If Abortion becomes illegal in the US

[Mare Tranquillity]

How? They're is no way to prevent girls from dropping their panties without thinking of the consequences. With condoms, the pill, sex ed, etc. there's not much more we can do.

So the problem cannot be solved? And you support Pale's ban on all abortions? Hello? Are you dim? What do you think will be accomplished with this insane policy?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nothing teaches consequences like experience.

So I suppose that distributing razors and guns to grade school children would be good because it would teach them by experience about the dangers of those items.



Your signature line makes your compassion seem Catholic and hollow.

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If personhood is established and with it, 14th amendment protections, any contraception that is not strictly contraception will also become illegal. Pharmaceutical companies will have to develop a pill, or implant, or injection that prevents ovulation as its means of operating without creating an inhospitable environment in the uterus should a woman ovulate and become pregnant anyway since creating an inhospitable environment that results in the death of a person with 14th amendment protection would be manslaugher at the very least.

So, Pale, are you in favor (would you vote for) a law that would charge women for manslaughter if they took birth control pills?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

So the problem cannot be solved? And you support Pale's ban on all abortions? Hello? Are you dim? What do you think will be accomplished with this insane policy?

What policy? I was just asking what else we could do to prevent the need for abortions. Do you have any ideas?

 

[dahermit]

constitutional amendment

Playing devil's advocate; Palerider: If there were to be an amendment to the Constitution (very unlikely) that defined human life as being only later than the first month after conception and specified that there were no rights recognize until after that first month, would you be inclined to view an abortion of such as murder? And, if yes, on what basis?

 

[palerider]

And I challenge you, Pale, to provide some credible science that states that only human life has the inalienable right to exist. You made the statement, so back it up.

Science could care less who or what has a right to live. Science can only say what is alive and what it is.

 

[palerider]

So I suppose that distributing razors and guns to grade school children would be good because it would teach them by experience about the dangers of those items.



Your signature line makes your compassion seem Catholic and hollow.

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'

So in addition to your irrational hatred for all men, you harbor the same sort if irrational hatred for catholics? And in the case of men you particularly dislike, by some demented logic, you assume they must be catholic?

You aren't a rational person mare. Your sort of irrationality is far more dangerous in the world than my cold reason. Radical islamists operate on your frequency.

 

[palerider]

So, Pale, are you in favor (would you vote for) a law that would charge women for manslaughter if they took birth control pills?

If roe collapses because the personhood of the unborn is established in the eyes of the law, and as a result, the unborn recieve thier rightful protection under the 14th amendment, then no, I would not favor charging women who knowingly take an abortifacient birth control pill with manslaughter. If they take a pill that they know can cause the death of a person protected by the 14th amendment, that is killing with intent and warrants a charge of murder.

 

[palerider]

Playing devil's advocate; Palerider: If there were to be an amendment to the Constitution (very unlikely) that defined human life as being only later than the first month after conception and specified that there were no rights recognize until after that first month, would you be inclined to view an abortion of such as murder? And, if yes, on what basis?

The law can't define human life. Human life is what it is and no law can change that. If, however, an amendment or even law were written and legislated by our duely elected representatives that stated in a straight forward manner that the right to live was being denied to HUMAN BEINGS until such time as they were born, or were viable, or whatever timeframe the representatives agreed upon and stated explicitly why that right was being denied, then I would have little, if any basis upon which to carry forth this argument.

To play devil's advocate myself, however, most abortions don't happen until after 6 0r 8 weeks. A month would pass before most women were even aware that they were pregnant, and then some time would pass making a decision. The victims of over 80% of all abortions already have faces and fingerprints; that's almost enough to get a passport.

 

[Coyote]

If roe collapses because the personhood of the unborn is established in the eyes of the law, and as a result, the unborn recieve thier rightful protection under the 14th amendment, then no, I would not favor charging women who knowingly take an abortifacient birth control pill with manslaughter. If they take a pill that they know can cause the death of a person protected by the 14th amendment, that is killing with intent and warrants a charge of murder.

That would be problamatic wouldn't it? It only has a miniscule chance of causing an abortion, probalby no higher then a woman's chance of dying in pregnancy....and there is no "body", no sure victim...you would only be guessing that there might be or have been. That isn't enough to pin a charge of murder

 

[palerider]

That would be problamatic wouldn't it? It only has a miniscule chance of causing an abortion, probalby no higher then a woman's chance of dying in pregnancy....and there is no "body", no sure victim...you would only be guessing that there might be or have been. That isn't enough to pin a charge of murder

I don't think miniscule is the word. If you can demonstrate that the rate of ovulation occuring in any given woman on any given month is no more than 12 per 100,000 then I will withdraw my objection. A quick glance at non pro life sites however places the failure rate at between 3 and 13% per year for any given woman and their definition of failure is actually becoming pregnant. If between 3 and 13 % of women taking the pill actually become pregnant, then the rate of ovulation actually occuring would by no means fall in the "miniscule" range.

If I poison a system (say a water system) with the intent of killing people and am caught, I will be charged for a very serious crime even if it can not be proven that I have killed someone.

My point is that if unborns gain the protection of the 14th amendment, pharm companies will simply stop manufacturing any drug that has an abortificent property. They will be pulled from the shelves from your local drug store and a national recall issued. One would have to enter a black market (a crime in itself) to even procure them.

 

[vyo476]

How? They're is no way to prevent girls from dropping their panties without thinking of the consequences. With condoms, the pill, sex ed, etc. there's not much more we can do.

Sex ed is the main issue. At my high school sexual education is abstinence-only, which is basically the teacher standing in front of the class saying, "If you have sex, you will get pregnant, or you will die. Don't have sex." Contraceptive education is non-existent. Education regarding any form of sexuality other than biological, reproductive sexuality between married persons is harshly punished (a teacher at my school got fired for answering a legitimate question about oral sex).

 

[Coyote]

I don't think miniscule is the word. If you can demonstrate that the rate of ovulation occuring in any given woman on any given month is no more than 12 per 100,000 then I will withdraw my objection. A quick glance at non pro life sites however places the failure rate at between 3 and 13% per year for any given woman and their definition of failure is actually becoming pregnant. If between 3 and 13 % of women taking the pill actually become pregnant, then the rate of ovulation actually occuring would by no means fall in the "miniscule" range.

Is a 3-13% chance enough for a verdict of murder in a court of law????

If I poison a system (say a water system) with the intent of killing people and am caught, I will be charged for a very serious crime even if it can not be proven that I have killed someone.

I don't think that is the same or a comparable analogy.

My point is that if unborns gain the protection of the 14th amendment, pharm companies will simply stop manufacturing any drug that has an abortificent property. They will be pulled from the shelves from your local drug store and a national recall issued. One would have to enter a black market (a crime in itself) to even procure them.

Yes...that is true...

 

[Coyote]

Perhaps we should legislate that any male who fails to take responsibility for his side of the pregnancy equation should be sterilized?

Maybe that would cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies?

 

[palerider]

Is a 3-13% chance enough for a verdict of murder in a court of law????

You are missing the fact that it is possible, with a very simple blood test, to determine that a woman has been pregnant, not that I am suggesting that we go to such lengths. A woman found in posession, however, could easily be tested to see if she had actually killed another human being with those pills.

I don't think that is the same or a comparable analogy.

I don't see why. Elaborate.