In another thread, James said he supports a woman's sovereign right over her body. I'm sure most all of us can see the sense in each of us having some rights over our bodies. James used the phrase in relation to abortion and a woman's say in that issue. So let's go down the sovereign right road.
Women only are interested in abortion when they are pregnant. How did the woman get pregnant? (This post doesn't pertain to rape!)To voluntarily get pregnant, didn't the woman give up her sovereignty for a few moments? She knew when she consented to the act what the outcome might be. She now has a new life inside her BECAUSE she gave up her sovereignty for those few moments. Why then should she retain that sovereign right over that life inside her. By her own permission, didn't she give equal rights to the man who created that life with in her? We all know that various government entities have laws on what you do with your children and those entities will take your children away if you violate those laws. Government entities also have laws on who has parental rights over children if parents split.
Why shouldn't a woman be subject to the laws of the state she lives in concerning her pregnancy and if she can, or can, not have an abortion?
Let's ignore the obvious answer and pretend states really could pass laws on abortion!
Then, one last question........would any of you, you-too, James, been OK with a woman aborting your child?

Abortion is MURDER.
Plain and simple.

Under the law a foetus does not have human rights.
There are certain rights recognized for a foetus but they are wholly ambiguous.
Until foetal rights are recognized and defined under the law it is a moot point.

Whether or not you believe that a fetus (with a heartbeat) is alive or not, is a moot point. Reason being that if said fetus is carried full term (more likely than not) he/she will then be alive, and THAT is life! As far as a woman's right to her body goes, no one is asking where the right of a baby's body (life) is...someone HAS to speak for the babies BLM (Babies Lives Matter!)

its not what you or I believe that matters-its what the supreme courts decide that matters.

That's a no from me, I found out not too long ago that my grandparents wanted my older sister aborted. My parents thankfully refused, because if not, me and possibly my little brother would have never been born (in addition to my sister). Ever since I found this out I have made it a point to let my opinion on abortion be known. God bless.

A fetus is part of the growth of a human being. First a zygote, then an embryo, then a newborn, then a baby, then a toddler then a child , then an adolescent, etc., etc.. You get the idea. If a vet cuts a foal out of its mother before its natural birth date is it not still a horse? A lot of warped minds out there based on selfishness, inconvenience, and lack of accountability or responsibility. The abortionists just decide at what stage of growth to commit murder.

Not quite right.We all have to answer to God.Abortion is wrong.

I don't have the time for all your questions, MT. A debate should be narrowly focused on a single question.

Besides, this is a hot-button topic around here.

Anyway, I've already had my say on the abortion issue.

I'd still like to know how some of you propose to ban it, and I may revisit the thread if that comes up.

Jim

I began this thread mostly on a single topic. The woman's "sovereign" right over her body after allowing a man to partner with her. Can we debate that, James?

My response comes in seven parts, then.

Libertarian: I don't want the government, through a judge or panel of bureaucrats, to decide what happens to a woman's pregnancy. Pregnancy is a personal, private, medical condition. Given the choice between government and individual, in this case I'll side with the individual.

Establishment of religion: If you insist the woman can't decide for herself whether to finish the pregnancy, even at the stage of fetal non-viability, then you must be saying that all life is sacred. That's a religious belief which many don't share. Go establish your religion in some other country.

Extremist: If you believe all life is sacred, then you must deny abortion even in cases of rape or incest or when the mother's life is at risk. Are you willing to go that far?

Non-judgmental: I won't accept the notion that people ought to be punished for having unprotected sex. It doesn't say that in the Good Book, anyway.

Children should be wanted: People shouldn't be forced into raising unwanted children. That's not good for mother or child. That's a good way to create a criminal, sociopath, or someone with attachment disorder.

Humanitarian: Do we really want to send women to back-alley abortionists? You know, like it was before Roe v. Wade.

Practical: Just how would you propose to ban abortion anyway? Since you want to take away the woman's right to decide, does that leave the feds or the state to punish the woman?

Jim

what is "religion" if not a Belief System?

Secular Humanism is a Belief System (i.e. "religion"); but it is taught all day, EVERY day in our government schools...

why is THAT one not only allowed, but forced down our throats?

it is not up to me to tell anyone what they should do with their body. they should have the freedom of choice after they have to live with their choice. in the USA we are to quick to give up freedom of choice on a lot of things.

since we've been told that NO rights are "absolute"...what are reasonable restrictions on a woman's right to choose?

Jimmy's case falls apart on one key point. If all life is not sacred under whatever belief system one chooses to use then libertarian rights, humanitarian rights and all other individual liberty is moot. If a society cannot protect the very least among us and leaves it up to the parent to decide life or death then none of us are safe.

I don't believe that the Supreme Court is supreme or infallible. On moral issues, it makes little difference to my opinion what the opinion of the courts is.

I do believe that a woman (or any person) has a right to decide the use of their own bodies. I also believe that a child, born or unborn, has the right to life. That puts two rights in conflict where abortion is concerned. How do we decide which right is more important when two rights are mutually exclusive? In some places, you decide which person is more important. Kings, or members of a higher cast would have their rights protected first. In America, all are created equal so that doesn't work. The only way left, that I know, is to decide which violation is more egregious. So, for me, the question is : Is it worse to violate a woman's right not to carry a baby for 9 months or is it worse to kill a child?

If a pregnant mother is murdered , isn't the murderer charged with two counts of murder ?

Libertarian- Recognize a woman's right but not the rights of the unborn? Seems like that's making the definition of sovereignty fit your agenda.
Establishment of Religion- Shouldn't science be included in this category? A DNA sample from the aborted fetus would confirm it was human.
Extremist- So the child pays, with its life, for the sins of the father?
Non-judgmental- Didn't understand the line of thinking here.
Children should be wanted- So a poor childhood guarantees criminality or some other disorder?
Humanitarian- That would fall under the rule, "you play,you pay". It's common knowledge of the consequences of unprotected sex.
Practical- Amendment/laws charging abortionist with murder.

When a 15 year old girl gets pregnant in the church basement playing with the married youth pastor, it is her parents that force her to get an abortion, not the state.

When a 15 year old girl gets pregnant at the local truck stop playing with a married atheist trucker, it's the pimp that forces her to get an abortion, not the state.