Why I am now anti-abortion

[Sgt Staples]

I bet if you look at the bill it was a monstrocity of moral ambiguity. Late term abortions are only done when the health of the mother is at risk or the baby is severely deformed or sick for some reason. As always, right wing religious nuts want to insert themselves between a woman and her doctor. You folks seem to love taking government out of so many areas of our lives but insist on pushing it into the womb of a pregnant woman. Do you think fertile wombs belong to the people or to the woman? I think you see it as part of the commons, a field of dreams owned by us all, controlled by religion and subject to the law.

define "health of the Mother." Is a headache an excuse for a late term abortion? The fact is, that rarely if ever, is the health of the mother in jeopardy if she was healthy during the full term of the pregnancy. And this bill was just to insure that an infant born alive during an abortion would receive medical care.

 

[Sgt Staples]

I expect a woman to have the brains to not get pregnant in the first place if she doesn't want children.
I deny her no right.
And I support the human rights of her babies.... even the unborn ones.

Women are intelligent enough to CHOOSE not to get pregnant unless they want a child.

Obviously you don't think women are smart enough to make that choice or you wouldn't have written some of this crap here. Shame on you.

Agreed. With birth control quite affordable, there is no reason to get pregnant in a women chooses not to. If she does as a result of spur of the moment passion, she has every obligation to defend the life of the infant as if it were her own.

 

[Jen]

Agreed. With birth control quite affordable, there is no reason to get pregnant in a women chooses not to. If she does as a result of spur of the moment passion, she has every obligation to defend the life of the infant as if it were her own.

Absolutely. An unborn baby has rights. Any mother should be willing to defend the rights of her unborn child. It surprises me that some are not willing to do that.

 

[oicu812]

the unborn children have the same rights against being murdered IF the one doing the deed also kills the mother..

2 charges of murder vs one...

odd how that works...

 

[oicu812]

oh, and btw,,you actually dont have to kill the mother to be charged with murdering her unborn child,,if it causes her to lose the "clump of cells"...

 

[Max R.]

Absolutely. An unborn baby has rights. Any mother should be willing to defend the rights of her unborn child. It surprises me that some are not willing to do that.

That makes them unfit mothers and that trait is often either genetic or cultural so the child will grow up to be an equally unfit adult. Best, IMO, just to nip the problem in the bud.

 

[Jen]

That makes them unfit mothers and that trait is often either genetic or cultural so the child will grow up to be an equally unfit adult. Best, IMO, just to nip the problem in the bud.

That's certainly the pragmatic view of it.

 

[BobbyT]

I expect a woman to have the brains to not get pregnant in the first place if she doesn't want children.
I deny her no right.
And I support the human rights of her babies.... even the unborn ones.

Women are intelligent enough to CHOOSE not to get pregnant unless they want a child.

Obviously you don't think women are smart enough to make that choice or you wouldn't have written some of this crap here. Shame on you.

Unintended pregnancies are real.

 

[Caroljo]

oh, and btw,,you actually dont have to kill the mother to be charged with murdering her unborn child,,if it causes her to lose the "clump of cells"...

I never understood that either! What I've been told the difference is, if the woman was pregnant because she WANTED to be, then if the child is killed too it would then be murder. So, with an abortion...because the woman didn't want to be pregnant, it's not murder if she has it killed. Don't you think that makes sense??

 

[oicu812]

I never understood that either! What I've been told the difference is, if the woman was pregnant because she WANTED to be, then if the child is killed too it would then be murder. So, with an abortion...because the woman didn't want to be pregnant, it's not murder if she has it killed. Don't you think that makes sense??

it makes no sense..but then the radfems who pushed for that never do...

its not murder if mom does it...

wacky fvcks they are..

 

[Max R.]

it makes no sense..but then the radfems who pushed for that never do...

its not murder if mom does it...

wacky fvcks they are..

My understanding is that the law wasn't passed by the "radfems" and many opposed it because of this implication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."
.......
History
Prior to enactment of the federal law, the child in utero was, as a general rule, not recognized as a victim of federal crimes of violence. Thus, in a federal crime that injured a pregnant woman and killed the child in utero," no homicide was recognized, in most cases.[6]

One exception was the "born-alive rule," applied in US v. Spencer, 839 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1988), a case in which the child was born alive and died shortly afterwards; therefore there was no doubt that the decedent was once a living person under the law.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was first introduced in Congress in 1999 by then-Congressman (later Senator) Lindsey Graham (R-SC). It passed the House of Representatives in 1999 and 2001, but not the Senate. In 2003, the bill was reintroduced in the House as H.R. 1997 by Rep. Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania. It was ultimately co-sponsored by 136 other members of the House before it passed by a vote of 254 in favor to 163 against on February 26, 2004. After several amendments were rejected, it was passed in the Senate by a vote of 61-38 on March 25, 2004. It was signed into law byPresident Bush on April 1, 2004.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

 

[gigi]

Unintended pregnancies are real.

So are the human beings we talk about having the right to kill off because they were "unintended".

 

[gigi]

My understanding is that the law wasn't passed by the "radfems" and many opposed it because of this implication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."
.......
History
Prior to enactment of the federal law, the child in utero was, as a general rule, not recognized as a victim of federal crimes of violence. Thus, in a federal crime that injured a pregnant woman and killed the child in utero," no homicide was recognized, in most cases.[6]

One exception was the "born-alive rule," applied in US v. Spencer, 839 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1988), a case in which the child was born alive and died shortly afterwards; therefore there was no doubt that the decedent was once a living person under the law.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was first introduced in Congress in 1999 by then-Congressman (later Senator) Lindsey Graham (R-SC). It passed the House of Representatives in 1999 and 2001, but not the Senate. In 2003, the bill was reintroduced in the House as H.R. 1997 by Rep. Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania. It was ultimately co-sponsored by 136 other members of the House before it passed by a vote of 254 in favor to 163 against on February 26, 2004. After several amendments were rejected, it was passed in the Senate by a vote of 61-38 on March 25, 2004. It was signed into law byPresident Bush on April 1, 2004.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

Max, what it boils down to is this: If a woman is carrying a child that she wants but who ends up being killed in an act of violence, then it's murder. If a woman is carrying a child she doesn't want and requests that the violent act of killing him through abortion be committed, then it was just a choice.
How can one child be both only fetal tissue and a human being worthy of justice under the law at the same time?

 

[gigi]

it makes no sense..but then the radfems who pushed for that never do...

its not murder if mom does it...

wacky fvcks they are..

Very succinct: "It's not murder if mom does it." Perfect.

 

[BobbyT]

So are the human beings we talk about having the right to kill off because they were "unintended".

Not until they're viable.

 

[gigi]

define "health of the Mother." Is a headache an excuse for a late term abortion? The fact is, that rarely if ever, is the health of the mother in jeopardy if she was healthy during the full term of the pregnancy. And this bill was just to insure that an infant born alive during an abortion would receive medical care.

Define the health of the mother.....Interesting.

Tiller kept a psychiatrist on staff who would diagnose a serious mental health issue that was brewing as a result of the pregnancy and would be exacerbated by the continuing of the pregnancy. When the atty. general in Kansas tried to get through Tiller's cases, he was finding things like...patient will be depressed and suffer suicidal tendencies if pregnancy prevents her from going to a concert. And Sebilius' friends in Kansas made short work of him.

Other abortionists only needed to have their patients sign papers that said that their pregnancies were depressing them or making them anxious. You can't prove depression and anxiety don't exist in someone. You can't prove that they won't harm themselves if their situation doesn't change.

 

[gigi]

Not until they're viable.

You don't unborn human beings are real? What are they, pretend?
They're real. You can talk all day long about rights and viability...but they are real from conception. There's an entire branch of medicine devoted to monitoring their growth, ensuring their healthy development, and bringing them out of their mothers at the end of term. There's another whole branch of medicine devoted to caring for the ones born too early, to ensure that they survive and thrive.
And of course...there's the abortion industry, under which PP pulls in over a billion dollars a year killing them. They're real, Bobby. As real as you and me.

 

[BobbyT]

You don't unborn human beings are real? What are they, pretend?
They're real. You can talk all day long about rights and viability...but they are real from conception. There's an entire branch of medicine devoted to monitoring their growth, ensuring their healthy development, and bringing them out of their mothers at the end of term. There's another whole branch of medicine devoted to caring for the ones born too early, to ensure that they survive and thrive.
And of course...there's the abortion industry, under which PP pulls in over a billion dollars a year killing them. They're real, Bobby. As real as you and me.

Until they are viable, it is the constitutionally protected choice of the woman whether to carry them to term, as it should be. I don't believe in forcing women to carry pregnancies to term if they don't want to for whatever their reasons are.

 

[gigi]

This is Sue Thayer. She was an employee of Planned Parenthood for 17 years, many of those years as a clinic manager. Hopefully, she'll be testifying before Congress. Watch these two short videos and watch her explain how PP not only rips off Medicaid, but also the women liberals seem to care so much about. And then watch the next video, where she discusses the telemed abortion and how PP pushes for that because it's so lucrative for them.

http://adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2015/10/07/why-sue-thayer-would-testify-against-former-employer-planned-parenthood

 

[gigi]

Until they are viable, it is the constitutionally protected choice of the woman whether to carry them to term, as it should be. I don't believe in forcing women to carry pregnancies to term if they don't want to for whatever their reasons are.

And slavery and segregation were upheld as rights, too. What's your point? Were the victims of those real or not?
Sometimes America makes mistakes.