Why do conservatives believe they are entitled to a woman's uterus?

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar. No im saying if there was no food for the baby should a mother by law be forced to breast feed it even if she doesnt want to...interferring with bodily autonomy.

Its far fetched but is possible and gets to the question of bodily autonomy 

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

It is a question similar to the following: "If I am running away from a killer chasing me, can I break into someone's house and hide there to save my life?" Such questions generate a lot of debates between lawyers, and there is no general consensus on how to handle them. The general approach is the following: you can violate someone else's rights in order to save your skin, and if you manage to get away with it, then you owe them some restitution - and if you do not and they, say, shoot you as a trespasser and kill you, then they are unlikely to be prosecuted.

I do not think the government should force a mother to breast-feed her child if there is no other food available, but there is a larger picture here: the law prescribes that the parents take care of the child until it reaches adulthood. So while the mother would not necessarily be forced to breast-feed her child, it would be her duty to find a way to feed her child - not before herself, of course (if, say, there is only enough food to save one human and the other human dies, then the woman can save herself at the expense of the child), but nonetheless. 

I personally dislike how the law looks at this. I do not see a strictly logical reason for parents to be responsible for the child, and I would not expect many parents to abandon their child after birth anyway (if someone went through the whole pregnancy and childbirth process and did not resort to abortion, then the child probably means a lot to them). The way I think it should work is this: once the child is born, the parents decide whether they want to be the child's legal guardians. If yes, then they are responsible for the child's well-being for the period prescribed in the guardian contract. If no, then other guardians are found for the child, and perhaps the government takes care of the child during the search process.
In fact, a similar system is already in place in some legal systems, although usually the process of giving a child away for adoption bears some additional costs on the parents, often dramatic ones (one parent abandoning the kid and leaving the kid for the other parent generally leads to extreme child support requirements, decimating most affected individuals' finances, and it is debatable whether this is how it should work ideally).

RickeyD

Conservatives are not concerned about a woman's uterus in the least but when a baby is within the protective confines of said uterus and the woman possessing said uterus demonically believes that she is entitled to murder/mutilate the baby in her uterus, then....Conservatives - Christians become concerned. Abortion at any point in gestation is murder and it is abortion that has initiated God's wrath upon America and the American people. Atheism-Naturalism/Darwinism-pervasive LGBTQ are indicative of the resultant of God's wrath. America is suffocating in the innocent blood of 61-million babies mutilated subsequent to Roe/73. Anyone who supports-advocates for murdering babies is a servant of Satan, the father of lies and murder.

My letter to President Trump concerning abortion and America's destiny...

President Trump – A Warning – A Prophecy – A Plea

A warning to President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence…

08 September 2017

President Donald Trump is America’s last hope for revival and restoration.  Unless President Trump or a Convention of States (Article V) petitions Congress to repeal Roe v. Wade (1973) and extricates the United States Federal Government from the holocaust of demonic infanticide, America will continue on the path to self-destruction and implosion.  Our Lord’s wrath is certain and America and the American People will suffer horrifically.  The innocent blood of 60-million American babies mutilated via Roe v. Wade (1973) cries to the Creator for justice. Will anyone listen?

Dear President Trump,

I have attempted to contact you over the past several months in various formats to deliver this message.  Yes Sir, I understand that there are pressing needs in Government, please take a few minutes and consider the message I’ve shared – our Lord is angry and His compassion, His patience will not endure forever – you have been warned and I have done what I have been asked to do.

Fact: The United States Federal Government as per the unconstitutional SCOTUS decision of Roe v. Wade (1973) has been a co-conspirator in the murder, torture, dismemberment, burning to death, mutilation, of 60-million American children.  Every precious child murdered by the hands of an abortionist belongs to our Creator, Jesus Christ.  Every child is from the Lord and does not belong to anyone but the One who provided them with life; every child is simply on temporary loan to mankind to be cared for, loved and we, every citizen in the United States, will be held accountable relevant to how we have provided for God’s unfathomable gift of life – our posterity.

A Strategy for Repeal

1. Overturn Roe v. Wade (1973), a strategy: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/14292-congress-has-the-power-to-overturn-roe-v-wade
2. A Pathway Supporting Repeal of Roe! “HHS to define human life as ‘beginning at conception’” see: https://www.liveaction.org/news/new-hhs-strategic-plan-protects-american-lives-beginning-conception/

3. Roe v. Wade is Unconstitutional:  Roe v. Wade should have NEVER been affirmed by the United States Supreme Court for the decision blatantly denies the pre-born child their 5th and 14th Amendment “Due Process” Protections.  No one in America is to be denied their right to life, to liberty, void due process of law and considering recent scientific/medical discoveries concerning early viability of the pre-born child and the fact that life begins at conception, Roe v. Wade (1973) must be declared unconstitutional and repealed – it is imperative that the United States Federal Government extricate itself from the holocaust of infanticide if America is to have any hope of healing and restoration.  Jesus Christ will NOT bless the American people unless we repent of our murder of the most innocent and plead for our Lord’s return and preeminence over our Land.  America’s destiny may already be fixed, but we serve a compassionate and loving Lord, perhaps He will, once again, show us grace and mercy!

Thank you Mr. President,

Rickey D. Holtsclaw

YeshuaBought

RickeyD said:

Conservatives are not concerned about a woman's uterus in the least but when a baby is within the protective confines of said uterus and the woman possessing said uterus demonically believes that she is entitled to murder/mutilate the baby in her uterus, then....Conservatives - Christians become concerned. Abortion at any point in gestation is murder and it is abortion that has initiated God's wrath upon America and the American people. Atheism-Naturalism/Darwinism-pervasive LGBTQ are indicative of the resultant of God's wrath. America is suffocating in the innocent blood of 61-million babies mutilated subsequent to Roe/73. Anyone who supports-advocates for murdering babies is a servant of Satan, the father of lies and murder.

My letter to President Trump concerning abortion and America's destiny...

President Trump – A Warning – A Prophecy – A Plea

A warning to President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence…

08 September 2017

President Donald Trump is America’s last hope for revival and restoration.  Unless President Trump or a Convention of States (Article V) petitions Congress to repeal Roe v. Wade (1973) and extricates the United States Federal Government from the holocaust of demonic infanticide, America will continue on the path to self-destruction and implosion.  Our Lord’s wrath is certain and America and the American People will suffer horrifically.  The innocent blood of 60-million American babies mutilated via Roe v. Wade (1973) cries to the Creator for justice. Will anyone listen?

Dear President Trump,

I have attempted to contact you over the past several months in various formats to deliver this message.  Yes Sir, I understand that there are pressing needs in Government, please take a few minutes and consider the message I’ve shared – our Lord is angry and His compassion, His patience will not endure forever – you have been warned and I have done what I have been asked to do.

Fact: The United States Federal Government as per the unconstitutional SCOTUS decision of Roe v. Wade (1973) has been a co-conspirator in the murder, torture, dismemberment, burning to death, mutilation, of 60-million American children.  Every precious child murdered by the hands of an abortionist belongs to our Creator, Jesus Christ.  Every child is from the Lord and does not belong to anyone but the One who provided them with life; every child is simply on temporary loan to mankind to be cared for, loved and we, every citizen in the United States, will be held accountable relevant to how we have provided for God’s unfathomable gift of life – our posterity.

A Strategy for Repeal

1. Overturn Roe v. Wade (1973), a strategy: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/14292-congress-has-the-power-to-overturn-roe-v-wade
2. A Pathway Supporting Repeal of Roe! “HHS to define human life as ‘beginning at conception’” see: https://www.liveaction.org/news/new-hhs-strategic-plan-protects-american-lives-beginning-conception/

3. Roe v. Wade is Unconstitutional:  Roe v. Wade should have NEVER been affirmed by the United States Supreme Court for the decision blatantly denies the pre-born child their 5th and 14th Amendment “Due Process” Protections.  No one in America is to be denied their right to life, to liberty, void due process of law and considering recent scientific/medical discoveries concerning early viability of the pre-born child and the fact that life begins at conception, Roe v. Wade (1973) must be declared unconstitutional and repealed – it is imperative that the United States Federal Government extricate itself from the holocaust of infanticide if America is to have any hope of healing and restoration.  Jesus Christ will NOT bless the American people unless we repent of our murder of the most innocent and plead for our Lord’s return and preeminence over our Land.  America’s destiny may already be fixed, but we serve a compassionate and loving Lord, perhaps He will, once again, show us grace and mercy!

Thank you Mr. President,

Rickey D. Holtsclaw

You don't have the right to a rape victim's body, and neither does her fetus. Prolife is prorape, because prolifers use a woman's reproductive organs without her consent, and that is rape. You don't care about right to life. If you did, you would agree that healthcare is a basic human right. I have the same moral right to live, as you say the fetus does. If you disagree with the fact that healthcare is a basic human right, not only are you a hypocrite, but you DON'T have the right to call yourself prolife. Prolife, my ***!

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

@MichaelElpers

I would not describe the state of a pregnant woman as "some discomfort", considering that it often disables the woman for months from being able to work, and puts her in bed for days. Regardless, the point is, if the woman does not consent to it feeding on her insides, then she can take action to enforce this lack of consent - this is what the bodily autonomy principle fundamentally is.

The baby that is out of the woman's body is an independent individual. The woman, I suppose, does not have to breast-feed it, but we as a society have agreed that it is the parents' responsibility to raise the child. Whether this is a good agreement or not is debatable, but, in any case, we no longer deal with the question of bodily autonomy here, so the argument will be different.


@ZeusAres42 ;

You refuse to interpret my argument properly and straw-man it, but I have already given you an analogy twice, which you have chosen to ignore.

@MayCaesar Nope, I fully understand your position. I also asked some questions of you up to this point to make sure that my understanding of your argument of yours was correct which you confirmed earlier anyway. I have not said anything that or made any arguments about something you didn't say. Just because I do not approve of your position and see a flaw in your reasoning does not mean that I am creating a strawman. I have not ignored anything you have said either.

First, I am not aware of a single legal system on Earth that considers an unborn child a "person" or an "individual", so the appeal to the basic rights is questionable.

But here you are still refusing to address the scenario I presented you with earlier. Which was this by the way:

"If a mother is only about a week to giving birth and then suddenly decides that she wants an abortion then what is your stance then? Also, bear in mind that this is now a viable baby; a human individual. Also bear in mind that there is a unanimous agreement to viability long before this point let alone just a week before it. And when you consider this I also want you to remember what you said above i.e 'however, there is no going around the fact that implementing policies in alignment with those stances severely violate the most basic human rights of the affected individuals.

By the way, this is actually a very clear example of a strawman that you have made. I never said that there is a legal system that makes blanket statements such as an unborn child is a person. Read the bit in bold in the comment again about the viability of a baby which is also a fact by the way. Within this example, it is a fact in many places that it is considered that at this point personhood has already begun.

But second - and more importantly - is the child is feeding on the woman's insides and is physically connected to them, hence for all purposes it is a part of the woman's body, and if the woman does not consent to it being there, then she has the right to remove it.

I am not sure you understand what the bodily autonomy principle is. Maybe you think that you are protected from any harm under any possible circumstances, but that is not at all what it is, and it could not be that logically, as necessarily unresolvable contradictions would arise. What it is is that nobody has the right to violate another person's body against their consent, and should it happen, the latter person can defend themselves by all means necessary.

My scenario is about a woman that did consent to keep the baby. She wanted a baby; it was her choice. She consented. Here, you are now just saying I don't understand certain stuff and copying me by calling me out on possible logical implications as I did you.

If you see any logical flaw in my reasoning in my argument, feel free to point it out. Your notion that there are two human beings with rights in question does not contradict anything I said and fully falls under the analysis I have provided several times already.

You haven't made any logical contradictions yet. You've been very clever to avoid making that. However, in doing so you have presented with different kinds of errors in reasoning just by denying the reality of a specific situation. In short, you can't have one rule for one here and another rule for the other in my scenario, unless of course, you pretend that the other isn't a human being with basic human rights which is all you have done with reference to the scenario I presented you with. The abortion debate isn't as simple as it's either black or it's white no matter how much one tries to frame it as such.

I was hoping we might be able to find some common frame of reference here. However, I think I can infer that you have might very strong beliefs with regard to the abortion debate. And so it looks like we might have reached an impasse. I get that though and respect it. I would like to thank you though for being mentally taxing that several other people I have come across on this site.

However, I do hope we might be able to find some common frame of reference with respect to other debate topics.

MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42

My stance is this: as long as the child is inside the woman's body, she can abort it at any moment, and once it is out of the body, it is now autonomous being and the bodily autonomy argument no longer holds. It is a pretty simple position, and it is independent of how far the child has developed. Even if in the distance future we manage to somehow make it so women give birth to adults, bypassing the whole childhood stage, those adults still can be aborted. The fact that the creature inside is alive is trumped by the fact that it is an invader of the woman's body.

If the woman consents to having a baby, then this debate is meaningless, since she is not going to abort the baby anyway. Bear in mind, however, that consent can be revoked at any point in time. You do not get to have a sexual intercourse with someone for 5 hours against their will, just because at the beginning they said they were okay with having said intercourse: if they change their mind 2 minutes later, then that is it. The same applies here.

My stance on abortions is actually pretty weak, as I do not find that topic important in any way. There are many ways to avoid unwanted pregnancy in the first place. What my stance is is firm, however, as I do not see absolutely any valid reason to outlaw or even regulate abortions in any way that does not violate the most basic principles of individual liberty. And individual liberty is the cornerstone of my entire societal philosophy, and I can never compromise on it, not even when we are discussing a subject I do not find important. The core principle trumps the details.
If tomorrow abortions are outlawed in the US, I will hardly experience any emotional reaction - however, I will probably make a lot of corny jokes and overall have very little respect for this choice people have made.

I do not think we are at an impasse; we understand and (I hope) respect each other's positions. We just focus on different aspects of them. In debates such as this, perfect consistency is rarely possible because of the large number of factors at place. I do not see any inconsistencies in my position, but even so of course I admit that there are some grey areas that I may have overlooked. I can even name a few such grey areas, the most obvious one being the case of Siam siblings: in this case bodily autonomy becomes complicated, because both individuals depend on each other for survival, and, for example, if one of the individuals decides to harm their body in some way, the other individual will suffer from it and his/her autonomy will be violated... I do not have a clear stance on complicated cases like this, aside from suggesting considering each situation individually and being understanding of the interests of all parties involved.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

@ZeusAres42

My stance is this: as long as the child is inside the woman's body, she can abort it at any moment, and once it is out of the body, it is now autonomous being and the bodily autonomy argument no longer holds. It is a pretty simple position, and it is independent of how far the child has developed. Even if in the distance future we manage to somehow make it so women give birth to adults, bypassing the whole childhood stage, those adults still can be aborted. The fact that the creature inside is alive is trumped by the fact that it is an invader of the woman's body.

If the woman consents to having a baby, then this debate is meaningless, since she is not going to abort the baby anyway. Bear in mind, however, that consent can be revoked at any point in time. You do not get to have a sexual intercourse with someone for 5 hours against their will, just because at the beginning they said they were okay with having said intercourse: if they change their mind 2 minutes later, then that is it. The same applies here.

My stance on abortions is actually pretty weak, as I do not find that topic important in any way. There are many ways to avoid unwanted pregnancy in the first place. What my stance is is firm, however, as I do not see absolutely any valid reason to outlaw or even regulate abortions in any way that does not violate the most basic principles of individual liberty. And individual liberty is the cornerstone of my entire societal philosophy, and I can never compromise on it, not even when we are discussing a subject I do not find important. The core principle trumps the details.
If tomorrow abortions are outlawed in the US, I will hardly experience any emotional reaction - however, I will probably make a lot of corny jokes and overall have very little respect for this choice people have made.

I do not think we are at an impasse; we understand and (I hope) respect each other's positions. We just focus on different aspects of them. In debates such as this, perfect consistency is rarely possible because of the large number of factors at place. I do not see any inconsistencies in my position, but even so of course I admit that there are some grey areas that I may have overlooked. I can even name a few such grey areas, the most obvious one being the case of Siam siblings: in this case bodily autonomy becomes complicated, because both individuals depend on each other for survival, and, for example, if one of the individuals decides to harm their body in some way, the other individual will suffer from it and his/her autonomy will be violated... I do not have a clear stance on complicated cases like this, aside from suggesting considering each situation individually and being understanding of the interests of all parties involved.

Just to reiterate this was one of my preceeding scenarios:

"If a mother is only about a week to giving birth and then suddenly decides that she wants an abortion then what is your stance then? Also, bear in mind that this is now a viable baby; a human individual. Also bear in mind that there is a unanimous agreement to viability long before this point let alone just a week before it. And when you consider this I also want you to remember what you said above i.e 'however, there is no going around the fact that implementing policies in alignment with those stances severely violate the most basic human rights of the affected individuals.

The mother was not raped, the sex and the wanting to have a child consented at the time before conception and long after. But a week before birth the mother decides she wants to no longer have it for some reason. Also, note that the baby didn't will itself upon the mother; this was a consensual agreement before the time of conception and long after it too. Also note that at this point according to several countries this would no longer be called abortion; it's known as infanticide and because it hasn't been born yet is no exception.

RickeyD

@YeshuaBought ; Shame on you!  Since when did our "civilized" society agree to confer the death penalty on a child for the crime of the child's father?  At what point in our history did we begin murdering children for the crime of their father?

YeshuaBought

RickeyD said:

@YeshuaBought ; Shame on you!  Since when did our "civilized" society agree to confer the death penalty on a child for the crime of the child's father?  At what point in our history did we begin murdering children for the crime of their father?

You don't have the right, toa traumatized rape victim's body. You were never raped, but I was. If one can support stand your ground laws, and I also do, one can support a rape victim's absolute right to choose. I will never change my mind, because I was raped, and that is my right.

RickeyD

@YeshuaBought ; Please explain why it's okay to deny an innocent baby due process and murder the child for the crime of the child's father? Please explain your rationale?

YeshuaBought

RickeyD said:

@YeshuaBought ; Please explain why it's okay to deny an innocent baby due process and murder the child for the crime of the child's father? Please explain your rationale?

I don't have to explain why I have a right, I only have to excercisze it. if I were pregnant by rape and denied an abortion, I would kill myself. i would rather be dead than pregnant by rape, and that is my absolute right to choose. I will call anyone a rapist, that expects me to gestate a pregnancy by rape. Prolife is prorape. You don't have the right to force your views, on other people.

RickeyD

@YeshuaBought ;  You can explain it now...don't be ashamed. Justify murdering a baby for the crime of the baby's father...let's hear your rationale, Christian?

YeshuaBought

RickeyD said:

@YeshuaBought ;  You can explain it now...don't be ashamed. Justify murdering a baby for the crime of the baby's father...let's hear your rationale, Christian?

I don't have to explain my rights to you, and I never will. Do you even care, that I was raped? I have the right to be treated with empathy, and I have the right to choose, whether I have a baby, by a rapist, and anyone who disagrees with me, has the morality, of a rapist. You don't have the right to my body, ever. I will not explain, and I will never agree with you, so ****ing deal with it, proliar!

RickeyD

@YeshuaBought ; How can one say he/she loves their neighbor and advocate for the murder of their neighbor's children? How can one say they love God and advocate for the death of God's children in the womb? How can a Christian love God and murder babies?

John_C_87

A true feminist unites all woman as a United state by one single right.

All woman are created equal by their creator.

That included those of all female state. This female is part of a natural state that can be signified as a state to which a limit can be applied by female specific amputation.

John_C_87

@YeshuaBought ;
Sorry that you have been Sexual assaulted but it is not excuse for refusing to create all woman as equal. 

MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42

The stance is exactly as I stated: if the woman wants to abort it a week before childbirth, then she can go ahead and do so. Consent given at the time of conception does not have to be given continuously and can be revoked at any point in time.

When a mosquito is drinking my blood, which does not threaten my life in any way, but inconveniences me, I can allow it to drink as much blood as it wants, or I can kill it at any moment. I will not weep for it, although I may philosophically contemplate unfairness of the world afterwards.

YeshuaBought

John_C_87 said:

@YeshuaBought ;
Sorry that you have been Sexual assaulted but it is not excuse for refusing to create all woman as equal. 

Yes it is. I have the right to not have a baby by a rapist, but you don't have the right, to a rape victim's body. Only a rapist would disagree.

RickeyD

@YeshuaBought ; Rape is sin and unlawful. Mutilating a baby for the crime of the baby's father is sin and unlawful. You make the woman twice a victim in your mindlessness.

Rape survivor says son, conceived in rape, is proof that ‘good can come from evil’

https://www.liveaction.org/news/rape-survivor-good-come-evil/?utm_content=81455551&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-18001922

YeshuaBought

RickeyD said:

@YeshuaBought ; Rape is sin and unlawful. Mutilating a baby for the crime of the baby's father is sin and unlawful. You make the woman twice a victim in your mindlessness.

Rape survivor says son, conceived in rape, is proof that ‘good can come from evil’

https://www.liveaction.org/news/rape-survivor-good-come-evil/?utm_content=81455551&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-18001922

I have the absolute right to choose, if I have a baby by a rapist. You DON'T have the right to force a rape victim, to give birth, that is rape culture.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

@ZeusAres42

The stance is exactly as I stated: if the woman wants to abort it a week before childbirth, then she can go ahead and do so. Consent given at the time of conception does not have to be given continuously and can be revoked at any point in time.

When a mosquito is drinking my blood, which does not threaten my life in any way, but inconveniences me, I can allow it to drink as much blood as it wants, or I can kill it at any moment. I will not weep for it, although I may philosophically contemplate unfairness of the world afterwards.

@MayCaesar would you mind having the decency by quoting my previous response before Responding to it. I don't mind you challenging it but it is decent to actually quote what the other person actually said  before Responding to it. As it is you're not really responding properly to what I said and I beginning to think strawman arguing on your part is deliberate.

smoothie

@RickeyD You advocate that a rapist's child be forcibly born by the woman? Wow

RickeyD

@YeshuaBought ; You do not have the right to take the life of a baby for the crime of the baby's father.

YeshuaBought

smoothie said:

@RickeyD You advocate that a rapist's child be forcibly born by the woman? Wow

Right? Now you know why I say, that prolife, is prorape.

RickeyD

@YeshuaBought ; That is absolute foolishness and evil.

YeshuaBought

RickeyD said:

@YeshuaBought ; That is absolute foolishness and evil.

Prove it, and no it isn't. What is evil, is traumatizing rape victims.

RickeyD

@YeshuaBought ; Have you no empathy?  The mommy has already been raped and now you desire that she murder her baby as well?

Abortion Facts – Less than 1% for life of mother and 1% for rape-incest

https://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8

OBGYN Who Delivered 5,000 Babies: Abortion is “Never” Necessary to Protect a Woman’s Health

https://www.lifenews.com/2019/02/12/obgyn-who-delivered-5000-babies-abortion-is-never-necessary-to-protect-a-womans-health/

YeshuaBought

RickeyD said:

@YeshuaBought ; Have you no empathy?  The mommy has already been raped and now you desire that she murder her baby as well?

Abortion Facts – Less than 1% for life of mother and 1% for rape-incest

https://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8

OBGYN Who Delivered 5,000 Babies: Abortion is “Never” Necessary to Protect a Woman’s Health

https://www.lifenews.com/2019/02/12/obgyn-who-delivered-5000-babies-abortion-is-never-necessary-to-protect-a-womans-health/

You don't have the right to say, whether a rape victim gives birth.

John_C_87

YeshuaBought said:

John_C_87 said:

@YeshuaBought ;
Sorry that you have been Sexual assaulted but it is not excuse for refusing to create all woman as equal. 

Yes it is. I have the right to not have a baby by a rapist, but you don't have the right, to a rape victim's body. Only a rapist would disagree.

Well good thing I don't disagree then, your just outright wrong you have a right not give birth at all, ever. Looking for a doctors note to get out of that pregnancy is not secure as common defense to all woman, as being a woman you have a United State Constitutional obligation and can be told you must create all woman as equal as a basic right before setting legislation on insisting anything else. 

It can't be done is no longer an excuse as by freedom of press addresses squashed principle by the abolishment of pregnancy abortion with female specific amputation. The condition to which a birth may take place is never been a united state for debate in abortion. It is the opinion you continual try to present to men and other woman. 

RickeyD

@YeshuaBought ; I can certainly say that mutilating a baby for the crime of the baby's father is wrong, it's evil, it's a violation of the child's due process protections...it is of the Devil. This I can say in honesty.

YeshuaBought

RickeyD said:

@YeshuaBought ; I can certainly say that mutilating a baby for the crime of the baby's father is wrong, it's evil, it's a violation of the child's due process protections...it is of the Devil. This I can say in honesty.

You don't have the right to force your opinion on me, that is rape culture. I was raped, so i know my rights. Whether I have a baby by my rapist, is none of your business.

John_C_87

RickeyD said:

@YeshuaBought ; I can certainly say that mutilating a baby for the crime of the baby's father is wrong, it's evil, it's a violation of the child's due process protections...it is of the Devil. This I can say in honesty.

And, by failing to create all woman equal before law and God you are the Devils advocate RickyD. A religious protection form crime and God only exists when a female yields to a united state constitutional process of separation from judgment. This includes any role a male can play in this process as well, the burden is to create all woman equal.

John_C_87

YeshuaBought said:

RickeyD said:

@YeshuaBought ; I can certainly say that mutilating a baby for the crime of the baby's father is wrong, it's evil, it's a violation of the child's due process protections...it is of the Devil. This I can say in honesty.

You don't have the right to force your opinion on me, that is rape culture. I was raped, so i know my rights. Whether I have a baby by my rapist, is none of your business.

I disagree. 

Someone tried to kill you in basic principle and you do not reconize that fact. A united state only exists if your attack took place by a woman and pregancy is not possible then.

John_C_87

A united state of sexual assault only exists if your attacker was female. When a man attacks a woman as a sexual assault it becomes a attempt at murder as the woman stands risk of pregnancy. Constitution describes basic principles and basic crime.

We_are_accountable

You of course are 100% correct. Any Christian who thinks it is ok to kill innocent babies, that God says he knows in the womb, is a false Christian.
To try and say this separate life has anything to do with a woman's uterus is ludicrous. These pro abortion people ar the ones interfering with that baby's uterus.

The world has chosen to follow man's selfish doctrine verses God's word, but they still want to call their man made cult Christianity. They are trying to twist the Christian faith to fit their self love lifestyles. @RickeyD

RickeyD

@John_C_87 ; Women and their baby are coequals before the law of man and the law of God. If you suggest that a woman has the "right" to murder her baby, it is YOU that serves Satan, not me.

ZeusAres42

John_C_87 said:

A united state of sexual assault only exists if your attacker was female. When a man attacks a woman as a sexual assault it becomes a attempt at murder as the woman stands risk of pregnancy. Constitution describes basic principles and basic crime.

@John_C_87 I understand what you're conveying here. However, I have to translate into simple terms in my head before I do make sense of it. It would make ife a lot easier if you could present your arguments in simple terms in the first place. And people would be more likely to interact with you.

John_C_87

ZeusAres42 said:

@John_C_87 I understand what you're conveying here. However, I have to translate into simple terms in my head before I do make sense of it. It would make ife a lot easier if you could present your arguments in simple terms in the first place. And people would be more likely to interact with you.

It's all screwed up..... I wouldn't interact with me...….

The complexity of the state of rape comes from the lack of united state Constitution directly created by legislation of rape. Sexual assault reported as a rape is attempted murder when a male sexual assaults any woman held by a state by union of basic principle. In a united state with constitutional standards only a woman is capable to raping another woman as the result of the attack will not easily be pregnancy as is sexual between the tow parties. 

In basic principle a baby holds a united state with all babies, and woman hold a united state with all woman. Meaning in order to determine how many pregnancy abortions a woman has had we must find out her age and how many children she has given birth to. At that point a number of abortions can be roughly calculated. The basic separation of constitution describes a additional outcome where a woman my require a female specific amputation. This Outside the scope of pregnancy abortion she herself performed and performs.

RickeyD

@John_C_87 ; Are you writing your initial comment in another language and having same translated by a translation program?

John_C_87

RickeyD said:

@John_C_87 ; Are you writing your initial comment in another language and having same translated by a translation program?

To you, yes obviously. I am writing about a united state of constitution and it is without doubt a foreign language to some. A woman can die giving birth, because of this. A man who forcefully reproduces with that woman is attempting to kill her. 

An attackers negligence may be his ignorance in not knowing that he is by risk trying to kill a woman. That does not change the basic truth that the woman's life is threatened by the actions of a male domination of this nature. No woman has a united state constitutional right to call this type attack rape against another woman, no woman, no doctor has a united state constitutional right to label treatment for this threat to life pregnancy abortion. The woman had been conducting a pregnancy abortion before and when any unprovoked attack took place. The point is, she, victim makes claim to not having consensual sex.  

I am not here to play politics, the freedom of press is used in writing a representation to united state in constitution. In all cases a common defense to the general welfare is by instruction of truth by American united state constitution included, or the common defense is sought and asked for to achieve common liberty. It is a more open an precise way to address public issue as a possible threat to wellbeing instead of using often popular words of scripture.