Pregnant Women Lose Civil Rights

[RKMBrown]

Bullshit lies. We have medicaid in this county, you liar.

You really don't know much, do you. Do you know how poor you have to be to qualify for Medicaid? Middle-class people couldn't afford health insurance before Obamacare, the reason it was created to begin with, and they didn't qualify for Medicaid. You need to do some research so you don't appear so uninformed.

It's really a waste of my time responding to your inane posts.


The number of middle-income earners covered by employer health insurance fell by three million from 2000 to 2008, and government programs and the individual market aren't picking up the slack. The total number of uninsured middle-income earners rose from 10.5 million to 12.9 million, representing 16.2 percent of the income bracket -- a bigger increase than for any other income group.

"It really underscores how the problem of uninsurance is not something simply affecting lower-income Americans but is increasingly affecting the middle class," said Brian Quinn, the foundation's research and evaluation office. The most recent Census Bureau estimate puts the total uninsured population at 46.3 million.


Just 66 percent of people in families earning between $45,000 and $85,000 are insured through an employer plan -- 52.7 million people, down from 55.5 million eight years prior -- a drop of nearly seven percentage points.

Middle Class Losing Health Insurance Faster Than The Rich Or Poor

The reason they are "opting" to not get health insurance is because of your retarded government mandates that have made our insurance expensive. How can you libs be so foolish? For example, when I was 25 someone wanting to have a baby had to buy separate maternity care to cover the cost of the pregnancy. Now... people that don't want to have kids or have already paid for their maternity care when they were young have to PAY INCREASED COSTS TO COVER MATERNITY CARE EVEN THOUGH THEY DO NOT WANT IT. There are hundreds of IDIOTIC government mandates like that.

Yes or no the poor already have health care through medicaid in this country? YES OR NO

Someone making 85k a year can MOST CERTAINLY afford to buy his OWN DAMN HEALTH CARE. They don't need me to subsidize their BMW.

FYI YOU DO NOT NEED HEALTH INSURANCE TO GET HEALTH CARE IN THIS COUNTRY

 

[Newby]

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.

So one identical twin can kill the other because they both have identical DNA according to your illogic?

Now you're just making ridiculous arguments, because both are living humans, are they not? It is illegal for one to kill the other because they are separate beings. Likewise, a developing baby is a being separate from his/her mother.

You made the facile argument that a fetus is equally as human as a baby. If that holds true then so are your fingernail clippings. You then tried to differentiate on DNA but that is a red herring. Your fingernails contain human DNA and therefore should be just as sacred as another human being.

But you are now making the argument that the fetus is not part of the woman because it is "separated" by the placenta. In which case the woman has every right to terminate the fetus since it not a part of her by your own admission.

Either way you are arguing yourself into a corner here. The fetus is not a person as defined by law until after birth. Up until that time the woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy in the 1st and 2nd trimesters and if her life is at stake in the 3rd trimester too.

The "humanity" of the fetus is not the issue. Her Constitutional rights under the law are what takes precedence.

We're protecting the rights of a human life to live, what are you protecting? The right to irresponsible behavior that's results in harm and death to another human being?

 

[Newby]

This is happening all over states that have imposed restrictions on abortion. One case that wasn't in the article that happened just a year or so ago. A pregnant woman in Texas was found on the floor of her home by her husband. She wasn't breathing and he called 9-11. She was resuscitated and taken to the hospital. She was diagnosed as brain dead. However because she was 14 weeks pregnant, the hospital ignored her written wishes of DNR and not hooking her up to machines to keep her alive, the hospital hooked her up to machines. The husband had to go to court to get her taken off the machines. The state of Texas tried to incubate a mostly dead fetus in a dead woman's body.

This is what happens to women when their rights are taken from them only because she's pregnant and the state gives the fetus more rights than the living woman.

Pregnant, and No Civil Rights - NYTimes.com

The OP's is contradicting herself this post is most definitely misleading because its makes the argument that the woman not aborting the fetus is what killed her and that this is going to lead to taking all abortion rights from women but I see no evidence of that whatsoever, at this point the fetus was obviously more alive than its mother and according to the courts the father has no say so in whether the fetus is aborted or not so it was the right decision.

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

I would say that to prevent the state from imposing into spiritual decisions of life and death,
the family should write out their agreements in advance, similar to the Terri Schiavo case that got determined by court.

I do not agree with the judges or courts playing God,
so if people don't want that, then it's better to spell out directives and make sure there is an agreement.

If the couple does not agree with state laws, you may have to move to another state
or change the laws or something to prevent imposition. I agree this is ridiculous!

If you don't want spiritual matters decided by the state, then set these up to be private jurisdiction
and keep them out of state hands. Why wait for conflict to come up again? We should address this already!

I agree.

The problem is that the states have fallen into the hands of those who want to impose their religious beliefs onto their citizens which is why the hospital staff acted in that manner. They were afraid to violate state laws that are patently unconstitutional.

How we roll back this threat to our rights is going to take long term action in order to replace the incumbents or to file suit in the courts in order to have these laws overturned.

There you go again with your lies. This moron believes that you have to be 'religious' to be against murder. It's the only 'argument' that she has against this atrocity, so she clings to it out of desperation.

 

[Newby]

I'm leaning towards mandatory abortions for Liberals.

That's why I have rethought my position on government funded birth control. As long as it's liberal women getting the birth control, I'm all for it.

So you would take birth control only from conservative women.

No matter what they want. You want them to not use birth control.

Did you know you have no authority or right to do such a thing? And did you know you're violating the constitution if you did such a thing? The supreme court ruled in 1963 that a woman has a constitutional right to use birth control. So you want to violate the constitution in two ways. First by denying women birth control and then by denying them the right to terminate a pregnancy. The supreme court ruled in 1973 that a woman has a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

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.

You prove over and over again you have no respect or love for our constitution and no respect or love for freedom.

Do you know that birth control prevents abortions? It's not about life with you or people like you. It's about controlling women's lives.

Maybe if women would control their own lives, then that wouldn't be necessary. You feminist nazis make women out to be helpless victims when we're anything but that. Be responsible, don't have sex or use birth control when you have sex, then you can't be anyone's 'victim'. Take responsibility for your own behavior, or face the consequences of it like a responsible adult should. What you want is for women to be able to act irresponsibility but not have to face any consequences for their behavior. You want to be an eternal child, never having to grow up. Pathetic.

 

[Valerie]

newby, your posts are disappointing...

why do you need to make this issue personal, as if those who see things differently must be irresponsible sluts or femnazis...??

no matter what certain posters may post to irritate you or whatever, this serious issue remains the same...

most rational responsible women (and men) understand the very real legal implications of personhood laws!

pushing such anti-choice legislation should be a legitimate concern for all responsible citizens.

did you even read any of my posts which clearly reinforce the legal and moral rationale??

the anti-choice rhetoric sounds like fascist 'nazis', always wagging the self-righteous finger, talking to rational adults in that manner as if lecturing a child about bad behavior...



"Be responsible, don't have sex or use birth control when you have sex" "

We're protecting the rights of a human life to live, what are you protecting? The right to irresponsible behavior"


may make you feel like the better person, but certainly does not make for a legit argument.

 

[Newby]

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

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

The use of emotive terminology indicates that your point is too weak to stand on it's own...which just happens to be true in this case because no "baby" is being "killed".

What is it they are killing then, an alien from mars? What "species" are these aliens?

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

You spout on here about civil rights and intrusive government while at the same time supporting Obamacare?? What an idiot! lol

 

[Newby]

newby, your posts are disappointing...

why do you need to make this issue personal, as if those who see things differently must be irresponsible sluts or femnazis...??

no matter what certain posters may post to irritate you or whatever, this serious issue remains the same...

most rational responsible women (and men) understand the very real legal implications of personhood laws!

pushing such anti-choice legislation should be a legitimate concern for all responsible citizens.

did you even read any of my posts which clearly reinforce the legal and moral rationale??

the anti-choice rhetoric sounds like fascist 'nazis', always wagging the self-righteous finger, talking to rational adults in that manner as if lecturing a child about bad behavior...



"Be responsible, don't have sex or use birth control when you have sex" "

We're protecting the rights of a human life to live, what are you protecting? The right to irresponsible behavior"


may make you feel like the better person, but certainly does not make for a legit argument.

Well tell me Valerie, what is a woman who goes out and gets pregnant when she didn't want to or intend to? She's a victim, right? Are you a victim when you agree to have unprotected sex? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Bullshit lies. We have medicaid in this county, you liar.

Choices, choices, who to believe?

Fact based sources with properly referenced studies or an ignorant AWG libertarian who has anger management issues?

 

[Derideo_Te]

There you go again with your lies. This moron believes that you have to be 'religious' to be against murder. It's the only 'argument' that she has against this atrocity, so she clings to it out of desperation.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from this topic on the grounds that you have nothing of value to contribute and are unable to post in a civilized and respectful manner.

Here is your one way ticket to Cyberia. Have a nice day.

 

[Newby]

There you go again with your lies. This moron believes that you have to be 'religious' to be against murder. It's the only 'argument' that she has against this atrocity, so she clings to it out of desperation.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from this topic on the grounds that you have nothing of value to contribute and are unable to post in a civilized and respectful manner.

Here is your one way ticket to Cyberia. Have a nice day.

View attachment 34008

What a wacko you are... lol

So, do you have to be 'religious' to be against murder? Is that your assertion??

 

[Valerie]

newby, your posts are disappointing...

why do you need to make this issue personal, as if those who see things differently must be irresponsible sluts or femnazis...??

no matter what certain posters may post to irritate you or whatever, this serious issue remains the same...

most rational responsible women (and men) understand the very real legal implications of personhood laws!

pushing such anti-choice legislation should be a legitimate concern for all responsible citizens.

did you even read any of my posts which clearly reinforce the legal and moral rationale??

the anti-choice rhetoric sounds like fascist 'nazis', always wagging the self-righteous finger, talking to rational adults in that manner as if lecturing a child about bad behavior...



"Be responsible, don't have sex or use birth control when you have sex" "

We're protecting the rights of a human life to live, what are you protecting? The right to irresponsible behavior"


may make you feel like the better person, but certainly does not make for a legit argument.

Well tell me Valerie, what is a woman who goes out and gets pregnant when she didn't want to or intend to?


She's a victim, right? Are you a victim when you agree to have unprotected sex? Is that what you're saying?

what is a woman? what is an unintended pregnancy?

what is you putting words in my mouth about victims...??

is this like jeopardy? what is beside the point??



you'll have to read my informative posts in order to understand what i am saying...

what is a woman who has an unintended pregnancy...........?

a private citizen in a private situation who has a constitutionally protected right to privacy from state intrusion...




weird how so-called 'conservatives' petition 'the nanny state' to keep the evil women folk in their - vag probe - place!


Half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1]

89% occur within 12 weeks and 98.8% occur within the first 20 weeks...

Induced Abortion in the United States



"Fascist ideology consistently invokes the primacy of the state."

 

[Valerie]

Welcome to Parents Against Personhood! We are an advocacy organization dedicated to fighting "personhood" ballot initiatives and legislation, and raising voter awareness about how personhood poses dangerous potential consequences to infertility treatment, birth control, and pregnancy care.

Parents Against Personhood -

Find out more about how personhood can threaten women's and families' access to medical care:

• Infertility Treatment
• Birth Control
• Pregnancy Care

Troubling Trend: More States Hostile to Abortion Rights as Middle Ground Shrinks
Troubling Trend More States Hostile to Abortion Rights as Middle Ground Shrinks

 

[Valerie]

Since the Puritans believed that one could be godly without children and that life began when a mother felt her baby kick, their strict religious code had no need to outlaw abortion before quickening.

The Puritans brought their laws on abortion from merry old England, where the procedure was also legal until quickening.

Although the Puritans changed much of England’s legal system when they established their “city upon a hill,” they kept abortion as a part of Puritan family life, allowing women to choose when and if they would become mothers—whether for the first time or the fifth time.

Colonial women procured prequickening abortions mainly with the help of other women in their communities; skilled midwives knew which herbs could cause a woman to abort, and early American medical books even gave instructions for “suppressing the courses,” or inducing an abortion.

Scarlet Letters Getting the History of Abortion and Contraception Right Center for American Progress



"With increasing opposition to family planning from various conservative forces, it is clear that those of us who are committed to reproductive health must become more thoughtful and engaged advocates. This commitment to advocacy will involve us in many new partnerships. Just as we have moved from a family planning model to a reproductive health model we will need to frame reproductive health in increasingly larger areas -- taking into consideration poverty, women's rights, religious freedom and the environment -- and seeking to engage those who have made a commitment to those issues in our issues.


As part of that expansion of our understanding of reproductive rights and in response to the inroads conservatives opposed to reproductive health and rights have made, it is critical that we deepen our ethical framework and conceptualization of reproductive health. No issue has been more difficult or more a taboo within reproductive health than abortion. No issue is more ethically challenging, although I believe entirely morally and ethically defensible.

...

In the moral sphere, there is no right to abortion but there is a strong right to choose, and this includes the right to choose abortion. There is a right to autonomy, and the right to bodily integrity, and these are broad enough to include the right to abortion."

The Ethics of Prochoice Advocacy

 

[Valerie]

The personhood movement seeks to end elective abortion by declaring that the constitutional rights of human beings apply from the moment that fertilization of an egg begins. To personhood supporters, a single-cell zygote is the legal and moral equivalent of any other human being, and should possess all the same constitutional rights as its mother.


Personhood supporters believe that legal recognition of embryonic personhood holds the key to overturning Roe v Wade by invoking the so-called “Blackmun Exception” to the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment:


However, this view creates a number of unavoidable logical conflicts with real-world situations such as ectopic pregnancy, where a doctor is forced to terminate the pregnancy to save the life of the mother. If the two lives are precisely equivalent, it cannot be morally acceptable to deliberately kill one of them, even if the alternative is to do nothing and let both die.


Likewise, hormonal contraception and infertility treatment involve potential risks to microscopic embryos which would clearly not be permissible in the context of a newborn infant. If the embryo is legally considered a person with the same rights and protections of newborn infants, the legality and availiabilty of these common forms of medical care is called into serious question.

As of 2011, no personhood legislation or amendment has yet been passed. Nobody on either side can say with certainty exactly how legislatures and courts would interpret personhood in any specific area. However, what is clear is that personhood would involve a radical reexamination of every aspect of our legal framework which deals with individual rights, and that it carries serious potential consequences for doctors, patients, and families.

Parents Against Personhood - Legislation




with early American abortion law..the procedure was legal until “quickening”—the first time a mother feels the baby kick, which can happen anywhere from 14 weeks to 26 weeks into pregnancy.

Abortion was not just legal—it was a safe, condoned, and practiced procedure in colonial America and common enough to appear in the legal and medical records of the period. Official abortion laws did not appear on the books in the United States until 1821, and abortion before quickening did not become illegal until the 1860s. If a woman living in New England in the 17th or 18th centuries wanted an abortion, no legal, social, or religious force would have stopped her.


That, however, is not the way the anti-abortion movement likes to paint the history of abortion in the United States. Anti-abortion organizations such as the National Right to Life spin a narrative in which legal abortion is a historical anomaly and an unnatural consequence of modern America’s loose moral standards.

 

[Valerie]

That, however, is not the way the anti-abortion movement likes to paint the history of abortion in the United States. Anti-abortion organizations such as the National Right to Life spin a narrative in which legal abortion is a historical anomaly and an unnatural consequence of modern America’s loose moral standards.




^

 

[NeoTemplar]

I'm leaning towards mandatory abortions for Liberals.

That's why I have rethought my position on government funded birth control. As long as it's liberal women getting the birth control, I'm all for it.

So you would take birth control only from conservative women.

No matter what they want. You want them to not use birth control.

Did you know you have no authority or right to do such a thing? And did you know you're violating the constitution if you did such a thing? The supreme court ruled in 1963 that a woman has a constitutional right to use birth control. So you want to violate the constitution in two ways. First by denying women birth control and then by denying them the right to terminate a pregnancy. The supreme court ruled in 1973 that a woman has a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

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.

You prove over and over again you have no respect or love for our constitution and no respect or love for freedom.

Do you know that birth control prevents abortions? It's not about life with you or people like you. It's about controlling women's lives.

Its not about taking Freedoms away its about defending the life liberty and happiness of those who can't Defend it themselves.

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 your saying its ok for a woman to abort a fetus but if a man walks away during the same stage its somehow a tragedy, That's Bullshit.

Newby, don't you find it at all morally objectionable to allow such State authority over private individuals?
The logical extension of having legal 'personhood' protections allows a dangerous oppressive State power over women.
as a conservative and as a Christian, i find that sort of State control over individuals as most objectionable...
SCOTUS rulings have repeatedly reinforced this unemotional objective protection of personal privacy in the 1st trimester...
IMO it is THE proper legal AND moral stance on this issue..
the only reason our society continues to have this 'argument' is because of self righteous do-gooders who can't seem to get past emotional appeals long enough to discern the legal nuance involved with the immense danger in protecting every conception as a constitutionally protected 'person'.
being politically 'pro-choice' does not mean someone has 'no empathy' for the the unborn, that is a typical dishonest appeal to emotion.
the pro-life movement towards 'personhood' legislation is not something the OP made up, it has very real and dangerous consequences for American citizens. naturally, most women are very concerned about this misguided political trend...
Troubling Trend: More States Hostile to Abortion Rights as Middle Ground Shrinks
Troubling Trend More States Hostile to Abortion Rights as Middle Ground Shrinks

They scream and shout that a fertilized egg is life. Yet they are silent when I ask them where the life is in an ectopic pregnancy. When I ask them how a women doesn't die without an abortion they remain very silent.
They don't even know basic human biology. Yet they want to tell total strangers what they can or can't do with their own body.

Because they know your just trying to bate them into an argument.

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?

Because a will was written while they were alive and pertains to people who are still living. Saying the dead mother has more rights then a fetus is like saying a dead owner has more right to his house than the current occupant does, its ridiculous.

 

[Dana7360]

I'm leaning towards mandatory abortions for Liberals.

That's why I have rethought my position on government funded birth control. As long as it's liberal women getting the birth control, I'm all for it.

So you would take birth control only from conservative women.

No matter what they want. You want them to not use birth control.

Did you know you have no authority or right to do such a thing? And did you know you're violating the constitution if you did such a thing? The supreme court ruled in 1963 that a woman has a constitutional right to use birth control. So you want to violate the constitution in two ways. First by denying women birth control and then by denying them the right to terminate a pregnancy. The supreme court ruled in 1973 that a woman has a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

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.

You prove over and over again you have no respect or love for our constitution and no respect or love for freedom.

Do you know that birth control prevents abortions? It's not about life with you or people like you. It's about controlling women's lives.

Its not about taking Freedoms away its about defending the life liberty and happiness of those who can't Defend it themselves.

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 your saying its ok for a woman to abort a fetus but if a man walks away during the same stage its somehow a tragedy, That's Bullshit.

Newby, don't you find it at all morally objectionable to allow such State authority over private individuals?
The logical extension of having legal 'personhood' protections allows a dangerous oppressive State power over women.
as a conservative and as a Christian, i find that sort of State control over individuals as most objectionable...
SCOTUS rulings have repeatedly reinforced this unemotional objective protection of personal privacy in the 1st trimester...
IMO it is THE proper legal AND moral stance on this issue..
the only reason our society continues to have this 'argument' is because of self righteous do-gooders who can't seem to get past emotional appeals long enough to discern the legal nuance involved with the immense danger in protecting every conception as a constitutionally protected 'person'.
being politically 'pro-choice' does not mean someone has 'no empathy' for the the unborn, that is a typical dishonest appeal to emotion.
the pro-life movement towards 'personhood' legislation is not something the OP made up, it has very real and dangerous consequences for American citizens. naturally, most women are very concerned about this misguided political trend...
Troubling Trend: More States Hostile to Abortion Rights as Middle Ground Shrinks
Troubling Trend More States Hostile to Abortion Rights as Middle Ground Shrinks

They scream and shout that a fertilized egg is life. Yet they are silent when I ask them where the life is in an ectopic pregnancy. When I ask them how a women doesn't die without an abortion they remain very silent.
They don't even know basic human biology. Yet they want to tell total strangers what they can or can't do with their own body.

Because they know your just trying to bate them into an argument.

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?

Because a will was written while they were alive and pertains to people who are still living. Saying the dead mother has more rights then a fetus is like saying a dead owner has more right to his house than the current occupant does, its ridiculous.

Yet many women have lost their freedom. One for over a year. A living breathing person has rights. A blob of cells doesn't. Nor should it.

The reason you people won't talk about ectopic pregnancy is either you don't know what it is or you don't want to admit that life doesn't start at conception.

Which I bet you're one of those people who had to look for the meaning of ectopic pregnancy. If you were then you will know that there are only two outcomes from an ectopic pregnancy. Either the woman has an abortion or she dies. There is no life in that fertilized egg and there never will be. In fact, there's only death. Death for the woman.

Which is a truth that people like you will never acknowledge. It doesn't fit into your strict beliefs.

What I want to know is if it's about life, then why are you people forcing women to put a fertilized egg before her own life? And if it's about life, if the woman dies, so does that fertilized egg.

Why can't you be happy to be free to live your life as you choose? Why do you need to take that same freedom from everyone else? Why do you need to force everyone to live and believe the same way you do?

Why do you hate freedom and liberty?

 

[Valerie]

two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature.

If fetal rights were enshrined in law, women's bodies, rights, and health would be subordinated to the protection of embryos. The legal consequences of such a law would be catastrophic. The best way to protect the fetus is to promote the health and well-being of women.

Laws have never stopped abortion, but only made it unsafe for women. Abortion is a universal practice that has been with us since the beginning of time, whether legal or illegal.

THE PRO-CHOICE ACTION NETWORK

 

[Mertex]

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

The use of emotive terminology indicates that your point is too weak to stand on it's own...which just happens to be true in this case because no "baby" is being "killed".

What is it they are killing then, an alien from mars? What "species" are these aliens?

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

You spout on here about civil rights and intrusive government while at the same time supporting Obamacare?? What an idiot! lol

It appears that you are the idiot. Obamacare is not government healthcare. The government is just the overseer, and rightly so, when people like you don't seem to care that Insurance Companies were able to scam people, raise their premiums whenever they felt like it so that only wealthy people could actually afford "good" health care and terminating those they felt were needing too much care, not to mention declaring some with pre-existing illnesses just so that they wouldn't have to put out any money. You're a bigger idiot if you think that insurance companies are able to regulate themselves.

And your idea that every woman that gets an abortion was just careless in getting pregnant just shows your ignorance. We already have laws that prevent elective abortions just for the hell of it.....what I am against is people like you thinking it is okay to do away with it altogether and to hell with women that are raped or can die from a pregnancy, as well as young girls getting pregnant incestuously. You may not mind carrying or giving birth to the child of a predator/rapist, but you don't have the right to impose that on other women.

 

[Mertex]

Should be retroactive for some.

Yeah, starting with you?