Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

eddiec

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. 

mickeyrat

oh we can just go to the replicant model as seen in the movie cloud atlas...

Spiritual_Chaos

mickeyrat said:

oh we can just go to the replicant model as seen in the movie cloud atlas...

oftenreading

drakeheuer14 said:

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.

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. 

oftenreading

drakeheuer14 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. 

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. 

cincybearcat

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 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. 

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? 

oftenreading

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 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. 

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?
 

cincybearcat

oftenreading said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 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. 

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.

Spiritual_Chaos

Feel like some semantic discussion is going on here. But maybe I am wrong. 

mickeyrat

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 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. 

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.

cincybearcat

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 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. 

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. 

cincybearcat

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Feel like some semantic discussion is going on here. But maybe I am wrong. 

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood.

cincybearcat

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 said:

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.

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”.

stupid quite function messed up...shocking.

mickeyrat

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 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. 

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?

cincybearcat

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 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. 

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. 

mickeyrat

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 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. 

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.

cincybearcat

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 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. 

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.

oftenreading

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

drakeheuer14 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. 

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. 

cincybearcat

Cause I was looking for clarification of your statement and you have yet to answer me.

but now I really don’t give a shit anymore, so don’t worry I won’t ask again. 

josevolution

https://www.thedailybeast.com/texas-pastor-who-backed-anti-abortion-bill-arrested-for-child-sexual-abuse
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 ?