Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

drakeheuer14

hedonist said:

drakeheuer14 said:

catefrances said:

NO UTERUS, NOT YOUR CHOICE.  SIMPLE. 

IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE IT. SIMPLE. 

One body carries it.

In no way does that just make it “yours.” Because if that is the case then no man should be responsible after the baby is born then, right?

hedonist

drakeheuer14 said:

catefrances said:

NO UTERUS, NOT YOUR CHOICE.  SIMPLE. 

IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE IT. SIMPLE. 

One body carries it.

In no way does that just make it “yours.” Because if that is the case then no man should be responsible after the baby is born then, right?

This has been discussed within these many pages, much more articulately than I could.

Personally, I'm more than a little touchy when it comes to anyone determining what I do with my body, as well as what is inside it.  I don't want any woman (or man, for that matter) to feel such a sense of violation.

*edit - Quoting is fucked up again.  Surprise, surprise.

catefrances

drakeheuer14 said:

Do the people in here really not believe that there should be a definitive date on the timeline of when an abortion should still be acceptable or not? 

there cant be a definitive date cause theres not a definitive date when all women find out theyre pregnant. there are so many factors involved and its a far from easy choice. not my uterus, not my choice. 

catefrances

drakeheuer14 said:

hedonist said:

drakeheuer14 said:

catefrances said:

NO UTERUS, NOT YOUR CHOICE.  SIMPLE. 

IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE IT. SIMPLE. 

One body carries it.

In no way does that just make it “yours.” Because if that is the case then no man should be responsible after the baby is born then, right?

my body.my choice. its absolutely simple. would you like others to dictate what is and isnt acceptable when it comes to your body? i dont tell other people what to do with their body and id like the same courtesy thank you. 

oftenreading

drakeheuer14 said:

hedonist said:

drakeheuer14 said:

catefrances said:

NO UTERUS, NOT YOUR CHOICE.  SIMPLE. 

IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE IT. SIMPLE. 

One body carries it.

In no way does that just make it “yours.” Because if that is the case then no man should be responsible after the baby is born then, right?

No, sorry, completely false.

While the zygote/embryo/fetus is within the woman, it is completely the woman's choice how she manages that, for the simple reason that it is her body that is involved. If she is not the one to decide, then who? Who else has a greater right than her to decide? The decision whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy is a binary one, either/or, yes or no; since there are no shades of grey, and since only one decision can be made, no one else has more of a right to make it than the woman involved. If you take that decision making power away from the only one whose body is involved, then it's a gross violation of human rights.

If the pregnancy proceeds and a baby is born, then both parties are equally responsible, financially and morally. 

Do you think that isn't fair, that the man should have a bigger say than the woman? If so, why? Her body is the one that takes all of this substantial risk, and the impact on her life is frankly far more than on a man's life. If a man doesn't want to face the impact of an unwanted pregnancy, then he shouldn't engage in sex with a woman. It's not like reproductive biology is such a mystery.

It isn't "fair" because it isn't equal and is never going to be equal, and that's just the way biology is, like it or lump it. 

Spiritual_Chaos

drakeheuer14 said:

catefrances said:

NO UTERUS, NOT YOUR CHOICE.  SIMPLE. 

IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE IT. SIMPLE. 

Yes, that is simple. And it's always nice getting reminded of the birds and the bees.

But it is not really relevant to what @catefrances wrote.

It takes two to decide if the man looks good in a beard or not in a relationship. But in the end its the choice of the man to keep the beard or not. Because it is his weirdly placed hair growth.

cincybearcat

catefrances said:

drakeheuer14 said:

Do the people in here really not believe that there should be a definitive date on the timeline of when an abortion should still be acceptable or not? 

there cant be a definitive date cause theres not a definitive date when all women find out theyre pregnant. there are so many factors involved and its a far from easy choice. not my uterus, not my choice. 

Ummm there sure can be a date. Cause it doesn’t matter when the women finds out, it matters about the development of the body inside her. Right? Surely you are not advocating for a women to be able to abort if she finds out at 9 months pregnant? You are just talking about the laws that go as far as 8 weeks, etc I hope. 

mickeyrat

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

drakeheuer14 said:

Do the people in here really not believe that there should be a definitive date on the timeline of when an abortion should still be acceptable or not? 

there cant be a definitive date cause theres not a definitive date when all women find out theyre pregnant. there are so many factors involved and its a far from easy choice. not my uterus, not my choice. 

Ummm there sure can be a date. Cause it doesn’t matter when the women finds out, it matters about the development of the body inside her. Right? Surely you are not advocating for a women to be able to abort if she finds out at 9 months pregnant? You are just talking about the laws that go as far as 8 weeks, etc I hope. 

viability outside the womb is the current standard. which to me is reasonable but this isn't a decision I wil ever have to make.

dignin

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

drakeheuer14 said:

Do the people in here really not believe that there should be a definitive date on the timeline of when an abortion should still be acceptable or not? 

there cant be a definitive date cause theres not a definitive date when all women find out theyre pregnant. there are so many factors involved and its a far from easy choice. not my uterus, not my choice. 

Ummm there sure can be a date. Cause it doesn’t matter when the women finds out, it matters about the development of the body inside her. Right? Surely you are not advocating for a women to be able to abort if she finds out at 9 months pregnant? You are just talking about the laws that go as far as 8 weeks, etc I hope. 

viability outside the womb is the current standard. which to me is reasonable but this isn't a decision I wil ever have to make.

Agreed.

drakeheuer14

Having the responsibility to watch after the well-being of your child shouldn’t be a choice. After all they still rely on you after being born, just in a different way than inside the womb. So just because it is up to you to support them, should you have the right to just cut them off after being born before they are an adult? So we can argue when it is life, but I think it is irresponsible and a complete disregard for life to not acknowledge it as life at a defined time during the pregnancy. 

Spiritual_Chaos

drakeheuer14 said:

a complete disregard for life to not acknowledge it as life at a defined time during the pregnancy. 

I agree.

EDIT: But doesn't everyone? Or hmm.. Am I lost here?

oftenreading

Stop believing, or even worse, generating, anti-choice propaganda. You’re talking about things that don’t happen. Viable and healthy fetuses don’t get aborted, they get born. Abortions at that stage are essentially only occurring  when something terribly wrong has happened, such as when the fetus has an abnormality incompatible with life. 

drakeheuer14

Spiritual_Chaos said:

drakeheuer14 said:

a complete disregard for life to not acknowledge it as life at a defined time during the pregnancy. 

I agree.

EDIT: But doesn't everyone? Or hmm.. Am I lost here?

Well apparently I am spreading propaganda when I myself said I am not completely against having a choice up to a certain point. All I want are defined rules of engagement. 

The only argument from me is where said point is during the pregnancy. 

mickeyrat

drakeheuer14 said:

Having the responsibility to watch after the well-being of your child shouldn’t be a choice. After all they still rely on you after being born, just in a different way than inside the womb. So just because it is up to you to support them, should you have the right to just cut them off after being born before they are an adult? So we can argue when it is life, but I think it is irresponsible and a complete disregard for life to not acknowledge it as life at a defined time during the pregnancy. 

yeah, like viability outside the womb.  which generally means when the lungs have developed enough.

 you to process oxygen. and breath. after all adam came alive when god breathed life into his lungs.

mickeyrat

drakeheuer14 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

drakeheuer14 said:

a complete disregard for life to not acknowledge it as life at a defined time during the pregnancy. 

I agree.

EDIT: But doesn't everyone? Or hmm.. Am I lost here?

Well apparently I am spreading propaganda when I myself said I am not completely against having a choice up to a certain point. All I want are defined rules of engagement. 

The only argument from me is where said point is during the pregnancy. 

science has determined at roughly 26 weeks.  after that ,while not a garauntee, medical science has shown babies can survive at 27 weeks.

edit to add while leaving it alone, I was wrong on the time frame.
see below.

Spiritual_Chaos

mickeyrat said:

drakeheuer14 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

drakeheuer14 said:

a complete disregard for life to not acknowledge it as life at a defined time during the pregnancy. 

I agree.

EDIT: But doesn't everyone? Or hmm.. Am I lost here?

Well apparently I am spreading propaganda when I myself said I am not completely against having a choice up to a certain point. All I want are defined rules of engagement. 

The only argument from me is where said point is during the pregnancy. 

science has determined at roughly 26 weeks.  after that ,while not a garauntee, medical science has shown babies can survive at 27 weeks.

21 weeks and 5 days, and a baby can survive.

So that 26 weeks of yours sounds off..?

In Sweden it is in a legal sense considered to be "a child" at week 22.

mickeyrat

yeah, I was in error.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

drakeheuer14

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.

cincybearcat

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

drakeheuer14 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

drakeheuer14 said:

a complete disregard for life to not acknowledge it as life at a defined time during the pregnancy. 

I agree.

EDIT: But doesn't everyone? Or hmm.. Am I lost here?

Well apparently I am spreading propaganda when I myself said I am not completely against having a choice up to a certain point. All I want are defined rules of engagement. 

The only argument from me is where said point is during the pregnancy. 

science has determined at roughly 26 weeks.  after that ,while not a garauntee, medical science has shown babies can survive at 27 weeks.

21 weeks and 5 days, and a baby can survive.

So that 26 weeks of yours sounds off..?

In Sweden it is in a legal sense considered to be "a child" at week 22.

So Sweden allows the murder of 2 day old survivable babies?  Sick place.

benjs

drakeheuer14 said:

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.