Pregnant Women Lose Civil Rights

[DriftingSand]

Do you want me to have health insurance? Is that not meddling and controlling the lives of others?

The state has an interest in having a healthy population of workers. The alternative was to implement universal healthcare however the extreme right obstructed that proposal so the Heritage Foundation proposal was implemented instead. That was a rightwing plan that included tax penalties for those who didn't have healthcare.

Workers must be born before being "healthy" producers.

Obamacare is reducing the incidence of abortions.

National Abortion Rate Sees Huge Drop As More Women Are Using Birth Control ThinkProgress

Between 2008 and 2011, the national abortion rate declined by 13 percent, according to a new report from the Guttmacher Institute that will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health journal. That puts 2011′s abortion rate at 16.9 abortions per every 1,000 women of reproductive age, the lowest rate recorded since Roe v. Wade legalized the procedure in 1973.

“The decline in abortions coincided with a steep national drop in overall pregnancy and birth rates,” Rachel Jones, the lead author of Guttmacher’s study, explained in a statement accompanying the new report. “Contraceptive use improved during this period, as more women and couples were using highly effective, long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, such as the IUD. Moreover, the recent recession led many women and couples to want to avoid or delay pregnancy and childbearing.”

Personal responsibility in ones personal sex life would even reduce the incidences of those pesky, unwanted babies.

Most of the babies mentioned by the OP seemed to have been wanted.

That's the silver lining. Now if we can just get our entire "civilization" to recognize the importance and value of every human life.

 

[DriftingSand]

I hold that killing a baby is not a basic human right.

thank God, what men like you HOLD doesn't mean much, ernie...

Especially since he, rmkbrown and other RW men don't even know the difference between a baby and a fetus!

Until they're the ones getting pregnant, they really don't count for much.

They don't know the difference between a zygote or a fetus either.

They say a fertilized egg is life. It's not. The woman isn't even pregnant at that point. She's not pregnant until the egg is implanted in that uterus wall.

Men have no place in the reproductive freedom debate.

At least not until there isn't even one single male who didn't walk away from their own flesh and blood. Until all children know their fathers and all fathers take 100% responsibility for the children they create, men have absolutely no say in this matter as far as I'm concerned.

Millions of men in America not just walk away from their own flesh and blood, they actually claim that it's not theirs.

It's disgusting.

Men need to clean up your own house before you stick your noses into a woman's.

The difference between a zygote and a fetus is that one is older than the other. Other than that ... they've both living beings and both are human.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your profound ignorance on how pregnancies work is on display.

Oh?

The mother was brain dead, her vital functions continued via machine - the baby can live, but leftists hate nothing more than a living baby.

What did I not get right?

The woman was not breathing ergo the fetus was not being supplied with any oxygen either so it was also dying. It was probably already brain damaged from the loss of oxygen at the point in time that they tried to resuscitate her.

Extremely unlikely. The baby is much more resilient at that state due to the low consumption requirements - you clearly have no idea how fetal development occurs.

Lack of oxygen leading to brain damage is well known. Problems with the umbilical cord can cause brain damage from a lack of oxygen. In this instance the woman was not breathing so no oxygen was getting to the fetus which would cause brain damage.

Thanks for admitting to being ignorant again.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You believe that a dead pregnant woman has a right to an abortion

No one has made any such ludicrous claim. You can't even come up with a coherent position.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?

good point

Good point! Really? When a person makes a decision to not be put on life support when they die, while they are still alive, and a hospital decides to do so anyway, they are violating the rights made by a living woman. It doesn't seem that complicated to me...

If I put in my will that I will distribute my estate to my daughters on the condition that they not marry black men, a court will disregard my will and distribute my estate to my daughters even if they marry black men. However, if I'm alive, then I'm free to give my daughters significant gifts upon their marriages or withhold any gift if they marry black men and no court can force me to give my daughters gifts.

So, should courts no longer overturn provisions in wills?

Only a racist would come up with an example as vile as that one.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I hold that killing a baby is not a basic human right.

thank God, what men like you HOLD doesn't mean much, ernie...

Especially since he, rmkbrown and other RW men don't even know the difference between a baby and a fetus!

Until they're the ones getting pregnant, they really don't count for much.

They don't know the difference between a zygote or a fetus either.

They say a fertilized egg is life. It's not. The woman isn't even pregnant at that point. She's not pregnant until the egg is implanted in that uterus wall.

Men have no place in the reproductive freedom debate.

At least not until there isn't even one single male who didn't walk away from their own flesh and blood. Until all children know their fathers and all fathers take 100% responsibility for the children they create, men have absolutely no say in this matter as far as I'm concerned.

Millions of men in America not just walk away from their own flesh and blood, they actually claim that it's not theirs.

It's disgusting.

Men need to clean up your own house before you stick your noses into a woman's.

The difference between a zygote and a fetus is that one is older than the other. Other than that ... they've both living beings and both are human.

Both a zygote and a fetus can kill the woman concerned if they denied an abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancies and fetal abnormalities/deaths.

Zygotes that fail to implant naturally abort.

Fetuses that fail to develop properly naturally abort.

 

[Katzndogz]

Here is a legal analysis of the moral obligations owed to the dead because the dead have no legal rights. In death they become objects and are no longer people.

Do we have moral obligations to the dead Rebecca Broadbent - Academia.edu

What? You post an essay by someone expressing their opinion and that is supposed to be the rule of law? Try and dispose of your dead husband in the trash and see how quickly you will find out that you do have a moral obligation to the dead, at least to the following of our laws.

We have laws regarding the disposition of corpses. This does not mean that the corpse has a civil right to disposition. You are so confused. The laws regarding human remains is not a civil right.

 

[Katzndogz]

How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?

Her rights were violated - you think it would be okay for someone to dig up your dead body and drag it around?

It's not a violation of civil rights! Surely you don't believe that the dead have civil rights. You can't be that stupid.

The dead were not always dead. You seem to not be able to grasp much. If the dead have no rights, why then have wills? Surely that is a simple question which you should be able to answer?

The dead have no civil rights. Wills are to protect the property rights of heirs. It's not a right of the deceased. Wills are set aside all the time by contestants.

You're kidding, right? Of course it is the right of the deceased.....otherwise the heirs could make up the wills. Most wills are carried out as specified by the deceased. Sure, a will can be contested, but unless you have a really good case, the will is carried out as specified. I don't know where you get your information.....seems to me you are going by what "you think".

A will contest or will challenge is a case brought to a probate court in order to test a will's validity. Most will contests are brought on the grounds that the testator, or the person who made the will, did not have the capacity to make a will or was unduly influenced. Because probate courts assume that a signed and witnessed will is valid, a will contest can be difficult to win, according to FindLaw.
What Are the Chances of Contesting a Will Winning LegalZoom Legal Info

When was the last time you saw someone who violated the civil rights of a dead person? Like never. The dead have no legal capacity so they cannot even have someone on their behalf enforce their rights.

Well, let's see.....the last time was like in the OP in this thread. If you don't think the dead have rights, try marketing t-shirts with Michael Jackson's picture or some other celebrity that has died. Testamentary distributions, burial requests and organ donations are held to be valid even if they contradict the preferences of the living. Even destruction of property requested in wills are honored, so, I don't know where you get your information.[/QUOTE]

The proprietary interest the Jackson family has in the property of Michael Jackson's estate is a not Michael Jackson's civil rights. You are thinking that all laws are civil rights laws and they aren't. Testamentary distributions, burial requests and preferences of the living are not civil rights for dead people.

 

[Stephanie]

“I want to know why you can't be happy to be free to live your life as you choose. You want and need to take that freedom from everyone else and force everyone to live the way you do.”

Because as is common to most authoritarian conservatives they're afraid of diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty. Most on the right feel the need to compel conformity to justify rightist dogma, where dissent undermines that dogma, which can't be tolerated.

Harry, the translator ring for this one

Steph....most of us on this forum understand what he is saying. You claim you want less government yet Republicans want "government" ruling over women's wombs.

No one is talking about taking away your all's right to kill your own offspring. But to come off saying it's a frikken Civil right even you know that is sick and stupid

 

[hadit]

thank God, what men like you HOLD doesn't mean much, ernie...

Especially since he, rmkbrown and other RW men don't even know the difference between a baby and a fetus!

Until they're the ones getting pregnant, they really don't count for much.

Neither is any more or less human than the other, so if you want to argue semantics, it seems to be a rather weak argument.

The weakness of your position is that you are arguing that your fingernail clippings are "human" and have a "right to life". No one is denying you your right to clip your fingernails even though they are made of the same DNA as you are and are therefore "just as human" as any other part of you.

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

Everyone has unique DNA, but if the baby's DNA wasn't somehow tied to the mother and father, there would be no need for paternity tests.....they wouldn't be able to tell who the father is. To claim that a fetus is not a part of the mother's body is rather immature. Please, you try again.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity Test

Biology makes it clear the developing baby is not part of the mother's body. The placenta prevents the mixing of blood, for example, because the developing baby would be seen as a foreign body by the mother's immune system, which would destroy him/her. To say that he/she is a part of the mother's body is as useful and accurate as saying Christopher Reeve became a part of his respirator.

 

[hadit]

Not that it was difficult to get condoms before. Now don't go off on how "the pill" is great for medical reasons, because you specifically cited reducing abortion. That's done easily with better condom use, and you can get them almost everywhere.

Perhaps you should educate yourself first before going any further.

Study Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates TIME.com

Free vs cheap. Of course free gets used more. I wasn't arguing that, I was saying contraception was cheap and easy to get long before obamadon'tcare came along, no matter what Sandra Fluke tells you.

You didn't read the link, did you?

EFFECTIVE birth control reduces the incidence of abortions. Cheap isn't as effective.

Actually, the MOST effective method is the cheapest. It's also the LAST one most pro-aborts would consider.

Thank you for admitting that you didn't read the link and have disqualified yourself from this topic. Have a nice day.

Nice attempt to shut somebody up, but I've noticed that they never work. And what is the cheapest and most effective form of birth control?

 

[Stephanie]

Especially since he, rmkbrown and other RW men don't even know the difference between a baby and a fetus!

Until they're the ones getting pregnant, they really don't count for much.

Neither is any more or less human than the other, so if you want to argue semantics, it seems to be a rather weak argument.

The weakness of your position is that you are arguing that your fingernail clippings are "human" and have a "right to life". No one is denying you your right to clip your fingernails even though they are made of the same DNA as you are and are therefore "just as human" as any other part of you.

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

Everyone has unique DNA, but if the baby's DNA wasn't somehow tied to the mother and father, there would be no need for paternity tests.....they wouldn't be able to tell who the father is. To claim that a fetus is not a part of the mother's body is rather immature. Please, you try again.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity Test

Biology makes it clear the developing baby is not part of the mother's body. The placenta prevents the mixing of blood, for example, because the developing baby would be seen as a foreign body by the mother's immune system, which would destroy him/her. To say that he/she is a part of the mother's body is as useful and accurate as saying Christopher Reeve became a part of his respirator.

whatever helps you all sleep at night after you have your child sucked out of you vagina and womb

 

[hadit]

Neither is any more or less human than the other, so if you want to argue semantics, it seems to be a rather weak argument.

The weakness of your position is that you are arguing that your fingernail clippings are "human" and have a "right to life". No one is denying you your right to clip your fingernails even though they are made of the same DNA as you are and are therefore "just as human" as any other part of you.

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

Everyone has unique DNA, but if the baby's DNA wasn't somehow tied to the mother and father, there would be no need for paternity tests.....they wouldn't be able to tell who the father is. To claim that a fetus is not a part of the mother's body is rather immature. Please, you try again.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity Test

Biology makes it clear the developing baby is not part of the mother's body. The placenta prevents the mixing of blood, for example, because the developing baby would be seen as a foreign body by the mother's immune system, which would destroy him/her. To say that he/she is a part of the mother's body is as useful and accurate as saying Christopher Reeve became a part of his respirator.

whatever helps you all sleep at night after you have your child sucked out of you vagina and womb

I believe that there are a lot more long-term psychological and emotional consequences to abortion than the pro-aborts care to talk about.

 

[Stephanie]

The weakness of your position is that you are arguing that your fingernail clippings are "human" and have a "right to life". No one is denying you your right to clip your fingernails even though they are made of the same DNA as you are and are therefore "just as human" as any other part of you.

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

Everyone has unique DNA, but if the baby's DNA wasn't somehow tied to the mother and father, there would be no need for paternity tests.....they wouldn't be able to tell who the father is. To claim that a fetus is not a part of the mother's body is rather immature. Please, you try again.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity Test

Biology makes it clear the developing baby is not part of the mother's body. The placenta prevents the mixing of blood, for example, because the developing baby would be seen as a foreign body by the mother's immune system, which would destroy him/her. To say that he/she is a part of the mother's body is as useful and accurate as saying Christopher Reeve became a part of his respirator.

whatever helps you all sleep at night after you have your child sucked out of you vagina and womb

I believe that there are a lot more long-term psychological and emotional consequences to abortion than the pro-aborts care to talk about.

absolutely there is. but the abortion lovers calling it a "civil right" doesn't want to talk about that. They don't care the guilt and long term suffering a WOMAN can go through after they have one

 

[RKMBrown]

Isn't it funny how a person can charged with the murder of TWO PEOPLE if the mother is killed while pregnant?

but hey, a fetus is just a GLOB of cells

you abortion lovers make me ill

this child is 20 WEEKS OLD

Zygote my ass.

 

[RKMBrown]

I hold that killing a baby is not a basic human right.

thank God, what men like you HOLD doesn't mean much, ernie...

Especially since he, rmkbrown and other RW men don't even know the difference between a baby and a fetus!

Until they're the ones getting pregnant, they really don't count for much.

They don't know the difference between a zygote or a fetus either.

They say a fertilized egg is life. It's not. The woman isn't even pregnant at that point. She's not pregnant until the egg is implanted in that uterus wall.

Men have no place in the reproductive freedom debate.

At least not until there isn't even one single male who didn't walk away from their own flesh and blood. Until all children know their fathers and all fathers take 100% responsibility for the children they create, men have absolutely no say in this matter as far as I'm concerned.

Millions of men in America not just walk away from their own flesh and blood, they actually claim that it's not theirs.

It's disgusting.

Men need to clean up your own house before you stick your noses into a woman's.

What an ugly person you are.

 

[ricechickie]

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

Everyone has unique DNA, but if the baby's DNA wasn't somehow tied to the mother and father, there would be no need for paternity tests.....they wouldn't be able to tell who the father is. To claim that a fetus is not a part of the mother's body is rather immature. Please, you try again.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity Test

Biology makes it clear the developing baby is not part of the mother's body. The placenta prevents the mixing of blood, for example, because the developing baby would be seen as a foreign body by the mother's immune system, which would destroy him/her. To say that he/she is a part of the mother's body is as useful and accurate as saying Christopher Reeve became a part of his respirator.

whatever helps you all sleep at night after you have your child sucked out of you vagina and womb

I believe that there are a lot more long-term psychological and emotional consequences to abortion than the pro-aborts care to talk about.

absolutely there is. but the abortion lovers calling it a "civil right" doesn't want to talk about that. They don't care the guilt and long term suffering a WOMAN can go through after they have one

Are you suggesting that people don't have rights to do something they might regret? I don't think potential guilt defines what should or shouldn't be a right.

 

[RKMBrown]

The dying fetus did not have the right to overrule her DNR. The court ruled in her favor.

The baby wasn't dying.

She died, the baby was alive.

If that is the case, why didn't they remove it.....why would a dead person have to be hooked up to machines to keep the fetus alive? If like another conservative said, the baby is not part of the mother then the dead mother's body should be given the respect given the dead and be allowed to be buried.

I see so if you are dying of thirst in the middle of the desert we should let you die and not lift a finger to save your ass. Just let nature take it's course. Never lift a finger for another soul, ... that about sum up your point?

 

[RKMBrown]

The dead woman is dead, so she no longer has civil rights.

I can't believe the level of ignorance displayed from those discussing this, especially you, with your ignorant statement. If you really believe what you say, then why do people make wills, if they no longer have rights once they die?

She made her decision while she was alive, and that is upheld by the courts. This incident happened in Texas, where we have Republican leaders who claim they want less government but somehow put themselves (government) into situation where they have no business. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed or that poor man would have found himself with a "vegetable" for a child to raise and take care of, and of course, then Republicans would have insisted that he receive no help (after they caused the problem), because it isn't the government's job to help with the medical expenses they (government) were responsible for creating.

The baby was brain dead? link?

 

[RKMBrown]

Here's a follow-up from the 1995 story:

A 10-year-old girl conceived from the frozen sperm of a dead man cannot receive his Social Security benefits, a federal appeals court ruled.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a lower court's rejection of child survivor benefits for Brandalynn Vernoff, who was born nearly four years after her father's death in 1995.

The case involved sperm that Bruce Vernoff's widow, Gabriela, had a doctor extract after he died unexpectedly from an allergic reaction. In 1998, she used it for in vitro fertilization and gave birth to Brandalynn in a Los Angeles hospital on March 17, 1999.

Gabriela Vernoff later applied for child survivor benefits from the Social Security Administration but was rejected. A federal judge in Santa Ana also rejected her claims.

The appellate panel ruled that while there was an "undisputed biological relationship" between Brandalynn and her father, the girl was not a dependent at the time of his death as defined by Social Security regulations and by California law on the establishment of paternity.

The three-judge panel noted that California law only grants inheritance rights to children conceived within one year after a parent has died. The ruling also said there was no evidence that Vernoff consented to his wife's artificial insemination, which under state law would be required to establish his paternity.

Gabriela Vernoff "has not provided any evidence of consent to the conception by the insured or his willingness to support Brandalynn," the ruling said.​

AYUP this is why SS sucks. It's not your money. All middle class income earners and up would be better off without SS.