I think viability is understandable, but I still personally think it lacks compassion and acknowledgment of the situation permitting an abortion that late. The child relies on the mother as I mentioned above, just in different ways throughout life. Just because they aren’t self-sufficient doesn’t mean the support should be forfeited. At least in my opinion.
Others may disagree with my rationale, but the way I see it, the Constitution extends protections to human life. Before a human lives its life outside of a woman's body, a human briefly lives its life within (and nourished by) a woman's body. In my opinion, one good way to move forward reasonably is to have a consortium of medical experts responsible for establishing a legal definition of when human (i.e. not a fertilized egg, not an embryo, not a fetus) life begins, and then at that point to define an abortion as the cessation of a pregnancy of anything other than human life. This would put that upper boundary on abortions, would send a clear and irrefutable message that an abortion is not a murder, and would extend human rights to those determined as human.
Inevitably people will bring up varying rates of development, but we have no problems in society with setting blanket laws that ignore varying development (can't drive until X, can't vote until Y, can't smoke until Z, etc.). I'm 100% in support of women's rights to pursue abortions, but asking that this occurs within the framework of law, or that the framework of law be modified to represent cultural development over decades, in my opinion are very reasonable and also necessary if we want to establish definitively what's fair and what's not. Otherwise, I just don't see this debate stopping.
aah i see now... benjs youve turned what is a medical procedure into a legal issue. with respect to you it doesnt matter what parameters you find reasonable, or very reasonable or what 'we' think is fair or not fair. my having an abortion impacts no one but myself and the father if he is around. the father can voice his opinion but when it really comes down to it, its not his choice to make. so what are we left with? a womens right to exercise autonomy over her own body without interference. THATS when the debate will stop.
At some point a women’s decision to abort effects another life.
i am not going to get into a philosophical debate about when life begins. to me its irrelevant. abortion laws are about the control of a womans body. how about we just give every male a vasectomy as soon as they hit puberty, that way the number of unwanted pregnancies would drop considerably... plus bonus! theyre reversible(only to be performed when a man enters a lawful relationship of course) and then we wont have to concern ourselves with loose women killing babies and men feeling emasculated cause the decision to terminate a pregnancy is out of their hands.
It’s a scientific debate not philosophical.
How?
About when life begins? When a fetus/baby is developed enough to survive outside the womb?
I see how it is a philosophical debate as well, but my singular point to cate was about the science.
About what life is. I would imagine there not being a scientific decided definition of that being "when the child leaves the womb"? Or is there one?
I mean, a fetus is a living organism - or what else would it be - a fruit?
But please direct me to a scientific definition of what "life" is...
As stated before, and that you mocked, it is legally seen as a "child" with legal rights in Sweden at week 22. And the further science gets in being able to save the life of children born early, that will be moved back I would presume.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I think viability is understandable, but I still personally think it lacks compassion and acknowledgment of the situation permitting an abortion that late. The child relies on the mother as I mentioned above, just in different ways throughout life. Just because they aren’t self-sufficient doesn’t mean the support should be forfeited. At least in my opinion.
Others may disagree with my rationale, but the way I see it, the Constitution extends protections to human life. Before a human lives its life outside of a woman's body, a human briefly lives its life within (and nourished by) a woman's body. In my opinion, one good way to move forward reasonably is to have a consortium of medical experts responsible for establishing a legal definition of when human (i.e. not a fertilized egg, not an embryo, not a fetus) life begins, and then at that point to define an abortion as the cessation of a pregnancy of anything other than human life. This would put that upper boundary on abortions, would send a clear and irrefutable message that an abortion is not a murder, and would extend human rights to those determined as human.
Inevitably people will bring up varying rates of development, but we have no problems in society with setting blanket laws that ignore varying development (can't drive until X, can't vote until Y, can't smoke until Z, etc.). I'm 100% in support of women's rights to pursue abortions, but asking that this occurs within the framework of law, or that the framework of law be modified to represent cultural development over decades, in my opinion are very reasonable and also necessary if we want to establish definitively what's fair and what's not. Otherwise, I just don't see this debate stopping.
aah i see now... benjs youve turned what is a medical procedure into a legal issue. with respect to you it doesnt matter what parameters you find reasonable, or very reasonable or what 'we' think is fair or not fair. my having an abortion impacts no one but myself and the father if he is around. the father can voice his opinion but when it really comes down to it, its not his choice to make. so what are we left with? a womens right to exercise autonomy over her own body without interference. THATS when the debate will stop.
At some point a women’s decision to abort effects another life.
i am not going to get into a philosophical debate about when life begins. to me its irrelevant. abortion laws are about the control of a womans body. how about we just give every male a vasectomy as soon as they hit puberty, that way the number of unwanted pregnancies would drop considerably... plus bonus! theyre reversible(only to be performed when a man enters a lawful relationship of course) and then we wont have to concern ourselves with loose women killing babies and men feeling emasculated cause the decision to terminate a pregnancy is out of their hands.
It’s a scientific debate not philosophical.
How?
About when life begins? When a fetus/baby is developed enough to survive outside the womb?
I see how it is a philosophical debate as well, but my singular point to cate was about the science.
About what life is. I would imagine there not being a scientific decided definition of that being "when the child leaves the womb"? Or is there one?
I mean, a fetus is a living organism - or what else would it be - a fruit?
But please direct me to a scientific definition of what "life" is...
As stated before, and that you mocked, it is legally seen as a "child" with legal rights in Sweden at week 22. And the further science gets in being able to save the life of children born early, that will be moved back I would presume.
Yes set the law for when science says a baby could live if removed from the womb. I’m for a much different time frame then that, but that seems like a good point to agree on with a majority. And if science changes, that would also change
I think viability is understandable, but I still personally think it lacks compassion and acknowledgment of the situation permitting an abortion that late. The child relies on the mother as I mentioned above, just in different ways throughout life. Just because they aren’t self-sufficient doesn’t mean the support should be forfeited. At least in my opinion.
Others may disagree with my rationale, but the way I see it, the Constitution extends protections to human life. Before a human lives its life outside of a woman's body, a human briefly lives its life within (and nourished by) a woman's body. In my opinion, one good way to move forward reasonably is to have a consortium of medical experts responsible for establishing a legal definition of when human (i.e. not a fertilized egg, not an embryo, not a fetus) life begins, and then at that point to define an abortion as the cessation of a pregnancy of anything other than human life. This would put that upper boundary on abortions, would send a clear and irrefutable message that an abortion is not a murder, and would extend human rights to those determined as human.
Inevitably people will bring up varying rates of development, but we have no problems in society with setting blanket laws that ignore varying development (can't drive until X, can't vote until Y, can't smoke until Z, etc.). I'm 100% in support of women's rights to pursue abortions, but asking that this occurs within the framework of law, or that the framework of law be modified to represent cultural development over decades, in my opinion are very reasonable and also necessary if we want to establish definitively what's fair and what's not. Otherwise, I just don't see this debate stopping.
aah i see now... benjs youve turned what is a medical procedure into a legal issue. with respect to you it doesnt matter what parameters you find reasonable, or very reasonable or what 'we' think is fair or not fair. my having an abortion impacts no one but myself and the father if he is around. the father can voice his opinion but when it really comes down to it, its not his choice to make. so what are we left with? a womens right to exercise autonomy over her own body without interference. THATS when the debate will stop.
At some point a women’s decision to abort effects another life.
i am not going to get into a philosophical debate about when life begins. to me its irrelevant. abortion laws are about the control of a womans body. how about we just give every male a vasectomy as soon as they hit puberty, that way the number of unwanted pregnancies would drop considerably... plus bonus! theyre reversible(only to be performed when a man enters a lawful relationship of course) and then we wont have to concern ourselves with loose women killing babies and men feeling emasculated cause the decision to terminate a pregnancy is out of their hands.
It’s a scientific debate not philosophical.
How?
About when life begins? When a fetus/baby is developed enough to survive outside the womb?
I see how it is a philosophical debate as well, but my singular point to cate was about the science.
About what life is. I would imagine there not being a scientific decided definition of that being "when the child leaves the womb"? Or is there one?
I mean, a fetus is a living organism - or what else would it be - a fruit?
But please direct me to a scientific definition of what "life" is...
As stated before, and that you mocked, it is legally seen as a "child" with legal rights in Sweden at week 22. And the further science gets in being able to save the life of children born early, that will be moved back I would presume.
Yes set the law for when science says a baby could live if removed from the womb. I’m for a much different time frame then that, but that seems like a good point to agree on with a majority. And if science changes, that would also change
When do you set the time frame? Asking out of curiosity. Not here to attack you with some capital lettery RIGHT WINGED PROAPAGANDA WOMENS RIGHTS etc.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Here is something that happens when right winged forced get influence by the way:
Thousands protest in Norway against restricting abortion
The Christian Democrats want further restrictions or an end to terminations after the twelfth week of pregnancy, potentially reining in exemptions for genetic conditions or injuries.
The party also wants to make it more difficult, or stop altogether, selective abortions in multi-fetal pregnancies.
“It is discriminating to select on the basis of having different skills ... Children with Down syndrome should have the same legal rights as other children,” Kjell Ingolf Ropstad, deputy leader of the Christian Democrats, told public broadcaster NRK earlier this month.
Since 1978, a termination after 12 weeks must be authorized by a panel of two hospital doctors. If the panel refuses, the decision can be appealed.
Affordable Available on demand Legal Safe A womans choice/decision
I don't care how many times you post it, it STILL makes sense. So thank you.
So then. Anytime up until birth this applies?
under certain circumstances, absolutely.
married friends were pregnant. high risk. she was put on bed rest at one point. I think in the 8th month it was discovered their daughter had died in the womb yet the pregnancy was proceding normally otherwise meaning she was continuing to carry to term as her body had yet to miscarry or otherwise reject the baby. the catholic hospital refused to induce(abort) . the methodist hospital system did so, allowing them to bury their daughter, Shelby and move through their grief. Fortunately they later had a son with no complications at all.
My cousin gave birth to a daughter, Berlin, who died within minutes of birth. It was known it WOULD happen due to a condition called trisomy 13 which is an extra 13th chromosome. this condition caused an irreparable hole in her heart, yet the pregnancy carried to term. My cousin chose to carry to term and give birth. HER choice. But she absolutely should have been allowed to terminate once it became known it wasnt repairable, at whatever stage of pregnancy. She continues to be devastated by her childs death.
should both of these women have been forced to carry to term?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Affordable Available on demand Legal Safe A womans choice/decision
I don't care how many times you post it, it STILL makes sense. So thank you.
So then. Anytime up until birth this applies?
under certain circumstances, absolutely.
married friends were pregnant. high risk. she was put on bed rest at one point. I think in the 8th month it was discovered their daughter had died in the womb yet the pregnancy was proceding normally otherwise meaning she was continuing to carry to term as her body had yet to miscarry or otherwise reject the baby. the catholic hospital refused to induce(abort) . the methodist hospital system did so, allowing them to bury their daughter, Shelby and move through their grief. Fortunately they later had a son with no complications at all.
My cousin gave birth to a daughter, Berlin, who died within minutes of birth. It was known it WOULD happen due to a condition called trisomy 13 which is an extra 13th chromosome. this condition caused an irreparable hole in her heart, yet the pregnancy carried to term. My cousin chose to carry to term and give birth. HER choice. But she absolutely should have been allowed to terminate once it became known it wasnt repairable, at whatever stage of pregnancy. She continues to be devastated by her childs death.
should both of these women have been forced to carry to term?
I think viability is understandable, but I still personally think it lacks compassion and acknowledgment of the situation permitting an abortion that late. The child relies on the mother as I mentioned above, just in different ways throughout life. Just because they aren’t self-sufficient doesn’t mean the support should be forfeited. At least in my opinion.
Others may disagree with my rationale, but the way I see it, the Constitution extends protections to human life. Before a human lives its life outside of a woman's body, a human briefly lives its life within (and nourished by) a woman's body. In my opinion, one good way to move forward reasonably is to have a consortium of medical experts responsible for establishing a legal definition of when human (i.e. not a fertilized egg, not an embryo, not a fetus) life begins, and then at that point to define an abortion as the cessation of a pregnancy of anything other than human life. This would put that upper boundary on abortions, would send a clear and irrefutable message that an abortion is not a murder, and would extend human rights to those determined as human.
Inevitably people will bring up varying rates of development, but we have no problems in society with setting blanket laws that ignore varying development (can't drive until X, can't vote until Y, can't smoke until Z, etc.). I'm 100% in support of women's rights to pursue abortions, but asking that this occurs within the framework of law, or that the framework of law be modified to represent cultural development over decades, in my opinion are very reasonable and also necessary if we want to establish definitively what's fair and what's not. Otherwise, I just don't see this debate stopping.
aah i see now... benjs youve turned what is a medical procedure into a legal issue. with respect to you it doesnt matter what parameters you find reasonable, or very reasonable or what 'we' think is fair or not fair. my having an abortion impacts no one but myself and the father if he is around. the father can voice his opinion but when it really comes down to it, its not his choice to make. so what are we left with? a womens right to exercise autonomy over her own body without interference. THATS when the debate will stop.
At some point a women’s decision to abort effects another life.
i am not going to get into a philosophical debate about when life begins. to me its irrelevant. abortion laws are about the control of a womans body. how about we just give every male a vasectomy as soon as they hit puberty, that way the number of unwanted pregnancies would drop considerably... plus bonus! theyre reversible(only to be performed when a man enters a lawful relationship of course) and then we wont have to concern ourselves with loose women killing babies and men feeling emasculated cause the decision to terminate a pregnancy is out of their hands.
It’s a scientific debate not philosophical.
How?
About when life begins? When a fetus/baby is developed enough to survive outside the womb?
I see how it is a philosophical debate as well, but my singular point to cate was about the science.
About what life is. I would imagine there not being a scientific decided definition of that being "when the child leaves the womb"? Or is there one?
I mean, a fetus is a living organism - or what else would it be - a fruit?
But please direct me to a scientific definition of what "life" is...
As stated before, and that you mocked, it is legally seen as a "child" with legal rights in Sweden at week 22. And the further science gets in being able to save the life of children born early, that will be moved back I would presume.
Yes set the law for when science says a baby could live if removed from the womb. I’m for a much different time frame then that, but that seems like a good point to agree on with a majority. And if science changes, that would also change
When do you set the time frame? Asking out of curiosity. Not here to attack you with some capital lettery RIGHT WINGED PROAPAGANDA WOMENS RIGHTS etc.
I don’t set the time frame. I want doctors to do so. It’ll be much later than I would personally choose.
I think viability is understandable, but I still personally think it lacks compassion and acknowledgment of the situation permitting an abortion that late. The child relies on the mother as I mentioned above, just in different ways throughout life. Just because they aren’t self-sufficient doesn’t mean the support should be forfeited. At least in my opinion.
Others may disagree with my rationale, but the way I see it, the Constitution extends protections to human life. Before a human lives its life outside of a woman's body, a human briefly lives its life within (and nourished by) a woman's body. In my opinion, one good way to move forward reasonably is to have a consortium of medical experts responsible for establishing a legal definition of when human (i.e. not a fertilized egg, not an embryo, not a fetus) life begins, and then at that point to define an abortion as the cessation of a pregnancy of anything other than human life. This would put that upper boundary on abortions, would send a clear and irrefutable message that an abortion is not a murder, and would extend human rights to those determined as human.
Inevitably people will bring up varying rates of development, but we have no problems in society with setting blanket laws that ignore varying development (can't drive until X, can't vote until Y, can't smoke until Z, etc.). I'm 100% in support of women's rights to pursue abortions, but asking that this occurs within the framework of law, or that the framework of law be modified to represent cultural development over decades, in my opinion are very reasonable and also necessary if we want to establish definitively what's fair and what's not. Otherwise, I just don't see this debate stopping.
aah i see now... benjs youve turned what is a medical procedure into a legal issue. with respect to you it doesnt matter what parameters you find reasonable, or very reasonable or what 'we' think is fair or not fair. my having an abortion impacts no one but myself and the father if he is around. the father can voice his opinion but when it really comes down to it, its not his choice to make. so what are we left with? a womens right to exercise autonomy over her own body without interference. THATS when the debate will stop.
At some point a women’s decision to abort effects another life.
i am not going to get into a philosophical debate about when life begins. to me its irrelevant. abortion laws are about the control of a womans body. how about we just give every male a vasectomy as soon as they hit puberty, that way the number of unwanted pregnancies would drop considerably... plus bonus! theyre reversible(only to be performed when a man enters a lawful relationship of course) and then we wont have to concern ourselves with loose women killing babies and men feeling emasculated cause the decision to terminate a pregnancy is out of their hands.
It’s a scientific debate not philosophical.
How?
About when life begins? When a fetus/baby is developed enough to survive outside the womb?
I see how it is a philosophical debate as well, but my singular point to cate was about the science.
About what life is. I would imagine there not being a scientific decided definition of that being "when the child leaves the womb"? Or is there one?
I mean, a fetus is a living organism - or what else would it be - a fruit?
But please direct me to a scientific definition of what "life" is...
As stated before, and that you mocked, it is legally seen as a "child" with legal rights in Sweden at week 22. And the further science gets in being able to save the life of children born early, that will be moved back I would presume.
Yes set the law for when science says a baby could live if removed from the womb. I’m for a much different time frame then that, but that seems like a good point to agree on with a majority. And if science changes, that would also change
When do you set the time frame? Asking out of curiosity. Not here to attack you with some capital lettery RIGHT WINGED PROAPAGANDA WOMENS RIGHTS etc.
I don’t set the time frame. I want doctors to do so. It’ll be much later than I would personally choose.
That is my question though -- what would you "personally choose" ?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Affordable Available on demand Legal Safe A womans choice/decision
I don't care how many times you post it, it STILL makes sense. So thank you.
So then. Anytime up until birth this applies?
under certain circumstances, absolutely.
married friends were pregnant. high risk. she was put on bed rest at one point. I think in the 8th month it was discovered their daughter had died in the womb yet the pregnancy was proceding normally otherwise meaning she was continuing to carry to term as her body had yet to miscarry or otherwise reject the baby. the catholic hospital refused to induce(abort) . the methodist hospital system did so, allowing them to bury their daughter, Shelby and move through their grief. Fortunately they later had a son with no complications at all.
My cousin gave birth to a daughter, Berlin, who died within minutes of birth. It was known it WOULD happen due to a condition called trisomy 13 which is an extra 13th chromosome. this condition caused an irreparable hole in her heart, yet the pregnancy carried to term. My cousin chose to carry to term and give birth. HER choice. But she absolutely should have been allowed to terminate once it became known it wasnt repairable, at whatever stage of pregnancy. She continues to be devastated by her childs death.
should both of these women have been forced to carry to term?
Nope. Again, medical reasons.
so what anecdotal evidence do you have of women aborting near term(3rd trimester) on a whim or just because they can?
cuz by my read that seems to be what your focus is. correct me if I am wrong.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I think viability is understandable, but I still personally think it lacks compassion and acknowledgment of the situation permitting an abortion that late. The child relies on the mother as I mentioned above, just in different ways throughout life. Just because they aren’t self-sufficient doesn’t mean the support should be forfeited. At least in my opinion.
Others may disagree with my rationale, but the way I see it, the Constitution extends protections to human life. Before a human lives its life outside of a woman's body, a human briefly lives its life within (and nourished by) a woman's body. In my opinion, one good way to move forward reasonably is to have a consortium of medical experts responsible for establishing a legal definition of when human (i.e. not a fertilized egg, not an embryo, not a fetus) life begins, and then at that point to define an abortion as the cessation of a pregnancy of anything other than human life. This would put that upper boundary on abortions, would send a clear and irrefutable message that an abortion is not a murder, and would extend human rights to those determined as human.
Inevitably people will bring up varying rates of development, but we have no problems in society with setting blanket laws that ignore varying development (can't drive until X, can't vote until Y, can't smoke until Z, etc.). I'm 100% in support of women's rights to pursue abortions, but asking that this occurs within the framework of law, or that the framework of law be modified to represent cultural development over decades, in my opinion are very reasonable and also necessary if we want to establish definitively what's fair and what's not. Otherwise, I just don't see this debate stopping.
aah i see now... benjs youve turned what is a medical procedure into a legal issue. with respect to you it doesnt matter what parameters you find reasonable, or very reasonable or what 'we' think is fair or not fair. my having an abortion impacts no one but myself and the father if he is around. the father can voice his opinion but when it really comes down to it, its not his choice to make. so what are we left with? a womens right to exercise autonomy over her own body without interference. THATS when the debate will stop.
At some point a women’s decision to abort effects another life.
i am not going to get into a philosophical debate about when life begins. to me its irrelevant. abortion laws are about the control of a womans body. how about we just give every male a vasectomy as soon as they hit puberty, that way the number of unwanted pregnancies would drop considerably... plus bonus! theyre reversible(only to be performed when a man enters a lawful relationship of course) and then we wont have to concern ourselves with loose women killing babies and men feeling emasculated cause the decision to terminate a pregnancy is out of their hands.
It’s a scientific debate not philosophical.
How?
About when life begins? When a fetus/baby is developed enough to survive outside the womb?
I see how it is a philosophical debate as well, but my singular point to cate was about the science.
About what life is. I would imagine there not being a scientific decided definition of that being "when the child leaves the womb"? Or is there one?
I mean, a fetus is a living organism - or what else would it be - a fruit?
But please direct me to a scientific definition of what "life" is...
As stated before, and that you mocked, it is legally seen as a "child" with legal rights in Sweden at week 22. And the further science gets in being able to save the life of children born early, that will be moved back I would presume.
Yes set the law for when science says a baby could live if removed from the womb. I’m for a much different time frame then that, but that seems like a good point to agree on with a majority. And if science changes, that would also change
When do you set the time frame? Asking out of curiosity. Not here to attack you with some capital lettery RIGHT WINGED PROAPAGANDA WOMENS RIGHTS etc.
I don’t set the time frame. I want doctors to do so. It’ll be much later than I would personally choose.
That is my question though -- what would you "personally choose" ?
Ok, so just to be clear, I wouldn’t be setting any laws based on my personal choice as the country has chosen they want abortion and the Supreme Court has upheld it. Honestly I’m not 100% sure, but I don’t think I would choose to abort at any point unless mother’s health at risk, doctors could confirm serious health issues of child, rape or incest. But if it is involving me, those last 2 wouldn’t happen.
Technology and science move at a rapid rate. When a fetus was viable outside the womb 50 years ago is completely different than today. In 50 more years, who knows... If we continue on that debate, then women will lose all rights to choose in the next 100 years.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This false narrative that the premise of abortion laws is about controlling women is just to sway the uninformed at this point. What do you say to women that are pro-life that see right through that?
You may say that it's not about control, and you may even believe it's not about control, but when it comes right down to it, control is an intrinsic part of it, so it becomes about control.
It is about control cause at some point you are advocating for a women to be able to control a life that could survive without her to have control over that life.
That's falling down the rabbit hole of right wing propaganda, claiming that women are aborting viable babies late in pregnancy that are then killed. It's false.
Then you shouldn’t mind that x amount of weeks should be decided upon since they never happen and wouldn’t happen.
No, I’m not in favour of unjust laws just to placate people who want to controls others’ bodies. I don’t think there should be any laws restricting abortion.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
This false narrative that the premise of abortion laws is about controlling women is just to sway the uninformed at this point. What do you say to women that are pro-life that see right through that?
You may say that it's not about control, and you may even believe it's not about control, but when it comes right down to it, control is an intrinsic part of it, so it becomes about control.
So you must advocate for no government control over anything? Why should they have a say over anything that only affects myself attitude I guess? They control men and women in many different ways. If there is one issue that they should really care about and fight for, it is when they should be considered a life even if in the womb.
It is blown out of proportion as oppressing women because only women can get pregnant. Unfair? Sure. But that is just the nature of it and the only reason it has turned into a “controlling women” problem instead of a when does life definitively begin problem.
It isn't about "when does life begin". Fertilized eggs are living cells. Zyotes are living, embryos are living, fetuses are living - that's not the issue. If you really want to dig into the "life" argument, then you get back to the argument that every egg should be fertilized and no sperm should be wasted, since eggs and sperm are living cells, and I hope we all know that's ridiculous (not that it hasn't been used as an argument).
The issue is one of competing rights to bodily autonomy. You can argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus has rights, but the woman whose body it is inside has rights as well, to her body. In your argument, the woman has no rights and always loses in this equation, for no particularly well-defined reason.
Looking at some parallels, there are several medical procedures that require invasion of bodily integrity but that could save the lives of others, including bone marrow transplant and living kidney donation, to name just two. If the "pro life" crowd was actually "pro life", they would be lobbying just as hard for legal requirements for everyone to provide bone marrow or a kidney if they are a match, in order to save the life of another human being. After all, you can survive with just one kidney, at least most of the time. Sure, there's a chance you might die in surgery, or have complications, but the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality is not insignificant (particularly in the US). And bone marrow transplant is even easier, no surgery required. Sure, it's pretty painful, but so is labour and childbirth, and bone marrow aspiration is far faster than those situations. Why wouldn't pro life people want this to be mandatory, when it could save the life of a baby or child with leukemia or other cancers, or kidney failure?
If the pro life crowd ever gets behind mandating all factors that would actually save the lives of babies and children, and coincidentally that also involve men giving up rights to bodily integrity, then I'll believe them that it isn't about controlling women's reproductive freedom; until then, it's pretty clear it is.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
This false narrative that the premise of abortion laws is about controlling women is just to sway the uninformed at this point. What do you say to women that are pro-life that see right through that?
You may say that it's not about control, and you may even believe it's not about control, but when it comes right down to it, control is an intrinsic part of it, so it becomes about control.
So you must advocate for no government control over anything? Why should they have a say over anything that only affects myself attitude I guess? They control men and women in many different ways. If there is one issue that they should really care about and fight for, it is when they should be considered a life even if in the womb.
It is blown out of proportion as oppressing women because only women can get pregnant. Unfair? Sure. But that is just the nature of it and the only reason it has turned into a “controlling women” problem instead of a when does life definitively begin problem.
It isn't about "when does life begin". Fertilized eggs are living cells. Zyotes are living, embryos are living, fetuses are living - that's not the issue. If you really want to dig into the "life" argument, then you get back to the argument that every egg should be fertilized and no sperm should be wasted, since eggs and sperm are living cells, and I hope we all know that's ridiculous (not that it hasn't been used as an argument).
The issue is one of competing rights to bodily autonomy. You can argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus has rights, but the woman whose body it is inside has rights as well, to her body. In your argument, the woman has no rights and always loses in this equation, for no particularly well-defined reason.
Looking at some parallels, there are several medical procedures that require invasion of bodily integrity but that could save the lives of others, including bone marrow transplant and living kidney donation, to name just two. If the "pro life" crowd was actually "pro life", they would be lobbying just as hard for legal requirements for everyone to provide bone marrow or a kidney if they are a match, in order to save the life of another human being. After all, you can survive with just one kidney, at least most of the time. Sure, there's a chance you might die in surgery, or have complications, but the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality is not insignificant (particularly in the US). And bone marrow transplant is even easier, no surgery required. Sure, it's pretty painful, but so is labour and childbirth, and bone marrow aspiration is far faster than those situations. Why wouldn't pro life people want this to be mandatory, when it could save the life of a baby or child with leukemia or other cancers, or kidney failure?
If the pro life crowd ever gets behind mandating all factors that would actually save the lives of babies and children, and coincidentally that also involve men giving up rights to bodily integrity, then I'll believe them that it isn't about controlling women's reproductive freedom; until then, it's pretty clear it is.
So it’s nit ok to be for right of the developing baby at any point but is it ok to ignore that life completely up until birth?
This false narrative that the premise of abortion laws is about controlling women is just to sway the uninformed at this point. What do you say to women that are pro-life that see right through that?
You may say that it's not about control, and you may even believe it's not about control, but when it comes right down to it, control is an intrinsic part of it, so it becomes about control.
So you must advocate for no government control over anything? Why should they have a say over anything that only affects myself attitude I guess? They control men and women in many different ways. If there is one issue that they should really care about and fight for, it is when they should be considered a life even if in the womb.
It is blown out of proportion as oppressing women because only women can get pregnant. Unfair? Sure. But that is just the nature of it and the only reason it has turned into a “controlling women” problem instead of a when does life definitively begin problem.
It isn't about "when does life begin". Fertilized eggs are living cells. Zyotes are living, embryos are living, fetuses are living - that's not the issue. If you really want to dig into the "life" argument, then you get back to the argument that every egg should be fertilized and no sperm should be wasted, since eggs and sperm are living cells, and I hope we all know that's ridiculous (not that it hasn't been used as an argument).
The issue is one of competing rights to bodily autonomy. You can argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus has rights, but the woman whose body it is inside has rights as well, to her body. In your argument, the woman has no rights and always loses in this equation, for no particularly well-defined reason.
Looking at some parallels, there are several medical procedures that require invasion of bodily integrity but that could save the lives of others, including bone marrow transplant and living kidney donation, to name just two. If the "pro life" crowd was actually "pro life", they would be lobbying just as hard for legal requirements for everyone to provide bone marrow or a kidney if they are a match, in order to save the life of another human being. After all, you can survive with just one kidney, at least most of the time. Sure, there's a chance you might die in surgery, or have complications, but the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality is not insignificant (particularly in the US). And bone marrow transplant is even easier, no surgery required. Sure, it's pretty painful, but so is labour and childbirth, and bone marrow aspiration is far faster than those situations. Why wouldn't pro life people want this to be mandatory, when it could save the life of a baby or child with leukemia or other cancers, or kidney failure?
If the pro life crowd ever gets behind mandating all factors that would actually save the lives of babies and children, and coincidentally that also involve men giving up rights to bodily integrity, then I'll believe them that it isn't about controlling women's reproductive freedom; until then, it's pretty clear it is.
So it’s nit ok to be for right of the developing baby at any point but is it ok to ignore that life completely up until birth?
Maybe you would care to address the points I raised?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
This false narrative that the premise of abortion laws is about controlling women is just to sway the uninformed at this point. What do you say to women that are pro-life that see right through that?
You may say that it's not about control, and you may even believe it's not about control, but when it comes right down to it, control is an intrinsic part of it, so it becomes about control.
So you must advocate for no government control over anything? Why should they have a say over anything that only affects myself attitude I guess? They control men and women in many different ways. If there is one issue that they should really care about and fight for, it is when they should be considered a life even if in the womb.
It is blown out of proportion as oppressing women because only women can get pregnant. Unfair? Sure. But that is just the nature of it and the only reason it has turned into a “controlling women” problem instead of a when does life definitively begin problem.
It isn't about "when does life begin". Fertilized eggs are living cells. Zyotes are living, embryos are living, fetuses are living - that's not the issue. If you really want to dig into the "life" argument, then you get back to the argument that every egg should be fertilized and no sperm should be wasted, since eggs and sperm are living cells, and I hope we all know that's ridiculous (not that it hasn't been used as an argument).
The issue is one of competing rights to bodily autonomy. You can argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus has rights, but the woman whose body it is inside has rights as well, to her body. In your argument, the woman has no rights and always loses in this equation, for no particularly well-defined reason.
Looking at some parallels, there are several medical procedures that require invasion of bodily integrity but that could save the lives of others, including bone marrow transplant and living kidney donation, to name just two. If the "pro life" crowd was actually "pro life", they would be lobbying just as hard for legal requirements for everyone to provide bone marrow or a kidney if they are a match, in order to save the life of another human being. After all, you can survive with just one kidney, at least most of the time. Sure, there's a chance you might die in surgery, or have complications, but the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality is not insignificant (particularly in the US). And bone marrow transplant is even easier, no surgery required. Sure, it's pretty painful, but so is labour and childbirth, and bone marrow aspiration is far faster than those situations. Why wouldn't pro life people want this to be mandatory, when it could save the life of a baby or child with leukemia or other cancers, or kidney failure?
If the pro life crowd ever gets behind mandating all factors that would actually save the lives of babies and children, and coincidentally that also involve men giving up rights to bodily integrity, then I'll believe them that it isn't about controlling women's reproductive freedom; until then, it's pretty clear it is.
So it’s nit ok to be for right of the developing baby at any point but is it ok to ignore that life completely up until birth?
Maybe you would care to address the points I raised?
What points? Where to try to compare medical procedures to keep people alive to a medical procedure that stops a life? Apples and oranges. I don’t find that to be an appropriate discussion at all.
I’m honestly pretty surprised that you seem to be for abortion up and to whenever a woman wishes to have it. I’ve not come across many people that don’t think there should be a time frame that isn’t crossed unless certain medical risks apply.
This false narrative that the premise of abortion laws is about controlling women is just to sway the uninformed at this point. What do you say to women that are pro-life that see right through that?
You may say that it's not about control, and you may even believe it's not about control, but when it comes right down to it, control is an intrinsic part of it, so it becomes about control.
So you must advocate for no government control over anything? Why should they have a say over anything that only affects myself attitude I guess? They control men and women in many different ways. If there is one issue that they should really care about and fight for, it is when they should be considered a life even if in the womb.
It is blown out of proportion as oppressing women because only women can get pregnant. Unfair? Sure. But that is just the nature of it and the only reason it has turned into a “controlling women” problem instead of a when does life definitively begin problem.
It isn't about "when does life begin". Fertilized eggs are living cells. Zyotes are living, embryos are living, fetuses are living - that's not the issue. If you really want to dig into the "life" argument, then you get back to the argument that every egg should be fertilized and no sperm should be wasted, since eggs and sperm are living cells, and I hope we all know that's ridiculous (not that it hasn't been used as an argument).
The issue is one of competing rights to bodily autonomy. You can argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus has rights, but the woman whose body it is inside has rights as well, to her body. In your argument, the woman has no rights and always loses in this equation, for no particularly well-defined reason.
Looking at some parallels, there are several medical procedures that require invasion of bodily integrity but that could save the lives of others, including bone marrow transplant and living kidney donation, to name just two. If the "pro life" crowd was actually "pro life", they would be lobbying just as hard for legal requirements for everyone to provide bone marrow or a kidney if they are a match, in order to save the life of another human being. After all, you can survive with just one kidney, at least most of the time. Sure, there's a chance you might die in surgery, or have complications, but the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality is not insignificant (particularly in the US). And bone marrow transplant is even easier, no surgery required. Sure, it's pretty painful, but so is labour and childbirth, and bone marrow aspiration is far faster than those situations. Why wouldn't pro life people want this to be mandatory, when it could save the life of a baby or child with leukemia or other cancers, or kidney failure?
If the pro life crowd ever gets behind mandating all factors that would actually save the lives of babies and children, and coincidentally that also involve men giving up rights to bodily integrity, then I'll believe them that it isn't about controlling women's reproductive freedom; until then, it's pretty clear it is.
So it’s nit ok to be for right of the developing baby at any point but is it ok to ignore that life completely up until birth?
Maybe you would care to address the points I raised?
What points? Where to try to compare medical procedures to keep people alive to a medical procedure that stops a life? Apples and oranges. I don’t find that to be an appropriate discussion at all.
I’m honestly pretty surprised that you seem to be for abortion up and to whenever a woman wishes to have it. I’ve not come across many people that don’t think there should be a time frame that isn’t crossed unless certain medical risks apply.
you seem stuck in a whim or wish concept.
can you concieve of the probability that such a near term decision is most likely to be based on a definite need if it were to happen so far along?
awhile back I asked you to provide anecdotes etc of women making that choice sometime in the 3rd trimester just because she could.
I got no response at all, which I believe was just oversight and not a deliberate ducking of the question.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This false narrative that the premise of abortion laws is about controlling women is just to sway the uninformed at this point. What do you say to women that are pro-life that see right through that?
You may say that it's not about control, and you may even believe it's not about control, but when it comes right down to it, control is an intrinsic part of it, so it becomes about control.
So you must advocate for no government control over anything? Why should they have a say over anything that only affects myself attitude I guess? They control men and women in many different ways. If there is one issue that they should really care about and fight for, it is when they should be considered a life even if in the womb.
It is blown out of proportion as oppressing women because only women can get pregnant. Unfair? Sure. But that is just the nature of it and the only reason it has turned into a “controlling women” problem instead of a when does life definitively begin problem.
It isn't about "when does life begin". Fertilized eggs are living cells. Zyotes are living, embryos are living, fetuses are living - that's not the issue. If you really want to dig into the "life" argument, then you get back to the argument that every egg should be fertilized and no sperm should be wasted, since eggs and sperm are living cells, and I hope we all know that's ridiculous (not that it hasn't been used as an argument).
The issue is one of competing rights to bodily autonomy. You can argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus has rights, but the woman whose body it is inside has rights as well, to her body. In your argument, the woman has no rights and always loses in this equation, for no particularly well-defined reason.
Looking at some parallels, there are several medical procedures that require invasion of bodily integrity but that could save the lives of others, including bone marrow transplant and living kidney donation, to name just two. If the "pro life" crowd was actually "pro life", they would be lobbying just as hard for legal requirements for everyone to provide bone marrow or a kidney if they are a match, in order to save the life of another human being. After all, you can survive with just one kidney, at least most of the time. Sure, there's a chance you might die in surgery, or have complications, but the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality is not insignificant (particularly in the US). And bone marrow transplant is even easier, no surgery required. Sure, it's pretty painful, but so is labour and childbirth, and bone marrow aspiration is far faster than those situations. Why wouldn't pro life people want this to be mandatory, when it could save the life of a baby or child with leukemia or other cancers, or kidney failure?
If the pro life crowd ever gets behind mandating all factors that would actually save the lives of babies and children, and coincidentally that also involve men giving up rights to bodily integrity, then I'll believe them that it isn't about controlling women's reproductive freedom; until then, it's pretty clear it is.
So it’s nit ok to be for right of the developing baby at any point but is it ok to ignore that life completely up until birth?
Maybe you would care to address the points I raised?
What points? Where to try to compare medical procedures to keep people alive to a medical procedure that stops a life? Apples and oranges. I don’t find that to be an appropriate discussion at all.
I’m honestly pretty surprised that you seem to be for abortion up and to whenever a woman wishes to have it. I’ve not come across many people that don’t think there should be a time frame that isn’t crossed unless certain medical risks apply.
you seem stuck in a whim or wish concept.
can you concieve of the probability that such a near term decision is most likely to be based on a definite need if it were to happen so far along?
awhile back I asked you to provide anecdotes etc of women making that choice sometime in the 3rd trimester just because she could.
I got no response at all, which I believe was just oversight and not a deliberate ducking of the question.
I’m asking her about her stance that it’s a women’s choice forever. A specific question about a specific persons position. Not sure why you are trying to make this something it’s not. So please stop.
This false narrative that the premise of abortion laws is about controlling women is just to sway the uninformed at this point. What do you say to women that are pro-life that see right through that?
You may say that it's not about control, and you may even believe it's not about control, but when it comes right down to it, control is an intrinsic part of it, so it becomes about control.
It is about control cause at some point you are advocating for a women to be able to control a life that could survive without her to have control over that life.
That's falling down the rabbit hole of right wing propaganda, claiming that women are aborting viable babies late in pregnancy that are then killed. It's false.
Then you shouldn’t mind that x amount of weeks should be decided upon since they never happen and wouldn’t happen.
No, I’m not in favour of unjust laws just to placate people who want to controls others’ bodies. I don’t think there should be any laws restricting abortion.
This is what I’m asking about...I was asking to understand “there shouldn’t be any laws restricting abortion”.
This false narrative that the premise of abortion laws is about controlling women is just to sway the uninformed at this point. What do you say to women that are pro-life that see right through that?
You may say that it's not about control, and you may even believe it's not about control, but when it comes right down to it, control is an intrinsic part of it, so it becomes about control.
So you must advocate for no government control over anything? Why should they have a say over anything that only affects myself attitude I guess? They control men and women in many different ways. If there is one issue that they should really care about and fight for, it is when they should be considered a life even if in the womb.
It is blown out of proportion as oppressing women because only women can get pregnant. Unfair? Sure. But that is just the nature of it and the only reason it has turned into a “controlling women” problem instead of a when does life definitively begin problem.
It isn't about "when does life begin". Fertilized eggs are living cells. Zyotes are living, embryos are living, fetuses are living - that's not the issue. If you really want to dig into the "life" argument, then you get back to the argument that every egg should be fertilized and no sperm should be wasted, since eggs and sperm are living cells, and I hope we all know that's ridiculous (not that it hasn't been used as an argument).
The issue is one of competing rights to bodily autonomy. You can argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus has rights, but the woman whose body it is inside has rights as well, to her body. In your argument, the woman has no rights and always loses in this equation, for no particularly well-defined reason.
Looking at some parallels, there are several medical procedures that require invasion of bodily integrity but that could save the lives of others, including bone marrow transplant and living kidney donation, to name just two. If the "pro life" crowd was actually "pro life", they would be lobbying just as hard for legal requirements for everyone to provide bone marrow or a kidney if they are a match, in order to save the life of another human being. After all, you can survive with just one kidney, at least most of the time. Sure, there's a chance you might die in surgery, or have complications, but the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality is not insignificant (particularly in the US). And bone marrow transplant is even easier, no surgery required. Sure, it's pretty painful, but so is labour and childbirth, and bone marrow aspiration is far faster than those situations. Why wouldn't pro life people want this to be mandatory, when it could save the life of a baby or child with leukemia or other cancers, or kidney failure?
If the pro life crowd ever gets behind mandating all factors that would actually save the lives of babies and children, and coincidentally that also involve men giving up rights to bodily integrity, then I'll believe them that it isn't about controlling women's reproductive freedom; until then, it's pretty clear it is.
So it’s nit ok to be for right of the developing baby at any point but is it ok to ignore that life completely up until birth?
Maybe you would care to address the points I raised?
What points? Where to try to compare medical procedures to keep people alive to a medical procedure that stops a life? Apples and oranges. I don’t find that to be an appropriate discussion at all.
I’m honestly pretty surprised that you seem to be for abortion up and to whenever a woman wishes to have it. I’ve not come across many people that don’t think there should be a time frame that isn’t crossed unless certain medical risks apply.
you seem stuck in a whim or wish concept.
can you concieve of the probability that such a near term decision is most likely to be based on a definite need if it were to happen so far along?
awhile back I asked you to provide anecdotes etc of women making that choice sometime in the 3rd trimester just because she could.
I got no response at all, which I believe was just oversight and not a deliberate ducking of the question.
I’m asking her about her stance that it’s a women’s choice forever. A specific question about a specific persons position. Not sure why you are trying to make this something it’s not. So please stop.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This false narrative that the premise of abortion laws is about controlling women is just to sway the uninformed at this point. What do you say to women that are pro-life that see right through that?
You may say that it's not about control, and you may even believe it's not about control, but when it comes right down to it, control is an intrinsic part of it, so it becomes about control.
So you must advocate for no government control over anything? Why should they have a say over anything that only affects myself attitude I guess? They control men and women in many different ways. If there is one issue that they should really care about and fight for, it is when they should be considered a life even if in the womb.
It is blown out of proportion as oppressing women because only women can get pregnant. Unfair? Sure. But that is just the nature of it and the only reason it has turned into a “controlling women” problem instead of a when does life definitively begin problem.
It isn't about "when does life begin". Fertilized eggs are living cells. Zyotes are living, embryos are living, fetuses are living - that's not the issue. If you really want to dig into the "life" argument, then you get back to the argument that every egg should be fertilized and no sperm should be wasted, since eggs and sperm are living cells, and I hope we all know that's ridiculous (not that it hasn't been used as an argument).
The issue is one of competing rights to bodily autonomy. You can argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus has rights, but the woman whose body it is inside has rights as well, to her body. In your argument, the woman has no rights and always loses in this equation, for no particularly well-defined reason.
Looking at some parallels, there are several medical procedures that require invasion of bodily integrity but that could save the lives of others, including bone marrow transplant and living kidney donation, to name just two. If the "pro life" crowd was actually "pro life", they would be lobbying just as hard for legal requirements for everyone to provide bone marrow or a kidney if they are a match, in order to save the life of another human being. After all, you can survive with just one kidney, at least most of the time. Sure, there's a chance you might die in surgery, or have complications, but the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality is not insignificant (particularly in the US). And bone marrow transplant is even easier, no surgery required. Sure, it's pretty painful, but so is labour and childbirth, and bone marrow aspiration is far faster than those situations. Why wouldn't pro life people want this to be mandatory, when it could save the life of a baby or child with leukemia or other cancers, or kidney failure?
If the pro life crowd ever gets behind mandating all factors that would actually save the lives of babies and children, and coincidentally that also involve men giving up rights to bodily integrity, then I'll believe them that it isn't about controlling women's reproductive freedom; until then, it's pretty clear it is.
So it’s nit ok to be for right of the developing baby at any point but is it ok to ignore that life completely up until birth?
Maybe you would care to address the points I raised?
What points? Where to try to compare medical procedures to keep people alive to a medical procedure that stops a life? Apples and oranges. I don’t find that to be an appropriate discussion at all.
I’m honestly pretty surprised that you seem to be for abortion up and to whenever a woman wishes to have it. I’ve not come across many people that don’t think there should be a time frame that isn’t crossed unless certain medical risks apply.
you seem stuck in a whim or wish concept.
can you concieve of the probability that such a near term decision is most likely to be based on a definite need if it were to happen so far along?
awhile back I asked you to provide anecdotes etc of women making that choice sometime in the 3rd trimester just because she could.
I got no response at all, which I believe was just oversight and not a deliberate ducking of the question.
I’m asking her about her stance that it’s a women’s choice forever. A specific question about a specific persons position. Not sure why you are trying to make this something it’s not. So please stop.
stop asking a valid question asked respectfully?
I guess came across meaner than I meant.
So I’ll just answer. She stated something specific about her, I’m asking about her opinion. I’m not trying to say there are a lot of late abortions. I’m asking about her opinion based on her statement as to if there was any line for her.
This false narrative that the premise of abortion laws is about controlling women is just to sway the uninformed at this point. What do you say to women that are pro-life that see right through that?
You may say that it's not about control, and you may even believe it's not about control, but when it comes right down to it, control is an intrinsic part of it, so it becomes about control.
So you must advocate for no government control over anything? Why should they have a say over anything that only affects myself attitude I guess? They control men and women in many different ways. If there is one issue that they should really care about and fight for, it is when they should be considered a life even if in the womb.
It is blown out of proportion as oppressing women because only women can get pregnant. Unfair? Sure. But that is just the nature of it and the only reason it has turned into a “controlling women” problem instead of a when does life definitively begin problem.
It isn't about "when does life begin". Fertilized eggs are living cells. Zyotes are living, embryos are living, fetuses are living - that's not the issue. If you really want to dig into the "life" argument, then you get back to the argument that every egg should be fertilized and no sperm should be wasted, since eggs and sperm are living cells, and I hope we all know that's ridiculous (not that it hasn't been used as an argument).
The issue is one of competing rights to bodily autonomy. You can argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus has rights, but the woman whose body it is inside has rights as well, to her body. In your argument, the woman has no rights and always loses in this equation, for no particularly well-defined reason.
Looking at some parallels, there are several medical procedures that require invasion of bodily integrity but that could save the lives of others, including bone marrow transplant and living kidney donation, to name just two. If the "pro life" crowd was actually "pro life", they would be lobbying just as hard for legal requirements for everyone to provide bone marrow or a kidney if they are a match, in order to save the life of another human being. After all, you can survive with just one kidney, at least most of the time. Sure, there's a chance you might die in surgery, or have complications, but the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality is not insignificant (particularly in the US). And bone marrow transplant is even easier, no surgery required. Sure, it's pretty painful, but so is labour and childbirth, and bone marrow aspiration is far faster than those situations. Why wouldn't pro life people want this to be mandatory, when it could save the life of a baby or child with leukemia or other cancers, or kidney failure?
If the pro life crowd ever gets behind mandating all factors that would actually save the lives of babies and children, and coincidentally that also involve men giving up rights to bodily integrity, then I'll believe them that it isn't about controlling women's reproductive freedom; until then, it's pretty clear it is.
So it’s nit ok to be for right of the developing baby at any point but is it ok to ignore that life completely up until birth?
Maybe you would care to address the points I raised?
What points? Where to try to compare medical procedures to keep people alive to a medical procedure that stops a life? Apples and oranges. I don’t find that to be an appropriate discussion at all.
I’m honestly pretty surprised that you seem to be for abortion up and to whenever a woman wishes to have it. I’ve not come across many people that don’t think there should be a time frame that isn’t crossed unless certain medical risks apply.
you seem stuck in a whim or wish concept.
can you concieve of the probability that such a near term decision is most likely to be based on a definite need if it were to happen so far along?
awhile back I asked you to provide anecdotes etc of women making that choice sometime in the 3rd trimester just because she could.
I got no response at all, which I believe was just oversight and not a deliberate ducking of the question.
I’m asking her about her stance that it’s a women’s choice forever. A specific question about a specific persons position. Not sure why you are trying to make this something it’s not. So please stop.
stop asking a valid question asked respectfully?
I guess came across meaner than I meant.
So I’ll just answer. She stated something specific about her, I’m asking about her opinion. I’m not trying to say there are a lot of late abortions. I’m asking about her opinion based on her statement as to if there was any line for her.
ok, but I think she and Cate have been very clear to that question, havent they? Autonomy, full stop.
As to whether or not a given member would make that choice is a rather personal question that I would assume a.would not be taken lightly b. would have specific reasons for and lastly imo should be asked privately.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This false narrative that the premise of abortion laws is about controlling women is just to sway the uninformed at this point. What do you say to women that are pro-life that see right through that?
You may say that it's not about control, and you may even believe it's not about control, but when it comes right down to it, control is an intrinsic part of it, so it becomes about control.
So you must advocate for no government control over anything? Why should they have a say over anything that only affects myself attitude I guess? They control men and women in many different ways. If there is one issue that they should really care about and fight for, it is when they should be considered a life even if in the womb.
It is blown out of proportion as oppressing women because only women can get pregnant. Unfair? Sure. But that is just the nature of it and the only reason it has turned into a “controlling women” problem instead of a when does life definitively begin problem.
It isn't about "when does life begin". Fertilized eggs are living cells. Zyotes are living, embryos are living, fetuses are living - that's not the issue. If you really want to dig into the "life" argument, then you get back to the argument that every egg should be fertilized and no sperm should be wasted, since eggs and sperm are living cells, and I hope we all know that's ridiculous (not that it hasn't been used as an argument).
The issue is one of competing rights to bodily autonomy. You can argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus has rights, but the woman whose body it is inside has rights as well, to her body. In your argument, the woman has no rights and always loses in this equation, for no particularly well-defined reason.
Looking at some parallels, there are several medical procedures that require invasion of bodily integrity but that could save the lives of others, including bone marrow transplant and living kidney donation, to name just two. If the "pro life" crowd was actually "pro life", they would be lobbying just as hard for legal requirements for everyone to provide bone marrow or a kidney if they are a match, in order to save the life of another human being. After all, you can survive with just one kidney, at least most of the time. Sure, there's a chance you might die in surgery, or have complications, but the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality is not insignificant (particularly in the US). And bone marrow transplant is even easier, no surgery required. Sure, it's pretty painful, but so is labour and childbirth, and bone marrow aspiration is far faster than those situations. Why wouldn't pro life people want this to be mandatory, when it could save the life of a baby or child with leukemia or other cancers, or kidney failure?
If the pro life crowd ever gets behind mandating all factors that would actually save the lives of babies and children, and coincidentally that also involve men giving up rights to bodily integrity, then I'll believe them that it isn't about controlling women's reproductive freedom; until then, it's pretty clear it is.
So it’s nit ok to be for right of the developing baby at any point but is it ok to ignore that life completely up until birth?
Maybe you would care to address the points I raised?
What points? Where to try to compare medical procedures to keep people alive to a medical procedure that stops a life? Apples and oranges. I don’t find that to be an appropriate discussion at all.
I’m honestly pretty surprised that you seem to be for abortion up and to whenever a woman wishes to have it. I’ve not come across many people that don’t think there should be a time frame that isn’t crossed unless certain medical risks apply.
you seem stuck in a whim or wish concept.
can you concieve of the probability that such a near term decision is most likely to be based on a definite need if it were to happen so far along?
awhile back I asked you to provide anecdotes etc of women making that choice sometime in the 3rd trimester just because she could.
I got no response at all, which I believe was just oversight and not a deliberate ducking of the question.
I’m asking her about her stance that it’s a women’s choice forever. A specific question about a specific persons position. Not sure why you are trying to make this something it’s not. So please stop.
stop asking a valid question asked respectfully?
I guess came across meaner than I meant.
So I’ll just answer. She stated something specific about her, I’m asking about her opinion. I’m not trying to say there are a lot of late abortions. I’m asking about her opinion based on her statement as to if there was any line for her.
ok, but I think she and Cate have been very clear to that question, havent they? Autonomy, full stop.
As to whether or not a given member would make that choice is a rather personal question that I would assume a.would not be taken lightly b. would have specific reasons for and lastly imo should be asked privately.
Man I am not being clear. She stated no laws. I was wondering if that truly meant no laws, like ok with abortion as long as in the womb...etc.
I was just trying to clarify. If it’s what you say above, full stop, then I guess that is what she meant.
This false narrative that the premise of abortion laws is about controlling women is just to sway the uninformed at this point. What do you say to women that are pro-life that see right through that?
You may say that it's not about control, and you may even believe it's not about control, but when it comes right down to it, control is an intrinsic part of it, so it becomes about control.
So you must advocate for no government control over anything? Why should they have a say over anything that only affects myself attitude I guess? They control men and women in many different ways. If there is one issue that they should really care about and fight for, it is when they should be considered a life even if in the womb.
It is blown out of proportion as oppressing women because only women can get pregnant. Unfair? Sure. But that is just the nature of it and the only reason it has turned into a “controlling women” problem instead of a when does life definitively begin problem.
It isn't about "when does life begin". Fertilized eggs are living cells. Zyotes are living, embryos are living, fetuses are living - that's not the issue. If you really want to dig into the "life" argument, then you get back to the argument that every egg should be fertilized and no sperm should be wasted, since eggs and sperm are living cells, and I hope we all know that's ridiculous (not that it hasn't been used as an argument).
The issue is one of competing rights to bodily autonomy. You can argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus has rights, but the woman whose body it is inside has rights as well, to her body. In your argument, the woman has no rights and always loses in this equation, for no particularly well-defined reason.
Looking at some parallels, there are several medical procedures that require invasion of bodily integrity but that could save the lives of others, including bone marrow transplant and living kidney donation, to name just two. If the "pro life" crowd was actually "pro life", they would be lobbying just as hard for legal requirements for everyone to provide bone marrow or a kidney if they are a match, in order to save the life of another human being. After all, you can survive with just one kidney, at least most of the time. Sure, there's a chance you might die in surgery, or have complications, but the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality is not insignificant (particularly in the US). And bone marrow transplant is even easier, no surgery required. Sure, it's pretty painful, but so is labour and childbirth, and bone marrow aspiration is far faster than those situations. Why wouldn't pro life people want this to be mandatory, when it could save the life of a baby or child with leukemia or other cancers, or kidney failure?
If the pro life crowd ever gets behind mandating all factors that would actually save the lives of babies and children, and coincidentally that also involve men giving up rights to bodily integrity, then I'll believe them that it isn't about controlling women's reproductive freedom; until then, it's pretty clear it is.
So it’s nit ok to be for right of the developing baby at any point but is it ok to ignore that life completely up until birth?
Maybe you would care to address the points I raised?
What points? Where to try to compare medical procedures to keep people alive to a medical procedure that stops a life? Apples and oranges. I don’t find that to be an appropriate discussion at all.
I’m honestly pretty surprised that you seem to be for abortion up and to whenever a woman wishes to have it. I’ve not come across many people that don’t think there should be a time frame that isn’t crossed unless certain medical risks apply.
Simply stating "apples and oranges" isn't a particularly strong counter argument.
And your second paragraph has no relation to what I'm stating. I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up, like it's the only aspect of the issue worth discussing.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Comments
I mean, a fetus is a living organism - or what else would it be - a fruit?
But please direct me to a scientific definition of what "life" is...
As stated before, and that you mocked, it is legally seen as a "child" with legal rights in Sweden at week 22. And the further science gets in being able to save the life of children born early, that will be moved back I would presume.
Thousands protest in Norway against restricting abortion
The Christian Democrats want further restrictions or an end to terminations after the twelfth week of pregnancy, potentially reining in exemptions for genetic conditions or injuries.
The party also wants to make it more difficult, or stop altogether, selective abortions in multi-fetal pregnancies.
“It is discriminating to select on the basis of having different skills ... Children with Down syndrome should have the same legal rights as other children,” Kjell Ingolf Ropstad, deputy leader of the Christian Democrats, told public broadcaster NRK earlier this month.
Since 1978, a termination after 12 weeks must be authorized by a panel of two hospital doctors. If the panel refuses, the decision can be appealed.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-politics-abortion/thousands-protest-in-norway-against-restricting-abortion-idUSKCN1NM0HRNot today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
If we continue on that debate, then women will lose all rights to choose in the next 100 years.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The issue is one of competing rights to bodily autonomy. You can argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus has rights, but the woman whose body it is inside has rights as well, to her body. In your argument, the woman has no rights and always loses in this equation, for no particularly well-defined reason.
Looking at some parallels, there are several medical procedures that require invasion of bodily integrity but that could save the lives of others, including bone marrow transplant and living kidney donation, to name just two. If the "pro life" crowd was actually "pro life", they would be lobbying just as hard for legal requirements for everyone to provide bone marrow or a kidney if they are a match, in order to save the life of another human being. After all, you can survive with just one kidney, at least most of the time. Sure, there's a chance you might die in surgery, or have complications, but the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality is not insignificant (particularly in the US). And bone marrow transplant is even easier, no surgery required. Sure, it's pretty painful, but so is labour and childbirth, and bone marrow aspiration is far faster than those situations. Why wouldn't pro life people want this to be mandatory, when it could save the life of a baby or child with leukemia or other cancers, or kidney failure?
If the pro life crowd ever gets behind mandating all factors that would actually save the lives of babies and children, and coincidentally that also involve men giving up rights to bodily integrity, then I'll believe them that it isn't about controlling women's reproductive freedom; until then, it's pretty clear it is.
I’m honestly pretty surprised that you seem to be for abortion up and to whenever a woman wishes to have it. I’ve not come across many people that don’t think there should be a time frame that isn’t crossed unless certain medical risks apply.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So I’ll just answer. She stated something specific about her, I’m asking about her opinion. I’m not trying to say there are a lot of late abortions. I’m asking about her opinion based on her statement as to if there was any line for her.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I was just trying to clarify. If it’s what you say above, full stop, then I guess that is what she meant.
Simply stating "apples and oranges" isn't a particularly strong counter argument.
And your second paragraph has no relation to what I'm stating. I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up, like it's the only aspect of the issue worth discussing.
but now I really don’t give a shit anymore, so don’t worry I won’t ask again.
Yep these anti abortion creeps are the 1st to want to put people in jail , just like the Orange Baffoon how many here believe he has never payed for one of his mistresses to have one ?