In our relatively civilized world a woman who is carrying a fetus has the choice (unless that choice is taken from her or made unavailable to her) to abort.
In more barbaric times women did not have the option. Hence today, there are more descendants of the rapist Ghengis Khan, than there are of any other single man.
<div class=“bbp-reply-content”>
In our relatively civilized world a woman who is carrying a fetus has the choice (unless that choice is taken from her or made unavailable to her) to abort.In more barbaric times women did not have the option. Hence today, there are more descendants of the rapist Ghengis Khan, than there are of any other single man.
Women have “advanced” from being the victims to being the victimizers.
But most men remain sanctimonious in the establishment of values than can effectively keep women under their control.
TimB: "But most men remain sanctimonious in the establishment of values than can effectively keep women under their control."Thanks for being such a good counter-balance on this slender thread. :-)
But most men remain sanctimonious in the establishment of values than can effectively keep women under their control.Controlling people to not electively kill their own children is a good thing.
Mothers do not get a pass on electively killing children.
We the people, through the consent of the governed, empower our government to arrest, try, jail, and sometimes execute parents who electively kill their children, and I don’t give a damn if the convicted feel unduly controlled.
Starry: The mother is the center of family and a healthy society, she is supremely important! Your misandry is nauseating.
If you could explain that I’d sure appreciate it.
What does my respect for woman have to do with my sense of masculinity or my attitude towards my sex?
That’s so weird dude (said in my best valley girl).
mis·an·dry /miˈsandrē/ noun dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e. the male sex). "poorly disguised misandry"Oh my god, I had no idea. : - 0
I think the point here is that you are incapable of dealing with the ideas I’m trying to discuss, instead you must divert attention with irrelevances. Worst, you are driven to morph me into some monstrosity of an imaginary villain, as you so vividly describe, without appreciating that it really says way the hell more about you and where you’re at, than me. You need to hate me and fear me, it’s all got to be so simple, your people and everyone else is the enemy, real or imagined and if you imagine it hard enough you always seem to make it happen.
Oh and incidentally,
actually, I’m the humble human here. I appreciate I am not in a position to judge a Mother’s circumstance or her choices or her motive. Has nothing to do with how much or how little of macho macho guy I am.
Seems to me - you on the other hand find it quite easy playing God and deciding what’s happening within the hearts and minds of others. Then to judge how righteous each is. That’s scary to me, but it’s the way you think, (as your words have lead me to conclude).
Speaking of Motherhood, here’s one now,
Why America's policies toward mothers need to be fixedauthor Amy Westervelt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be-tZiEq8ZQ
PBS NewsHour
Published on Mar 3, 2019When she went back to work one day after having her second child, author Amy Westervelt realized America’s policies towards mothers need to be fixed. In “Forget Having It All: How America Messed Up Motherhood - and How to Fix It,” Westervelt explores the history of American beliefs about motherhood and offers policy remedies. She recently spoke with NewsHour Weekend’s Megan Thompson.
“Forget Having It All: How America Messed Up Motherhood - and How to Fix It,”
The mother is the center of family and a healthy society, she is supremely important!No, the mother is not the center of the family and she is not supremely important. I am not surprised you chose to speak as a valley girl, since you speak as a girl otherwise.
A female centered family with a supreme woman is a submissive male fetish fantasy, or a feminist fantasy, either way, it would be a poor way to raise children.
A strong father and a strong mother who combine their strengths and fill in each others weaknesses is what is healthy for children in a family.
Worst, you are driven to morph me into some monstrosity of an imaginary villainI quote your own words at every turn. If you don't like that, oh well.
You need to hate me and fear meGet over yourself. You got one thing right, you are a pompous person, in spades.
I appreciate I am not in a position to judge a Mother’s circumstance or her choices or her motive.Then you are rationally incompetent. I can judge circumstances. Circumstances do not justify the elective killing of your own child, how simple is that? Do you really need somebody to point that out to you? Apparently, yes, you do.
you on the other hand find it quite easy playing God and deciding what’s happening within the hearts and minds of othersI don't give a damn what is going on inside the hearts and minds of killers. I, along with my fellow citizens, empower our government to arrest and jail them.
You advocate arrest and jailing of women who get abortions, and possibly some would be subject to the death penalty if you had your way. Thus to you, pregnant women who get abortions are murderers as would be someone who killed a born child.
Would you also like to have such laws be ex post facto? I wonder how many American women, who are alive today, would be subject to the death penalty. Anyone you know?
You advocate arrest and jailing of women who get abortions,Only illegal abortions, and only to the extent provided for by law. Abortions are entirely different acts depending on the stage at which they are performed. Conflating all abortions as the same is a very common error.
and possibly some would be subject to the death penalty if you had your way.Possibly, if first degree infanticide were proved.
Thus to you, pregnant women who get abortions are murderers as would be someone who killed a born child.Possibly, depending on the legality of the abortion and the intent of the perpetrator. In homicide prosecutions intent is a key factor. Pregnant women tend to make sympathetic defendants so there are a lot of arguments that could be made that would go to intent.
Would you also like to have such laws be ex post facto? I wonder how many American women, who are alive today, would be subject to the death penalty. Anyone you know?I am not aware of a new law that then goes back to prosecute acts committed during a time of legality. If an act is legal then that can be taken as legal license to commit that act, and thus there was no intent to commit a crime or knowledge of the criminality of the act, since it was in fact legal at the time. That seems grossly unfair to me, but it is an interesting question. Do you know of precedent for this or if such retroactive prosecution was ever struck down by the courts in any area of law?
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. I was just testing the limits of your extremist view.
I was just testing the limits of your extremist view.Rationalizing infanticide is extremist. Prosecuting baby killers is conventional.
Clearly, you and CC inhabit a topsy turvy universe.
Star - Barring a clear and present risk to the mother’s life the homicide is not justified.
Please expand on this statement. Who says it is not justified and why?
We are a nation of laws. The 14 Amendment is the subject matter at hand.
The subject matter is based upon. When does life begin?
At first heart beat?
At first breath of air?
In Tulsa a woman is facing neglect because her baby was born addicted to cocaine. It was her 7th baby that was born addicted.
A mother and grandmother were arrested after a baby was born addicted to heroin.
These are state charges. Which brings up the question. Should this be a state matter or federal matter?
Six or seven months ago. A woman made the news because she was demanding that the state get her more money. She said someone was responsible for taking care of her children. She had thirteen kids and was living at a motel the state was paying for. And food stamps the state was giving her. Ask if she was planning to have more kids. She said, hell yes.
A few years back I got an education on California system of child care. In court with a friend and watch twenty cases before hers was called. One lady had a fit and faked a fainting. During break I try to figure out why someone would do all those theatrics. I was told because when the state took the kids, that she was taking care of for the state. She lost fully paid medical coverage for her and her husband. It turns out that California covers the kids with full medical coverage and they also cover the caretakers. Auto transportation and a monthly check from the state is also nice items to get. I was told that at her age she was most likely not to be given any more children to take care of. It’s a damn game, and a very big and costly game in California for the taxpayers.
Point being. This is all part of the human factor. The human factor changes as the morals change.
It costs $12,068 per year for the average person to raise a child in California. The state is wanting to increase its child care budget by $1.6M this year. The Federal government is spending a lot of money on children in California. Why is it that the news claims there is 7M unfilled jobs in America, so we need to bring more people into the country? Yet when people come here and get the jobs. The government must pay for them to raise a family. We need to let the supply and demand system catch up to the jobs. That way the wages will rise. The Federal government need to shut down the Federal programs and let the States take care of the people or ratchet back on the welfare system altogether.
Those point made, Stardusty is correct in her view point. And CC and Tim are also right in their viewpoints. And it may be sometime before the “When does life begin?” issue on the political level is decided. I will go ahead and cast my vote based upon the debate points which are all good.
I would have no trouble with the state each making their own laws on the matter. But that may not happen so I will go with the Mother’s right to abortion. What is going on in California and the downward direction American morals have traveled weighed a lot on my decision. I will be the only one in my family including relatives that will vote this way. I want to thank you guys for helping me make up my mind. Thank you.
Barring a clear and present risk to the mother’s life the homicide is not justified.Please expand on this statement. Who says it is not justified and why?
If somebody steps on your toe and runs away from you that does not justify shooting them in the back.
If somebody pulls a knife on you, faces you, and threatens to kill you that does justify you shooting them in the front.
Being a parent can be a big loss of freedom, it can be stressful, costly, limiting of choices, and emotionally draining. That does not justify shooting your child and dumping the body in a garbage can.
Somehow, it has become fashionable to the point of a quasi religious tenet that women are somehow endowed with mystical senses of what is right for themselves and their own self centered wishes are so paramount that a mother somehow gets a pass on murdering her own child.
No. Sustaining the life of a child is an awesome responsibility I am very personally familiar with in my life. It can be very restrictive in some ways, but fulfilling that responsibility is paramount, not the wishes of a parent to be free of that burden.
There are some rare cases where there genuinely is a choice between the woman dying in childbirth or the loss of the child’s life. In those cases the woman has a legitimate self defense claim. But most abortions are elective and in those cases, the vast majority of cases, there is no self defense claim by the mother, rather, the self defense claim is solely by the child, but the child is unable to exercise that claim for herself, so we the people, authorize our government, deriving its just authority by the consent of the governed, to defend the defenseless child in our name.
Stardusty -
You wish to establish that abortion equals infanticide and that women who choose it are “baby killers” who must be prosecuted.
What a sick world that would be. But clearly, you are dead set on getting there. Tragically, with the hard right takeover of the Supreme Court, it is within the realm of becoming the case, in THIS universe that is in the process of turning upside down.
You wish to establish that abortion equals infanticideSloppy language. If you are going to attribute views to me don't you think you should at least be accurate in what you say?
There is no single meaning to “abortion”, or do you equate the IUD with killing a term baby? If you don’t know the difference between a clump of cells and a fully developed baby then you have not thought about this very carefully.
I would love to see Southwestern Women’s Options shut down.
I would also like to see a national research effort into fetal brain development for the purpose of establishing a brain function standard to replace the viability standard.
women who choose it are “baby killers” who must be prosecuted.How about 1 day before a term birth, is that killing a baby?
2 days prior, 3 days prior. Yes, of course killing a viable human being is killing a baby, what else would it be? If a woman kills her baby she is a baby killer, obviously, that is just the use of the words.
What a sick world that would beDon't you realize I am not advocating some vast change in our laws, abortion of a viable human being is already illegal in most states and most states already have fetal homicide laws.
In most states right now if you kill the unborn you can be prosecuted for criminal homicide
"Don’t you realize I am not advocating some vast change in our laws, abortion of a viable human being is already illegal in most states and most states already have fetal homicide laws."Then I think you really really need to reread your own words buddy. Try to think them through.
@CC
Then I think you really really need to reread your own words buddy. Try to think them through.Vacuous comment noted. Let me know when you can cite specifics and put together some kind of rational argument, buddy.
Stardust, there is a concerted right wing effort to take choice away from women at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of your arguments about it only being criminal at a certain point in the pregnancy. The fetal heartbeat bill which will doubtless be attempted in most Red States if it is upheld in the court systems. It can effectively end choice in those states, for many women, i.e., the ones who don’t know they are pregnant until or after 6 wks.
The righties in red states pull whatever legal tricks they can to limit women’s choice at all stages of pregnancy. They are putting unnecessary regulations in place that seek to effectively end Planned Parenthood services in Red States.
The SCOTUS is now stacked with righties who may well overturn Roe v.Wade. I heard that one state has approved a law (ready to go) that will end abortion completely, but it was written to not take effect until Roe v. Wade is overturned. Other Red States may follow suit.
Stardust, there is a concerted right wing effort to take choice away from women at any stage of pregnancy,Yes, the religious have been trying to stop everything from birth control to stem cell research for a long time.
The fetal heartbeat bill which will doubtless be attempted in most Red States if it is upheld in the court systems. It can effectively end choice in those states, for many women, i.e., the ones who don’t know they are pregnant until or after 6 wks.The beating heart does not define humanity, brain function defines humanity.
I heard that one state has approved a law (ready to go) that will end abortion completely, but it was written to not take effect until Roe v. Wade is overturned. Other Red States may follow suit.Yes, I am sure many states will declare life to begin at conception and pass laws accordingly in that case. BTW, Roe has already been greatly modified. The trimester framework has already been replaced with the viability standard, and 20 weeks is an allowable proxy for viability. The protected period has dropped from about 26 weeks to 20 weeks since 1973.
What is your point in all this news info for me? It’s all true info, but what does that have to do with re-defining human life to begin at brain function instead of viability? And what does your news info have to do with women killing their viable babies in utero in the states where that is still legal?
I strongly support post viability anti-abortion laws with only a maternal self defense exception. I would like the last few remaining states that do not have such laws to pass some and make it unanimous in the 50 states.
I would also like to see a national research effort into fetal brain function development with the eventual goal of replacing the viability standard with a brain function standard. I think this will become a necessity when the artificial womb is developed, making every pregnancy viable.