Are these abortion laws really "State's Rights"?

Instead of guessing you could, of course, also just have checked some medical websites to get informed before posting.

Preeclampsia occurs in 3-4% of pregnancies in the USA. Ectopic pregnancies make up 1-2% of all pregnancies in the USA. Both conditions are highly dangerous and can be fatal. And that's just two out of many things that can go wrong during a pregnancy.

 

We are always at the same point, the manipulation of information. Because of the pregnancy problems that a small percentage of women may have, we try to dictate a law that is for all women, even if these women are irresponsible women who only think about fucking without any other conditions. We are not trying to educate responsible women, but only childish, immature and irresponsible women who are what men want, women who only want to fuck without thinking about anything else, women who are easy to fuck.

Let's imagine this situation. A study shows that men with blond hair cause many accidents while driving a car. The solution is to dictate a law that says that all men with blond, dark and bald hair can drive their cars as they want, without respecting the traffic signs, no matter who they kill with their car, only one thing matters, that they enjoy driving without thinking about anything else, it only matters that they enjoy. Completely absurd. It makes no sense whatsoever to pass a law that in order to solve a problem of a small part of the population, gives free permission to a much larger group to have the same attitude.

When we think of extraterrestrial life we always think of humanoid beings travelling in spaceships. However, science says that not only that is life, but also a cell, a bacterium or a virus travelling in a meteorite is life. And they are alive because they have the ability to grow and reproduce. That is exactly what happens when the egg and sperm unite, they reproduce and create millions of cells and each one of them knows what it has to do and when to do it in order to form a human being.

Our body continuously creates new cells, faster when we are young and slower in our old age, but it is always creating new cells. And it does so for one simple reason, because our body is alive. A dead body does not create new cells. Therefore, the creation of new cells is a sign of life and that happens, scientifically proven, with the zygote. Therefore, life already exists at that moment, otherwise no cells would be created.

A generalised abortion law only has the mission of telling us women that we are little girls, immature and irresponsible, it only tells us that as women are stupid and are not responsible for our bodies or our actions, we need a law that exempts us from that responsibility, and it also makes it easier for men to fulfil their oldest desire, to be able to fuck any woman without any responsibility whatsoever.

Women seek their comfort to the extreme point of selfishness and manipulation. If men are a nuisance, let's remove them from the equation of deciding the future of a human being. If anti-abortion women are a nuisance, let's remove them from the equation of deciding on the future of a human being. It makes no sense whatsoever for us to ask a woman whose mother thought about abortion what her opinion on abortion is, because if her opinion bothers us, let's take her opinion out of the equation. Science defines life as the creation of cells, let's take science out of the equation. In the end there are only women left who are pro-choice, but to remove all those conditions against abortion, it only goes by one name, DICTATORSHIP. The woman speaks of her right, but any right is inferior to the right to life, the worst crime is murder because it has no solution and murder is killing life.

A son or daughter inside a woman is not her property, it does not belong to her. A hand, a leg or an eye may be theirs, but not a new being inside that woman. A son or a daughter inside a woman is only a method that LIFE uses to perpetuate itself, it is an independent being that for a period of time is inside the mother, but it is not her property, it does not belong to her in any way. You own your hand, your foot, your car, your house, with all that you can do whatever you want, but not your son or your daughter, they are not your property, they are not an object, you cannot decide for that person.

I keep asking the same question that I have asked on several occasions and that nobody answers me. Why don't they ask us, the sons and daughters that our mother thought about abortion and that have been born, what is our opinion about abortion? Why doesn't anyone do a survey among those sons and daughters to know our opinion about abortion? Why do women always claim their right to do what they want with their bodies, but deny that possibility to a new son or daughter?

 

Started off as a decline in white Christian births (pointing out a historical and documented fact. Google Jane Elliot on the topic. Or what a birth dearth is. She is famous for the Blue Eyes Brown Eyes experiment). Now is something more sinister. Each year material mortality is on the rise in the US. Yes covid could be seen as a factor but not for the rise in years prior. Combine that with more extreme state laws that prior to Roe v Wade. Even if the state laws allows for an exception for say ectopic pregnancy and miscarriages with some laws being vague experts expect the rate of death to increase. Those who make these laws already know who will be effected most. For example most insurance especially Medicaid doesn’t pay if you have to leave the state for an abortion regardless if it’s to save your life.

Look at the death of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland for example of what will happen. Her long painful death that made international attention let to not only a passage of law but a landslide vote in their constitution by a country that is over 83 percent catholic.

Population control is nothing new in the US. Last century for a time SCOTUS deemed it constitutional for forced sterilizations. It still is on a federal level due to Buck vs Bell in 1927 (sadly not the scariest still legal SCOTUS decisions. I know two worse ones. One also ruled against in 1969 after 50 years. Lots of violence due to it)

States rights should never trump the constitution. We have the 10th amendment for a reason and I find it not odd at all the main demographic that thinks states should have the right to ignore in this case the 4th amendment (it’s what Roe v Wade was mainly focused on as well as the cases next on the chopping block) but not the police powers of the 10th amendment when it came to saving lives.

 

Wow... that was not something you should say to women. "A small percentage of women have trouble". yeah, but it doesn't mean that the other, the large percentage of women, want to have children.

 

We are not suppressing or repressing, we are just countering with our own arguments.
Victimization is an argument that some use, saying 'the others want to cancel us'

 

A woman that wants to have children jsut don't have to get an abortion, its easy.
Others, those that do not want any, they can get the abortion.
See? All's good, that way.
And having an abortion has nothing to do with respecting our body.

 

We don't repress idea. Its funny that you erase the part where I explain where we don't do it, and just focus on the part you want to focus on lol

 

But accident still happen. Nothing is 100% safe. What then?
Some prefers to feel it without condoms, some hate condoms. And the other ways are not 100% safe.
Shits happen, as we say.

 

In this conversation, as in others, the attitude of certain people is very clear, they make statements and then change the subject to avoid answers. Several questions have been raised, such as when it was stated that the zygote was not alive, but only a few cells, when science states that only when there is life can there be the appearance of new cells and those people who stated the opposite ignore this issue.

The point has also been made that a son or daughter is not part of a woman's body, a woman's hand, skin, hair or liver is part of a woman's body, but not a son who only uses the mother's body for nine months. A child is not the mother's property, it is not part of her body, it is a living being and independent of the mother.

On the other hand, it has also been stated that only a woman can decide on the life of another human being, in other words, that we want a woman to be judge, witness, accuser, defender and executioner at the same time. That is a proposal that would be rejected in any legal approach that wants a sentence that is just.

Women talk about their rights, but the rights of those who cannot defend themselves are much more important, and the question of why they do not ask us sons and daughters that our mother thought about abortion has not been answered either.

In other words, there is a clear intention to say words that are not later refuted, but forgotten, raising new questions such as the accidents that a couple may have in their sexual relationship, forgetting that condoms are not the only contraceptive method.

This clear attitude of making statements and pretending that they are forgotten, ignoring the questions raised and proposing new topics for discussion is repeated in this and many other conversations. A person says a few words and when they are refuted, he forgets the issue raised and raises another topic to divert attention.

In Spain this is called "echar balones fuera" (Throwing balls out) when a person tries to dodge a situation by responding with evasions and raising new questions to avoid the initial issue.

 

Then I must belong to the other societies. People who know me say that I have chosen the best university studies for me, law.

 

Forgive my insistence, but I don't understand your last post. As you can see many other participations have nothing to do with that question either, but only a warning is made specifically to me.