice advocates say such laws grant a fetus legal status distinct from the pregnant woman - possibly creating an adversarial relationship between a woman and her baby. They are also concerned that the laws could be interpreted to apply to a woman's behavior during her pregnancy (such as smoking, drinking or using drugs). They prefer criminalizing an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the only victim."

Interesting, you forgot to mention this:

Currently, at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws.

At least 19 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization")

Other legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws.

Clearly some of these laws are of questionable wisdom or constitutional legitimacy.

With the passing of these laws, its clear that the unborn are entitled to rights.

So far none of these laws have been or could be applied to prosecute practitioners of legal abortion.

Not yet.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Really? Why was Scott Peterson convicted on two counts of murder if the unborn are part of the woman?

Actually, that's a good question. I said then it was stupid and it would only give the religious right a (specious) argument to try to use in furtherance of their anti-choice rhetoric. Slippery slope and all....

so let's not slide down that hill.

Oh, thanks for clearing this up Jillian! Because you think its stupid, it is therefore irrelevant so we just won't go there. Riiiggghhhttt . . .

He was convicted on two counts of murder because he took the life of two humans. Not very slippery.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Right retard. It is a developing human - not a human, but developing. Thanks for clearing that up..

HUMAN being the operative word here.

Yes, pregnant women are humans not breeding mares, try to remember that.

Dodge ball anyone?

 

[Zoom-boing]

I'm happy with Obama's decision to allow groups that discuss abortion as an option to be included in receiving international assistance. If it's already budgeted; I have no problem with these groups receiving it as well. However I don't argue with those that said earlier that we have a lot of problems in this country that the foreign aid could be going to instead. I agree that we should make sure our own citizens are taken care of first with any federal monies.

If the government has no business in a woman's uterus, as several on here have posted, then why is it ok for the government to put my tax money in a woman's uterus (thus, ripping out the unborn)?

Because it's healthcare and it's good for the country that the birthrate is kept low and unwanted kids don't end up in government paid for foster care. I'm sure there are some things you benefit from that and that my tax dollars pay for but which I'd rather they didn't.

But, but, but ---- the government has no right in my uterus; stay out!!! The government can't me what to do with my body but joe taxpayer and uncle sam sure the hell can foot the bill? What a load of horseshit.

Abortion isn't healthcare, its murder.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Read their posts and tell me that Ravi, Jillian and others who are rabid proponents of abortion don't think they should dictate who has babies, how many they should have, and what the characteristics of babies who are allowed to live, and their parents, should be.

I have and they don't.

Nor do I.

Do you think throwing a tantrum will make you believable?

This is about freedom from government intervention and from being dictated to by fascist religious fanatics like yourself.

Abortion is a personal choice and though I would never impose one on you, I do think you should consider aborting some of your idiotic posts before popping them out.

No, it's about making murder palatable, so people like you get to pick and choose who has babies. Talk about fascist. That's pretty much the definition. Controlling the population using whatever means possible, including genocide.

And murder is never a personal choice. Know why? Because someone else is the one who has to be subjected to the choice.

Sex is a personal choice.
Suicide is a personal choice.

Sorry, killing your baby isn't.

They have to think this way in order to rationalize murder.

 

[jillian]

Oh, thanks for clearing this up Jillian! Because you think its stupid, it is therefore irrelevant so we just won't go there. Riiiggghhhttt . . .

He was convicted on two counts of murder because he took the life of two humans. Not very slippery.

you know, you really ought to stop patronizing me. I haven't seen you say anything that wasn't religious right wingnut rhetoric on this subject, so I might suggest you take it down a notch.... or 10. Because, once again, this isn't about YOUR moral judgments. It's about what government can and can't do.

I'd remind you that government does overstep as they did in the Peterson case, because people become hysterical.... you know, like you.

I'd also remind you that whatever on earth the state of california might choose to do, they cannot do anything that infringes on the federal Constitution. I also don't believe that law was challenged. Ultimately, it's irrelevant because the law protects women's right to choose from the Carrie Nation's of the world.

One more time, since we're talking about "dodge ball", why didn't the rabid religious right demand that women have day care? job training? education assistance? Don't bother answering, cause we know it's because all of you holier than thou moralists don't care a whit about the mother or the child. It's about making the harlot pay for her sin. Of course, you use the word "responsibility" instead.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Oh, thanks for clearing this up Jillian! Because you think its stupid, it is therefore irrelevant so we just won't go there. Riiiggghhhttt . . .

He was convicted on two counts of murder because he took the life of two humans. Not very slippery.

you know, you really ought to stop patronizing me. I haven't seen you say anything that wasn't religious right wingnut rhetoric on this subject, so I might suggest you take it down a notch.... or 10. Because, once again, this isn't about YOUR moral judgments. It's about what government can and can't do.

Not patronizing, just pointing out the obvious. Please feel free to go back and point out exactly where I've posted religious right wingnut rhetoric. Oh that's right, calling the unborn human . . .

I'd remind you that government does overstep as they did in the Peterson case, because people become hysterical.... you know, like you.

lol you are too much. The government found him guilty because he took the life of two humans.

One more time, since we're talking about "dodge ball", why didn't the rabid religious right demand that women have day care? job training? education assistance? Don't bother answering, cause we know it's because all of you holier than thou moralists don't care a whit about the mother or the child. It's about making the harlot pay for her sin. Of course, you use the word "responsibility" instead.

There is day care, there is job training, there is education assistance. One would actually have to pursue these things, rather than having uncle just drop them in one's lap. Or should government pick up the tab for everything?

You keep spewing things like 'religious right', 'don't care about mother or child', 'harlot pay for her sin', yet YOU are the one who keeps bringing up religion in every post you make.

Again, please feel free to go back in my posts and show me where I mention 'religion and God'.

 

[Ravi]

Scott Peterson--it wasn't his body, it wasn't his choice to make.

 

[eots]

Scott Peterson--it wasn't his body, it wasn't his choice to make.

he was not charged with 1 count of murder and 1 count of unauthorized abortion...
he was charged with 2 counts of murder ...your argument is not sound...