Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Government' started by Joseph Carl, Jun 30, 2019.
Several states have mandatory vaccinations and there is a push for a national mandate.
And you don't like it, do you?
It doesn't matter whether I like it or not. It's a fact. Moreover, the government controls what we can eat, drink, or inject into our bodies. The government tells us that we have to wear a helmet when on a motorcycle, and a seatbelt when in a car, and these are things that involve only the person who is being controlled, while abortion takes the life of another person. In some states, women who do drugs during their pregnancy can be charged with child abuse or other crimes if their newborns test positive for drugs. In many cases, the women lose their children and end up behind bars, in some cases even when the drug was prescribed.
Like I said before, these threads don't change anyone's minds and usually end badly. Women should have the right to choose.
And I'm out.
Yep, I've known quite a few, but then I probably worked in a different field than you. Would your husband have had to get your consent for a vasectomy? If so, then there was a law or regulation to prevent unnecessary marital discord. If not, then you're correct; you were treated as someone's property. As a side note, most hospitals have stopped giving out the blood types of newborns, and often don't perform the typing as it caused so much marital (or "partner") discord. Many hospitals used to routinely give out the blood types of newborns, but it caused so much trouble that most have stopped the practice. Sometimes the problem was real, i.e., an AB baby born to an alleged father who was type O, but most times it was simply due to ignorance on the part of the parents, i.e., an O baby born to an A dad...and the Rh type got them even more confused.
In answer to the cancer question, yes, the miscarriage probably caused an increase to the odds of cancer, but there is nothing you can do about it, so just do the routine self exams and mammograms, etc. as is recommended. It is suspected that the increased risk is due to the sudden change in hormone structure, since many of the hormones controlling fetal health, lactation, and such suddenly stop. I don't know what the increase is, since I don't know if researchers have actually compiled the risk, as there is nothing that can really be done to change it. I suspect the researcher who did the abortion study was trying to demonstrate that abortion didn't affect the risk, but it didn't turn out that way. I think the real risk is like the woman I knew who had 5 ABs. No research has been done on the increased risk of cancer in patients who have had multiple ABs that I am aware of, but if you pile 50% onto 50%....for 5 times, it certainly would contraindicate using abortion as a method of birth control.
I can't come up with the guy's name now, but I read of a doctor in the earlier part of the 20th century who advocated for allowing parents to kill their children up to their 13th birthday. I believe he was associated with the Margaret Sanger group who wanted to eliminate Blacks from the U.S. population.
In all but five states, women have been prosecuted for drug use during pregnancy.
@Beth Gallagher When you wrote this:
"I seldom join in abortion debates because they get heated and no one's mind is changed.",
I told myself: She may regret saying that and then getting involved. Frank, stay the hell out of this one......and I have till now......
Bobby, Yvonne, Don, and Ken, thanks for stepping up.
I normally don't respond to Christian hating antagonists, but I will further address a key charge that more than one person holds against anti-abortionists: the right of one group of people to impose their moral values upon another. And in the case of restricting abortion, that imposition does in fact deny a woman her freedom of choice in caring for her body. I understand the objection to this and appreciate the desire to preserve individual choice and freedoms.
Anyone reading my OP carefully would recognize that my argument against abortion was both secular and religious. Even the Atheist or non-Christian sources document the biological factors making a fetus a human being. The development of it's own pumping heart, brain, organs, limbs, and other structures can often be seen at 6 weeks, and by the end of 3 months, all of the baby's features are fully formed. Thus, by the end of the first trimester we have an obvious baby in the mother's womb - clearly a human being, though still not legally deemed a person. I would maintain that intentional killing of this fully formed baby some time during or after the first trimester is an immoral act of murder, though not a legal one by our current standards. For the Christian, the definition of a human life goes back earlier. From the earliest stages of development, the baby has its own DNA makeup making it a unique, God formed human being - a person with a soul that God knows and loves. So, while the Christian has scriptural reasons to declare human life starts at conception, even the secularists have reasons to recognize that a baby is a human being at some point well before birth from the mother's womb. Many states affirm this fact by enacting statutes that protect a fetus at any stage of development from harm or death.
If the fetus is in fact a human being, then the life and liberty of that innocent, defenseless baby should be a concern to others the same as we would be concerned about protecting the handicapped, elderly, or other weak, vulnerable members of our society. Do we then impose our moral standards on others and curb individuals' freedom of choice in the process? Of course, our civilized society does it all of the time.
To suggest that a woman's right of convenience over her body trumps the right of another human's entire life is an indefensible straw man argument. It suggests that anyone should be allowed to do anything - to themselves or to others. Neither is the case.
As Ken stated, we have numerous laws that constrain individual freedoms upon oneself - like prohibiting prostitution, the use of illicit drugs, consumption of alcohol by minors, driving without a seat belt, or riding a motorbike without a helmet to name a few. Now while we probably don't agree with each and all of these infringements upon our individual freedoms, we do nonetheless accept them by supporting representatives that enact the laws and agencies that enforce them. Apparently we, as a society, do feel its appropriate to have some type of restraining control over what others do with their own bodies and lives.
The intrusion of freedom on individuals' actions is even more warranted when it comes to the right or not of one person to harm another. In order to maintain peace, order, and fairness in our society, we have justifiably enacted laws that prohibit murder, rape, assault, and other acts of violence against others - be it people, animals, or things. Even the Atheist can recognize the need for this - that the freedom of choice of one individual to do whatever he wants does not outweigh the freedom of life, liberty, and safety of others. Such is the issue of abortion and the touted defense of a woman's right to choose. Right now, a federal court ruling gives her the legal right to kill another innocent, helpless human being - a baby in the womb. But anyone recognizing the value of that human life, Christian or not, should see the societal need to protect it, and that rightfully entails preventing a mother from killing her own baby - another human life that may be in her body but isn't her body.
Our founding fathers got it right in the Declaration of Independence when they stated that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, that being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Though this is clearly a Christian principle it seems to be one that most Americans support. And yet, a majority of them do not apply this principle to unborn babies. While such babies are treasured, cared for, and protected by many state laws, the individual convenience of a mother is deemed more important than a baby's right to its existing life. For the Christian, this is without doubt morally wrong, but for the secularist it should also be quite troubling. At some point of development, the completely formed baby should be worthy of human being status - with lawful protection to not be murdered. There may be room for debate between Christians and secularists on whether human life should be protected at conception or some time during the first trimester. But defining the value of a human's life as we do now by whether its in or out of the womb is biologically illogical and morally wrong.
Since pro-abortionists (and abortion practitioners themselves) are unable to deny the biological human life of a fetus, they focus the entire defense strategy on a woman's freedom of choice. I would hope that rational people considering this more deeply would recognize the straw man argument serving as their basis. Freedom of choice DOES NOT mean freedom to hurt or kill another human being. Such freedom of choice is not a logical nor defensible position. As a peaceful, civilized society, we have many laws restricting our individual freedom and choices, and life without this would be a barbaric, dangerous,,immoral culture that few of us would want.
Many of the same people who argue for a woman's right to kill her developing child in the womb are in favor of protecting the eggs of endangered or favored species. To recognize an eagle egg as an eagle, and to consider the life of this eagle worthy of protection, but to deny this to a developing human being, that's a contradiction in logic that floors me.
Did you get a load of the story of the pregnant woman who was shot and lost her baby being charged with manslaughter? If the baby is not a person, how can someone be charged with manslaughter when it dies? The woman who was shot and pregnant was initially charged with manslaughter, but the woman who was the assailant with a gun was NOT charged with anything. My only thought was: Perhaps the woman who did the shooting was a doctor, thereby making her exempt from prosecution?
Fortunately, the DA decided it was not in the interest of justice to prosecute the pregnant woman who lost the baby.
The post illustrates our point, @Ken Anderson that many if not most who call themselves Pro Choice are actually Pro Abortion.