Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

oftenreading

benjs said:

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.

Ben, I think it's optimistic to think that this or any other action would stop the debate, at least in the US. The issue is becoming more polarized, not less, and this would just add another point of contention to an already contentious issue, while also still removing the right to abortion past whatever is deemed the "upper boundary". 

When you say that abortion must occur within the framework of law, does that mean you disagree with how abortion is handled in Canada? I see our system working pretty well. We can only hope this continues, and that it doesn't get impacted by this nonsense from the US. 

cincybearcat

Bentleyspop said:

Abortion  should always be.....

Affordable 
Available on demand 
Legal 
Safe
A womans choice/decision 

When you do stuff like this, you are just a bot

cincybearcat

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 said:

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. 

drakeheuer14

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 said:

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.  

oftenreading

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 said:

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. 

cincybearcat

oftenreading said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 said:

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. 

Ummm no.  I simply stated that at some point science should dictate when the deadline is for abortion. You seemed to disagree. Read back. 

Stop with the political bullshit and read what I wrote.

drakeheuer14

oftenreading said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 said:

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.

hedonist

Bentleyspop said:

Abortion  should always be.....

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.

benjs

oftenreading said:

benjs said:

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.

Ben, I think it's optimistic to think that this or any other action would stop the debate, at least in the US. The issue is becoming more polarized, not less, and this would just add another point of contention to an already contentious issue, while also still removing the right to abortion past whatever is deemed the "upper boundary". 

When you say that abortion must occur within the framework of law, does that mean you disagree with how abortion is handled in Canada? I see our system working pretty well. We can only hope this continues, and that it doesn't get impacted by this nonsense from the US. 

It may be optimistic to say the debate would stop, but I feel it's important for women to be able to say "it's my right, and that's indicated by law. Don't take it up with me, take it up with our lawmakers if you've got a problem with it". 

As for how abortion is handled - I believe that it's critical to have easy physical access to abortion facilities, fully funded support for abortions, and a definition of when human life begins, at which point any legal protections afforded to a human should be afforded to the human growing (and nourished by) a woman's body (in addition to, and not instead of, the woman carrying child). Before the point (i.e. a woman carrying anything not legally defined as human), I believe in unrestricted access to abortions for any woman for what ever reason she has. I'm thankful that of any of these clauses, that the one Canada has sacrificed (supporting abortion at any time within a woman's pregnancy) is the least important (far more important is the non-negotiable access and funding), though I think it leaves potential for a woman carrying a child to act neglectfully, and feel it should be addressed definitively.

I think Canada's model is almost spot-on, and I also think the impact of it being incorrect thankfully has been fairly negligible.

cincybearcat

hedonist said:

Bentleyspop said:

Abortion  should always be.....

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?

Spiritual_Chaos

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

benjs said:

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.

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. 

cincybearcat

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

benjs said:

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.

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

Spiritual_Chaos

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

benjs said:

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.

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.

Spiritual_Chaos

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.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-politics-abortion/thousands-protest-in-norway-against-restricting-abortion-idUSKCN1NM0HR

mickeyrat

cincybearcat said:

hedonist said:

Bentleyspop said:

Abortion  should always be.....

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?

cincybearcat

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

hedonist said:

Bentleyspop said:

Abortion  should always be.....

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.

cincybearcat

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

benjs said:

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.

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.

Spiritual_Chaos

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

benjs said:

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.

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" ?

mickeyrat

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

hedonist said:

Bentleyspop said:

Abortion  should always be.....

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.

cincybearcat

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

benjs said:

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.

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.