Posted on 10/29/2023 11:28:22 AM PDT by daniel1212
The slogan "My body my choice" was the result of a paid PR group focus group study, (Per Dr Berenstein co founder of Naral.) It is emotional and resonates with women. The problem is that it is fundamentally untrue. A woman is not aborting herself or removing a part of herself.
We use genetics to establish an individual's identity in legal proceedings. The child is NOT genetically identical to the mother, or the father, it is a combination of both of their genes, it is separate from and Different, another persons body. (Another way to put this is that women do not suddenly grow extra fingers, arms and legs inside of them, or start to run different blood types or have a part of their body that is a different sex.) The abortion is practiced on a person distinct from the woman, so not her body.
To the statement: "And using a *person’s body* without their consent is rape." (very loose leftist definition) The rejoinder is: " And killing a person with or without their consent is still murder.
I hope that God blesses your discussions Daniel!
"Right is right even when no one does it and wrong is wrong even if everyone does it. " Augustine of Hippo
You have ONE SON, then ONE DAUGHTER!
In that order.
Been there done that, both very successful kids.
“So if a state decided that conservatives must be censored then that should remain at a state level? Issues end up in the SCOTUS due to be unresolved at lower levels.”
This was the problem with Roe. What Roe said was a person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.
However, the government retained the power to regulate or restrict abortion access depending on the stage of pregnancy. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state action the right to privacy, and a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion falls within that right to privacy. In 1973, the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause includes a right to privacy in Roe v. Wade – and that through this right of privacy, women have the right to choose to have an abortion.
For the following 49 years, states, health care providers, and citizens fought over what limits the government could place on abortion access, particularly during the second and third trimesters. But abortion was fundamentally legal in all 50 states during that period. But that has been changed with the overturning of abortion at the federal level.
So if a state decided that conservatives must be censored then that should remain at a state level?
The first amendment to the Constitution has not been overturned like Roe. Anyway, yes, a state can censure a group. But all it has to do is go to a higher court to be overturned. But it can be done.
My purpose was not simply to inform, but to counter the typical answers to this question. And Quora hid my comments from public view.
I’m sorry they censured you, but it can be done. If you want call the FCC and the FTC, and argue your case if they misrepresented you. It might have been easier to understand you if I had seen the rest of your quote.
wy69
Nothing to save, best burned down and rebuild.
It should be innate and it is. Unfortunately, leftists encourage the prospective mother to go against her instincts and kill it. No mention of the father.
We have lost our compassion. We have lost our humanity.
When we systematically kill a innocent human being and rationalizing murder, we are no better than the Nazis during WWII. Yet, we think that we are advanced and good. True, we are advanced — in our ability to kill the innocent — but we have regressed in our willingness to commit murder.
I notice they enumerated “ectopic pregnancy.” Why is this counted as abortion — or am I not understanding it? I thought it was that the embryo attaches inside the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. Wouldn’t this kill the fetus if left to grow to a certain point, and wouldn’t it cause potentially lethal rupture or death in the mother?
One of the reasons for that is that it is not the current SC's role to undo a prior decision unless the case before it is written specifically point for point to undo a past decision (not just a part of the decision). And the person bringing the suit has to have "standing"—in other words, can show harm. This is a hard case for a fetus to do, since the left has been arguing against Personhood for decades. Some states recognize the fetus as a person and some do not; for instance, if a pregnant mother and fetus are murdered, is the perpetrator arraigned for one murder or two? Depends on whether the law in the state where the murder took place is applicable.
Much of the problem lies with the original decision, which was in darker ages medically. Since Roe, medical science has advanced to the point of recognizing that a fetus feels pain and that the heartbeat is present earlier than what was only dimly understood when Roe was decided.
And the original case violated the norms of small-r republicanism; it should never have been a Federal case. So without having read every word of the latest decision, it sounds like the Justices mainly sought to correct the unconstitutionality of Roe having been made a Federal case in the first place; but may not have waded into the Personhood question. I could be wrong. It depends on the wording of the Dobbs case as to whether they were even asked about that. Does anyone know?
“Pregnant people”? On this forum, really? (eye roll)
Do you really think they have to have a case to actually say babies are humans and not dogs? Well then we maybe should just call babies dogs then animal rights activists would shut them down.
Valid points, and yet not matter who much the posters perverse reasoning was exposed, the women was so elevated that she was like homeowner killing a thief who was using her home and eating her food.
Quora has actually been more tolerant lately than before, and in this case the deletion may be due to my blocking the recalcitrant, unreason-able poster.
That is a superficial view, as there is some very informative content, including many conservative voices, albeit a minority, and Quora of late seems to be more tolerant. But the allowance of vulgarity just smells up answers that use it. I post to the benefit of others, in defense of Biblical truth, which it seems others see besides search engines.
Congratulations, your answers had 4,318 views in the past week!
I was thinking of a post, HAMAS butchers babies, DAMAS (Democrats Against Mortal Souls) butchers younger babies. Location, location.
“ectopic pregnancy” is enumerated as a reason for abortion, amount to 1.7% of abortions. Which proaborts use along with other minority of cases to justify all abortions. At the most the only possible allowance I might allow abortion for is in the case when a birth would almost surely result in the death of the mother. As for the 1% cases of rape, liberals require homeless persons be able use building for shelter, how much more a vulnerable baby, which can thus be adopted.
It doesn’t matter what I think or even what commonsense would indicate. It matters how the intricate protocols of consitutional jurisprudence are handled by those who bring the case before the Court.
If you falter in a time of trouble, how small is your strength! Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not He who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not He who guards your life know it? Will He not repay everyone according to what they have done? —Proverbs 25:11-12
Yep just as it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, only what someone says it says. This is ok until we start questioning what "is' means, or "what shall not be infringed" or "make no law," somehow means make no law unless we want to. We no longer care to try and amend the Constitution we just let a few black robed thugs do it for us, easy peasy.
I'm not in favor of this turn of events, mind you. We are simply replaying an old story.
God chose a people to be his special people, on provision that they have a rule of law that he designed for their flourishing. They agreed. He dwelt among them for a time.
But they soon tired of holding the law in their hearts and following it.
First they demanded judges, because they disputed the law when two parties each wanted their own way; then kings, since their relatives and friends joined their fights when they didn't like the judges' rulings. They wanted strong men to put others in jail...
And so it goes.
Even today the Give us a king to rule over us, then we will do all that you say attitude is alive and well.
My point exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.