Trump Unhinged: 'Punishment' For Women Who Abort

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"If" abortion was illegal than the states would have to determine what the consequences are for breaking the law. The probable punishment for abortion doctors is that they would lose their medical license, which of course, wouldn't matter to them because anyone who can work a vacuum cleaner can perform an abortion.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

 

[Blackrook]

"If" abortion was illegal than the states would have to determine what the consequences are for breaking the law. The probable punishment for abortion doctors is that they would lose their medical license, which of course, wouldn't matter to them because anyone who can work a vacuum cleaner can perform an abortion.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Yes, I've heard all of this, over and over, ad infinitum, about how women need these "privacy rights." But when it comes right down to brass tacks, all you end up with is a dead baby.

I asked the Admin if I could post pictures to show what these dead babies look like, but he said the rules of the forum wouldn't allow it.

So really, I'm handicapped here, because I can't show you the most convincing argument against abortion -- what it looks like.

When I was 12-years-old, after Mass, I went to a hall where there was a table with pro-life literature. I saw a picture of a dead aborted baby, and I knew it was wrong. No one had to explain it to me. I knew it then, and I know it now.

And as a comparison, I read the Time-Life series of books on World War II. One volume was dedicated to what the Nazis did in the concentration camps. I saw the bodies of the victims, starved so thin that they barely looked human any more, and they were stacked in mass graves. And I knew it was wrong, no one had to explain it to me.

So talk all day about "privacy rights" and the sound of your talking is like a buzzing in my ears. You can't win against the picture. If you are brave enough, go look at it yourself. I'm sure you can find it if you want to. But I'm guessing you won't. Like Albert Speer, you will refuse to look at what you are supporting.

 

[Slade3200]

"If" abortion was illegal than the states would have to determine what the consequences are for breaking the law. The probable punishment for abortion doctors is that they would lose their medical license, which of course, wouldn't matter to them because anyone who can work a vacuum cleaner can perform an abortion.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Sounds like a certain 2nd amendment argument that's often comes from the right. Interesting how things flip flop on this issue

 

[Slade3200]

"If" abortion was illegal than the states would have to determine what the consequences are for breaking the law. The probable punishment for abortion doctors is that they would lose their medical license, which of course, wouldn't matter to them because anyone who can work a vacuum cleaner can perform an abortion.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Yes, I've heard all of this, over and over, ad infinitum, about how women need these "privacy rights." But when it comes right down to brass tacks, all you end up with is a dead baby.

I asked the Admin if I could post pictures to show what these dead babies look like, but he said the rules of the forum wouldn't allow it.

So really, I'm handicapped here, because I can't show you the most convincing argument against abortion -- what it looks like.

When I was 12-years-old, after Mass, I went to a hall where there was a table with pro-life literature. I saw a picture of a dead aborted baby, and I knew it was wrong. No one had to explain it to me. I knew it then, and I know it now.

And as a comparison, I read the Time-Life series of books on World War II. One volume was dedicated to what the Nazis did in the concentration camps. I saw the bodies of the victims, starved so thin that they barely looked human any more, and they were stacked in mass graves. And I knew it was wrong, no one had to explain it to me.

So talk all day about "privacy rights" and the sound of your talking is like a buzzing in my ears. You can't win against the picture. If you are brave enough, go look at it yourself. I'm sure you can find it if you want to. But I'm guessing you won't. Like Albert Speer, you will refuse to look at what you are supporting.

If you are so convicted then please answer the question that I've asked 10 times already. If you view abortion as murder then do you feel that it should be made illegal and if so, should the woman be punished for breaking the law?

 

[Blackrook]

"If" abortion was illegal than the states would have to determine what the consequences are for breaking the law. The probable punishment for abortion doctors is that they would lose their medical license, which of course, wouldn't matter to them because anyone who can work a vacuum cleaner can perform an abortion.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Sounds like a certain 2nd amendment argument that's often comes from the right. Interesting how things flip flop on this issue

Except that the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, but the "right to privacy" is not. I've checked, it's not in there.

 

[Slade3200]

"If" abortion was illegal than the states would have to determine what the consequences are for breaking the law. The probable punishment for abortion doctors is that they would lose their medical license, which of course, wouldn't matter to them because anyone who can work a vacuum cleaner can perform an abortion.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Sounds like a certain 2nd amendment argument that's often comes from the right. Interesting how things flip flop on this issue

Except that the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, but the "right to privacy" is not. I've checked, it's not in there.

I dont see abortion as a privacy issue... as cliche as it sounds I simply I see it as a woman's right to choose when happens with her own body. It's a right we all have.

 

[Blackrook]

"If" abortion was illegal than the states would have to determine what the consequences are for breaking the law. The probable punishment for abortion doctors is that they would lose their medical license, which of course, wouldn't matter to them because anyone who can work a vacuum cleaner can perform an abortion.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Yes, I've heard all of this, over and over, ad infinitum, about how women need these "privacy rights." But when it comes right down to brass tacks, all you end up with is a dead baby.

I asked the Admin if I could post pictures to show what these dead babies look like, but he said the rules of the forum wouldn't allow it.

So really, I'm handicapped here, because I can't show you the most convincing argument against abortion -- what it looks like.

When I was 12-years-old, after Mass, I went to a hall where there was a table with pro-life literature. I saw a picture of a dead aborted baby, and I knew it was wrong. No one had to explain it to me. I knew it then, and I know it now.

And as a comparison, I read the Time-Life series of books on World War II. One volume was dedicated to what the Nazis did in the concentration camps. I saw the bodies of the victims, starved so thin that they barely looked human any more, and they were stacked in mass graves. And I knew it was wrong, no one had to explain it to me.

So talk all day about "privacy rights" and the sound of your talking is like a buzzing in my ears. You can't win against the picture. If you are brave enough, go look at it yourself. I'm sure you can find it if you want to. But I'm guessing you won't. Like Albert Speer, you will refuse to look at what you are supporting.

If you are so convicted then please answer the question that I've asked 10 times already. If you view abortion as murder then do you feel that it should be made illegal and if so, should the woman be punished for breaking the law?

It's a trick question. If I say the woman should be punished, you will declare that I hate all women. If I say the woman shouldn't be punished, you will declare that I don't really think abortion is a murder of a human being.

So I will say this: in the absence of Roe v. Wade, the states will decide what to do about abortion. I would like to see a Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion, but until that happens, the states will decide.

 

[Blackrook]

"If" abortion was illegal than the states would have to determine what the consequences are for breaking the law. The probable punishment for abortion doctors is that they would lose their medical license, which of course, wouldn't matter to them because anyone who can work a vacuum cleaner can perform an abortion.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Sounds like a certain 2nd amendment argument that's often comes from the right. Interesting how things flip flop on this issue

Except that the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, but the "right to privacy" is not. I've checked, it's not in there.

I dont see abortion as a privacy issue... as cliche as it sounds I simply I see it as a woman's right to choose when happens with her own body. It's a right we all have.

If you went into a hospital and demanded that the surgeons amputate a healthy limb, they would refuse to do it. So it's not your body, it doesn't belong to you.1 Corinthians 6:20

 

[Slade3200]

"If" abortion was illegal than the states would have to determine what the consequences are for breaking the law. The probable punishment for abortion doctors is that they would lose their medical license, which of course, wouldn't matter to them because anyone who can work a vacuum cleaner can perform an abortion.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Yes, I've heard all of this, over and over, ad infinitum, about how women need these "privacy rights." But when it comes right down to brass tacks, all you end up with is a dead baby.

I asked the Admin if I could post pictures to show what these dead babies look like, but he said the rules of the forum wouldn't allow it.

So really, I'm handicapped here, because I can't show you the most convincing argument against abortion -- what it looks like.

When I was 12-years-old, after Mass, I went to a hall where there was a table with pro-life literature. I saw a picture of a dead aborted baby, and I knew it was wrong. No one had to explain it to me. I knew it then, and I know it now.

And as a comparison, I read the Time-Life series of books on World War II. One volume was dedicated to what the Nazis did in the concentration camps. I saw the bodies of the victims, starved so thin that they barely looked human any more, and they were stacked in mass graves. And I knew it was wrong, no one had to explain it to me.

So talk all day about "privacy rights" and the sound of your talking is like a buzzing in my ears. You can't win against the picture. If you are brave enough, go look at it yourself. I'm sure you can find it if you want to. But I'm guessing you won't. Like Albert Speer, you will refuse to look at what you are supporting.

If you are so convicted then please answer the question that I've asked 10 times already. If you view abortion as murder then do you feel that it should be made illegal and if so, should the woman be punished for breaking the law?

It's a trick question. If I say the woman should be punished, you will declare that I hate all women. If I say the woman shouldn't be punished, you will declare that I don't really think abortion is a murder of a human being.

So I will say this: in the absence of Roe v. Wade, the states will decide what to do about abortion. I would like to see a Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion, but until that happens, the states will decide.

I wouldn't claim that you hate women if you said that they should be punished I'd think you were being honest in your belief that she took a life and committed a crime... But I'd also ask if you think that the mother and Doctor and any others involved with the abortion should be charged with murder? Same standards as we use today... Be honest, I'm genuinely curious, not judging.

 

[Slade3200]

"If" abortion was illegal than the states would have to determine what the consequences are for breaking the law. The probable punishment for abortion doctors is that they would lose their medical license, which of course, wouldn't matter to them because anyone who can work a vacuum cleaner can perform an abortion.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Sounds like a certain 2nd amendment argument that's often comes from the right. Interesting how things flip flop on this issue

Except that the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, but the "right to privacy" is not. I've checked, it's not in there.

I dont see abortion as a privacy issue... as cliche as it sounds I simply I see it as a woman's right to choose when happens with her own body. It's a right we all have.

If you went into a hospital and demanded that the surgeons amputate a healthy limb, they would refuse to do it. So it's not your body, it doesn't belong to you.1 Corinthians 6:20

They don't do it because of a malpractice suit and ethics code, not because of a bible verse. If you amputated your own limb you would not be given a ticket or thrown in jail.

 

[Yarddog]

"If" abortion was illegal than the states would have to determine what the consequences are for breaking the law. The probable punishment for abortion doctors is that they would lose their medical license, which of course, wouldn't matter to them because anyone who can work a vacuum cleaner can perform an abortion.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Sounds like a certain 2nd amendment argument that's often comes from the right. Interesting how things flip flop on this issue

Except that the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, but the "right to privacy" is not. I've checked, it's not in there.

I dont see abortion as a privacy issue... as cliche as it sounds I simply I see it as a woman's right to choose when happens with her own body. It's a right we all have.

If you went into a hospital and demanded that the surgeons amputate a healthy limb, they would refuse to do it. So it's not your body, it doesn't belong to you.1 Corinthians 6:20

But what about your privacy rights? what if you wanted to amputate your arm? its your right , no one can infringe on your privacy

 

[Blackrook]

The "right to privacy" was an invention of the Supreme Court, and not the real reason liberals want legal abortion.

The feminists want a world where a woman can be as reckless about sex as a man. They see men as free because they can walk away from a pregnancy without consequences (not really true, but that's what they believe). Abortion gives women that same power, to walk away from a pregnancy without consequences.

The problem with that kind of sex is that it debases the woman, turning her into a sexual object for men's pleasure, a toy to be used, and then abortion fixes the toy when it is broken.

 

[Blackrook]

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Sounds like a certain 2nd amendment argument that's often comes from the right. Interesting how things flip flop on this issue

Except that the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, but the "right to privacy" is not. I've checked, it's not in there.

I dont see abortion as a privacy issue... as cliche as it sounds I simply I see it as a woman's right to choose when happens with her own body. It's a right we all have.

If you went into a hospital and demanded that the surgeons amputate a healthy limb, they would refuse to do it. So it's not your body, it doesn't belong to you.1 Corinthians 6:20

They don't do it because of a malpractice suit and ethics code, not because of a bible verse. If you amputated your own limb you would not be given a ticket or thrown in jail.

They would put anyone who hacked off his own limb into a mental ward, and it would be very difficult for him to get out until he could prove he would not do it again.

 

[Slade3200]

The "right to privacy" was an invention of the Supreme Court, and not the real reason liberals want legal abortion.

The feminists want a world where a woman can be as reckless about sex as a man. They see men as free because they can walk away from a pregnancy without consequences (not really true, but that's what they believe). Abortion gives women that same power, to walk away from a pregnancy without consequences.

The problem with that kind of sex is that it debases the woman, turning her into a sexual object for men's pleasure, a toy to be used, and then abortion fixes the toy when it is broken.

There is so much wrong with this statement that I don't even want to touch it. How about you answer my question about the punishments...

 

[Blackrook]

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Sounds like a certain 2nd amendment argument that's often comes from the right. Interesting how things flip flop on this issue

Except that the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, but the "right to privacy" is not. I've checked, it's not in there.

I dont see abortion as a privacy issue... as cliche as it sounds I simply I see it as a woman's right to choose when happens with her own body. It's a right we all have.

If you went into a hospital and demanded that the surgeons amputate a healthy limb, they would refuse to do it. So it's not your body, it doesn't belong to you.1 Corinthians 6:20

But what about your privacy rights? what if you wanted to amputate your arm? its your right , no one can infringe on your privacy

No, you do not have the right to amputate your own arm. Your body is not your property. You are not free to do with it as you will. That is why suicide is illegal in all 50 states, with only a few states allowing assisted suicide.

 

[Blackrook]

The "right to privacy" was an invention of the Supreme Court, and not the real reason liberals want legal abortion.

The feminists want a world where a woman can be as reckless about sex as a man. They see men as free because they can walk away from a pregnancy without consequences (not really true, but that's what they believe). Abortion gives women that same power, to walk away from a pregnancy without consequences.

The problem with that kind of sex is that it debases the woman, turning her into a sexual object for men's pleasure, a toy to be used, and then abortion fixes the toy when it is broken.

There is so much wrong with this statement that I don't even want to touch it. How about you answer my question about the punishments...

I already answered the question. Each state would decide what to do if Roe v. Wade was overturned. Abortion would remain legal in liberal states like New York and California. Some states would ban it outright. Other states would restrict it, without banning it. There are 50 ways to answer the question of what to do about women who abort, not just one.

 

[Slade3200]

The "right to privacy" was an invention of the Supreme Court, and not the real reason liberals want legal abortion.

The feminists want a world where a woman can be as reckless about sex as a man. They see men as free because they can walk away from a pregnancy without consequences (not really true, but that's what they believe). Abortion gives women that same power, to walk away from a pregnancy without consequences.

The problem with that kind of sex is that it debases the woman, turning her into a sexual object for men's pleasure, a toy to be used, and then abortion fixes the toy when it is broken.

There is so much wrong with this statement that I don't even want to touch it. How about you answer my question about the punishments...

I already answered the question. Each state would decide what to do if Roe v. Wade was overturned. Abortion would remain legal in liberal states like New York and California. Some states would ban it outright. Other states would restrict it, without banning it. There are 50 ways to answer the question of what to do about women who abort, not just one.

That's a fair answer as far as federal policy. But what would YOU support for your state. Abortion illegal and what kind a punishment?

 

[Yarddog]

Sounds like a certain 2nd amendment argument that's often comes from the right. Interesting how things flip flop on this issue

Except that the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, but the "right to privacy" is not. I've checked, it's not in there.

I dont see abortion as a privacy issue... as cliche as it sounds I simply I see it as a woman's right to choose when happens with her own body. It's a right we all have.

If you went into a hospital and demanded that the surgeons amputate a healthy limb, they would refuse to do it. So it's not your body, it doesn't belong to you.1 Corinthians 6:20

But what about your privacy rights? what if you wanted to amputate your arm? its your right , no one can infringe on your privacy

No, you do not have the right to amputate your own arm. Your body is not your property. You are not free to do with it as you will. That is why suicide is illegal in all 50 states, with only a few states allowing assisted suicide.

agreed, i was only being sarcastic in a sense, but its also interesting, if suicide is illegal, what would be the punishment for suicide? maybe it seems some things can be illegal and not be tied to a punishment

 

[Slade3200]

Except that the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, but the "right to privacy" is not. I've checked, it's not in there.

I dont see abortion as a privacy issue... as cliche as it sounds I simply I see it as a woman's right to choose when happens with her own body. It's a right we all have.

If you went into a hospital and demanded that the surgeons amputate a healthy limb, they would refuse to do it. So it's not your body, it doesn't belong to you.1 Corinthians 6:20

But what about your privacy rights? what if you wanted to amputate your arm? its your right , no one can infringe on your privacy

No, you do not have the right to amputate your own arm. Your body is not your property. You are not free to do with it as you will. That is why suicide is illegal in all 50 states, with only a few states allowing assisted suicide.

agreed, i was only being sarcastic in a sense, but its also interesting, if suicide is illegal, what would be the punishment for suicide? maybe it seems some things can be illegal and not be tied to a punishment

If it's illegal then there is a punishment, for suicide attempts they can be hospitalized against their will and forced to seek counseling

 

[Yarddog]

I dont see abortion as a privacy issue... as cliche as it sounds I simply I see it as a woman's right to choose when happens with her own body. It's a right we all have.

If you went into a hospital and demanded that the surgeons amputate a healthy limb, they would refuse to do it. So it's not your body, it doesn't belong to you.1 Corinthians 6:20

But what about your privacy rights? what if you wanted to amputate your arm? its your right , no one can infringe on your privacy

No, you do not have the right to amputate your own arm. Your body is not your property. You are not free to do with it as you will. That is why suicide is illegal in all 50 states, with only a few states allowing assisted suicide.

agreed, i was only being sarcastic in a sense, but its also interesting, if suicide is illegal, what would be the punishment for suicide? maybe it seems some things can be illegal and not be tied to a punishment

If it's illegal then there is a punishment, for suicide attempts they can be hospitalized against their will and forced to seek counseling

Is that really a punishment? it doesnt seem like a punishment to me. letting them kill themselves without intervention seems like more of a punishment than making someone get help