Abortion – “My body My Right!” Why this argument fails to logic and reason.

o-ABORTION-facebook.jpg

Abortion.  Such a touchy subject and one that many women will scream about.   In fact with the current american election looming, the subject has come up due to Hilary’s opinion that the unborn have no rights in law until they are born.   Which means, in her eyes, that a child can be ripped apart via abortion right up until the time labor starts.

This has caused a debate on abortion to renew again.  I’ve seen this debate happen numerous times over  the past forty years.   However, now with age comes wisdom and understanding.

The understanding that “my body my right” is false.     I will list my reasons why.

Let’s begin with conception.    Life starts there.   The mother’s egg is dormant until the father’s sperm penetrates the egg and gives it the spark of life and energy it needs to start cell reproduction.

One of the arguments from women is that they give life or create life.   Technically this is incorrect.   At best you can call a woman an incubator.   They carry and gestate that child in their body but the “spark” that created that life, came from the father.

The cells reproduce and form a child.   During that process there are many stages.    Many argue that there is no “life” until there is a heartbeat or a brain etc.    This really is a strawman argument.  Since as I stated the spark started at inception.

Now, with that being said many argue that the fetus can be aborted right until week 31-35.  In Canada, this is 24 weeks.  This is what a fetus looks like at that time.

fetus24weeks

Now I don’t know about you, but this does not look like a bunch of cells that get scraped off the uterus wall.     Yet, the abortions can and do happen this late.

So the argument of “My Body, My Right” is false.  It disregards the life of the child as nothing.   So I can understand how some could see it as murder.

If anyone has watched the Videos from the investigation into Planned Parenthood, you would have seen the horrors that they present.   Selling the aborted baby parts for profit.   The staff separating brain, legs, arms as if they were never human life.

Then we have father’s rights.   Or rather, the lack of reproductive rights.    Many of the people who argue for abortion always mention that “If the father didn’t want a child, they shouldn’t have had sex”.     This argument is without any kind of reason, coherent thought or logic.    The reason being is, the same logic can be applied to the women.   “If she didn’t want a child she shouldn’t have had sex”.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m not against abortion completely.   I firmly believe there should be allowances in law for it.  Such as cases of women or girls getting pregnant from rape, or incest.   Or in medical needs, such as her life is in danger from the pregnancy.   Those to me seem to be reasonable.

We have had over 50 years in Canada of proper sex education, women have access to more than twenty kind of contraceptive options.   Everyone, and I mean everyone knows the pill is not 100 percent and yet we still have unwanted pregnancies.

So maybe it’s time ladies to stop blaming men for your pregnancy?   Men have 3 options to them.  A condom, Abstinence or a vasectomy.    The power, the choices and the rights are all yours.   So if you get pregnant and it is unwanted, then to me, it is your fault. At least, ninety percent on you.

As, I have written, men do not have rights when it comes to being a father or not.   You scoff and will rant, but it is true.

Men have zero choice in becoming a father.   Once the sperm, penetrates the egg and cell division starts then women have all the power and the choice in society.    If a woman gets pregnant here are her choices.

1.  She can choose to abort.  2.  She can choose to keep the child.  3. She can choose to give the child up for adoption.  4. She can choose to not name the child’s father on the birth certificate.   5. She can choose to force the father to pay child support.  6.  She can choose to let the father give up his so called “parental rights as father”.   7.  She can choose to deny the father any visits to the child.

All the choices are hers.     This is why,  I think the laws  in this country concerning abortion need to take a more balanced approach to, well, every aspect.

We need to have this discussion as a nation.   People need to be honest and less selfish about it and that will start with you ladies, cause we men, don’t have the rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Violating Rights in the Name of Safety?

Human-rights-violations

We all have rights.   Many of those rights are violated today under the guise of “for your safety” or for “public safety”.      Like the era of Hitler when he came into power, pro police and pro authority supporters encourage this.    They praise police when they very obviously have broken the law or violated someone’s individual human rights.
Today I read a very vague article in my local newspaper, that lead me to believe the person mentioned in it had her rights violated.   Which of course prompted a heated debate as I seemed to be the only one who recognized this.

Here is the article:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6470583-drunk-woman-spits-in-police-officer-s-face-at-hamilton-hospital/

Now, after reading the article it does not say why she was in the hospital or why she was angry.     So we can only speculate.    I am someone who presumes innocence until proven guilty, so I will presume she is innocent of any crime.

Which leaves only a few reasons for her to act this way.  The most logical and basic is that she was forced there against her will, got angry and spit on the cop.   Who then proceeded to charge her for getting a little wet.

The comment section heated on social media when I mentioned that her rights had most likely been violated by the cops, the medical professions and possibly the paramedics if they used them.

This caused a stir.   People stood up and commented that the cops was assaulted, but really were they?

If you are taken against your will to someplace you didn’t want to go, just because you were drunk, isn’t that kidnapping?   I would think so.  In fact the Legal definition of kidnapping is:

Kidnapping

The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or Fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time.

This is what they did. That is again assuming that she didn’t want to go and didn’t commit any crimes while drunk.

Many would say that it was for her safety and that makes it right.     Actually no it doesn’t.  The only person who can make that decision is the person in question.    The only time that doesn’t apply is when they are unable to due to mental illness or they are unconscious.

In the 90s, I lived in BC and at that time there was a serious heroin problem.  100% pure heroin was being sold on the streets and anyone who would inject themselves with it would overdose and die within 3o minutes.   This was such a major problem that they had paramedics driving ambulances in the alleys and looking for unconscious drug addicts.

When they found a conscious drug user, they would offer help, and if they person said no they legally could not do anything.    If that happened they would wait until that person lost consciousness and then act.

When I asked the  authorities about that, they said that by law they cannot force a medical treatment against someone’s will unless they were unable to make that decision themselves.   That is to me the right thing to do.

Now back to the woman in the article, if she was drunk and they transported her to the hospital and she refused medical treatment, then forcing her to have it would have made the medical staff at fault.  And the police trying to “deescalate” the situation would not have made it any better.     No means no.     And since the police in this age are not known to be gentle or nice , we can only assume their idea of deescalate was to use force on her to hold her down.   To which the only thing the woman could do to defend herself would be to spit on the cop.

Some paramedics piped up and stated they deal with drunk people all the time who don’t want help and have to “deal” with the violence all the time.  Same with some nurses at the hospitals.     Here is my message you to and to any of these people who think they are helping someone.   “NO MEANS NO.”  Drunk or sober, you do not have the right to force a medical treatment, force someone to go somewhere, without their consent or against their will.   NEVER!   If they attack you in anyway it is within their right to defend themselves because regardless of your intent, you are violating their rights and attacking them”.

Can people understand this?    If a drunk driver is held accountable for their actions of getting in the vehicle and driving while drunk then they have the ability to say no to unwanted help.    If you violate this and take them to a hospital and try to perform a medical procedure, any medical procedure then you are at fault and not the drunk person.

Pass this on and share this.   The more people that get educated on rights, then maybe we can fix this from happening to others.