There is no man, born, alive or dead who can talk with absolute assurance about abortion for the simple fact, they are not female. YET they are the ones making the laws, Arrogance or Hypocrisy?

When it comes to legislation.
Where are the females?
Trump Signs Anti Abortion Law

LOL - Pen in one hand restricting the freedom of females while the other hand grabs them...

It is possible that this 'debate' will never conclude.

For once, I do agree with you. There is no man, born, alive or dead who can talk with absolute assurance about abortion for the simple fact, they are not female. YET they are the ones making the laws, Arrogance or Hypocrisy?

I'll let you decide!

Most assuredly arrogance. Hypocrisy would imply they would do it themselves if they could and try to get away with it.

It is possible that this 'debate' will never conclude.

For once, I do agree with you. There is no man, born, alive or dead who can talk with absolute assurance about abortion for the simple fact, they are not female. YET they are the ones making the laws, Arrogance or Hypocrisy?

I'll let you decide!

Understanding the impact upon only women.

Neither. Just one's personal morality, ethics, religious beliefs, ideology, etc. are involved.

So you're saying that "your" personal morality, religious beliefs & ideology dismisses a female as a 2nd class person only fit for your sexual requirements?

No...That is your belief about those who disagree with you.

Please understand that people can have different personal morality, ethics, religious beliefs, ideology, etc. regarding this Subject.

As I asked when asking When does Human Life begin?

"Understanding that many will disagree with my question. Please let's not begin with the vicious name calling."

Sorry... You failed.

1: What name calling?
2: By looking at your answer one can safely assume you meant yourself. If Not, define "one's" in your sentence.
3: Provide evidence of my beliefs?

YOU failed big time in your failure to accept the fact that people besides you have opinions & quite happy to be shown where those opinions are incorrect. Not once have you attempted to do that. Whenever you end up on your back foot...

...your "usual" get out of jail" cards appear.

Comprehension 101 commences Monday morning 09:00. Don't be late!

LOL - Pen in one hand restricting the freedom of females while the other hand grabs them...

Why do I get the feeling that so called men who are against a woman having choice over her own body are also men like tRump who will assault a woman because they feel they own them. In other words they are more likely to believe in rape.

A woman's body is for her. No different than Korea is for Korean's. Same mental block by the same people!

Unfortunately, Gary is correct... or at least was. For example in Canada rape within marriage was not made illegal until 1983 (it started to change in the 1970s in the U.S.), and those who tried to keep it legal often used religious excuses via the religious definition of marriage, just as those who are trying to ban abortion do. It would not be a stretch to claim an overlap between the two groups.

One of the origins of the concept of a marital exemption from rape laws (a rule that a husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife) is the idea that by marriage a woman gives irrevocable consent for her husband to have sex with her any time he demands it. This view was described by Sir Matthew Hale, in History of the Pleas of the Crown (1736), where he wrote that the wife "hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract." Also, American and English law subscribed until the 20th century to the system of coverture, that is, a legal doctrine under which, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband.

Edit: @Clyde I don't think you were included in that.

---

LOL - Pen in one hand restricting the freedom of females while the other hand grabs them...

Why do I get the feeling that so called men who are against a woman having choice over her own body are also men like tRump who will assault a woman because they feel they own them. In other words they are more likely to believe in rape.

A woman's body is for her. No different than Korea is for Korean's. Same mental block by the same people!

Gary...

Do you believe that when I ask the following question regarding Late Term Abortion. "When does Human Life begin"?

I am, and others who ask that question "more likely to believe in rape".

When one asserts authority over another's body that seems like slavery to me. Are you opening up the question of the legitimacy of slavery?

---

LOL - Pen in one hand restricting the freedom of females while the other hand grabs them...

Why do I get the feeling that so called men who are against a woman having choice over her own body are also men like tRump who will assault a woman because they feel they own them. In other words they are more likely to believe in rape.

A woman's body is for her. No different than Korea is for Korean's. Same mental block by the same people!

Gary...

Do you believe that when I ask the following question regarding Late Term Abortion. "When does Human Life begin"?

I am, and others who ask that question "more likely to believe in rape".

"More likely" isn't all inclusive. He's not saying that all men who are against women having a choice over their own body believe in rape. He said they are "more likely" to, which means there's also a group that may be Pro-Life but not believe in rape.

So the question is: why do you believe he was automatically including you in that group?

So the question is: why do you believe he was automatically including you in that group?

Because that's the main sign of a guilty conscience?

Cheers.

So the question is: why do you believe he was automatically including you in that group?

A very good question. It deserves a direct answer. We await.

In the mean time, speculation will happen, which is the normal human condition.
One possible answer is a similar to a characteristic that there is statistical evidence police officers share.
Another possible answer involves baited fishhooks.

Perhaps there is another answer that we will be informed of once he is back posting.
We await a direct answer.

Unfortunately, Gary is correct... or at least was. For example in Canada rape within marriage was not made illegal until 1983 (it started to change in the 1970s in the U.S.), and those who tried to keep it legal often used religious excuses via the religious definition of marriage, just as those who are trying to ban abortion do. It would not be a stretch to claim an overlap between the two groups.

One of the origins of the concept of a marital exemption from rape laws (a rule that a husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife) is the idea that by marriage a woman gives irrevocable consent for her husband to have sex with her any time he demands it. This view was described by Sir Matthew Hale, in History of the Pleas of the Crown (1736), where he wrote that the wife "hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract." Also, American and English law subscribed until the 20th century to the system of coverture, that is, a legal doctrine under which, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband.

Perhaps this sheds more light on those thought processes of men owning women:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-could-narrow-affordable-care-acts-contraception-mandate/2017/10/05/16139400-a9f0-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.aeb1d8f6a23d

The Trump administration issued a rule Friday that sharply limits the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage mandate, a move that could mean many American women would no longer have access to birth control free of charge.

The Trump administration issued a rule Friday that sharply limits the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage mandate, a move that could mean many American women would no longer have access to birth control free of charge.

Probably have a 51% stake in "Mates" :-)

[quote]Let us step back a moment from this very contentious debate. And understand, without name calling on both sides, what is the real question:

When does protected Human Life begin?

Upon conception? 8 1/2 months into a woman's pregnancy? 20 weeks?

#1 - The Upon Conception Protection will have to justify their position. Without calling people who disagree with them vicious names.

#2 - The Negative at 8 1/2 months into a pregnancy. Where the only difference is possibly the location of the... Will also have to justify their position. Without calling people who disagree with them vicious names.

#3 - 20 weeks? 24 weeks? 30 weeks? Another time period?

# 4- Pain and conscious knowledge, is also a concern. When does consciousness begin? We don't yet know.

Understanding that many will disagree with my question. Please let's not begin with the vicious name calling.

That is an interesting question... When does consciousness begin...

The old conventional wisdom was 'at some time after birth'. You sure?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/consciousness-goes-deeper-than-you-think/

An article on the neuroscience of infant consciousness, which attracted some interest a few years ago, asked: “When does your baby become conscious?” The premise, of course, was that babies aren’t born conscious but, instead, develop consciousness at some point. (According to the article, it is about five months of age). Yet, it is hard to think that there is nothing it feels like to be a newborn.

Newborns clearly seem to experience their own bodies, environment, the presence of their parents, etcetera—albeit in an unreflective, present-oriented manner. And if it always feels like something to be a baby, then babies don’t become conscious. Instead, they are conscious from the get-go.

Conscious from the get-go... (birth).

Well, if they are conscious from the moment of birth, is it not likely they are conscious *before* birth. I myself have seen instances where babies in the womb react to stimuli (during sonograms). Being startled. Etc.

If they are conscious before birth, at what point does that consciousness develop?

Questions, questions, questions...

This is a thoroughly contentious issue.

Abortion.

Some approach it from a "religious perspective".

Some approach it from a "woman's rights perspective".

Some (myself included) approach it from a "human rights perspective", that is the right of a human being to not be killed without due process of law.

Again, this is a thoroughly contentious issue, and perhaps one that does not need to be discussed here. No matter which opinion a person gives, it will be insulting to someone.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Could this be informative?
Survive: Why aren't babies afraid of snakes?

Cannot see what 45 is trying to achieve. Saving a few dollars now could bring big expenses in the next few years.
cost of birth control pills - max $50/month ($600/year)
cost of bringing up children - $14,000/ year

Cannot see what 45 is trying to achieve. Saving a few dollars now could bring big expenses in the next few years.
cost of birth control pills - max $50/month ($600/year)
cost of bringing up children - $14,000/ year

But they will be indoctrinated to be right wingnutz in the new right wingnut school system.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/25/560013894/jane-doe-has-abortion-in-texas-after-battle-with-trump-administration

A 17-year-old undocumented immigrant to the U.S. underwent an abortion procedure on Wednesday morning, after a weeks-long legal fight with the Trump administration, which had sought to block her from leaving the detention facility where she's being held in Texas. A federal appeals court ruled in her favor on Tuesday.

After a string of rulings and reversals in the case, the American Civil Liberties Union says that Jane Doe was finally able to get the treatment she had sought. She was referred to as Jane Doe to protect her privacy as a minor and a medical patient.

"People I don't even know are trying to make me change my mind," Doe said in a statement from the ACLU. "I made my decision and that is between me and God. Through all of this, I have never changed my mind."

Federal and state officials have said that because of the young woman's immigration status, she had no inherent right to an elective abortion in the U.S.

<edit>From a prospective of those who champion states rights, after Ms. Doe got her Texas court order, should the Feds have any say?