Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

drakeheuer14 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

drakeheuer14 said:

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

So that 26 weeks of yours sounds off..?

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

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

If you wan't to look at it that way, I guess. Not fully read up on rules and stuff regarding this.

I'm practitioning abstinence. 

Is it abstinence when others are making the choice for you?

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

drakeheuer14 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

drakeheuer14 said:

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

So that 26 weeks of yours sounds off..?

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

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

If you wan't to look at it that way, I guess. Not fully read up on rules and stuff regarding this.

I'm practitioning abstinence. 

Is it abstinence when others are making the choice for you?

drakeheuer14 said:

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

I really really don't. I see no difference, in terms of the government's role, between telling a woman what to do with her body when she's 3 weeks pregnant or when she's 24 weeks pregnant or 38 weeks pregnant (not that women are getting voluntary abortions at 38 weeks - that's an anti-choice myth). I have personal opinions about the timing, just like you have opinions, but all those opinions are completely irrelevant when we're talking about laws governing women's bodies.

RunIntoTheRain 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.

Very well stated @benjs

Perhaps, but it's also a call for the government to have control over women's own bodies, and to remove women's rights to their own internal organs, which is disgusting.

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. 

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. 

Cate, I haven't turned it into a legal issue - it already exists as both a legal issue and an important philosophical one. 

Where there's an opportunity for neglect and harm to be done, a government is obligated to speak to that. That's why there are doctors doing medical procedures all the time, yet there are also oversight opportunities with legal ramifications for professional negligence. While it may complicate matters that philosophy (autonomy over self) and legal (at a certain point a human will be involuntarily within another human and is constitutionally protected) seem at odds, that's nothing new, and still keeps us obligated to consider the risks and mitigate them legally. 

It should be very clear that I'm trying to propose ways to do this legally and with respect to the autonomy of a woman's body that I believe in just like you. Where we disagree, is that I don't believe women will win this crucial right they are entitled to with the philosophical argument, and I believe that winning the right in an immutable way is more important than agreeing on why the right is implicit (even if it is).

If you're proposing that legal considerations may not be considered at all in light of the autonomy to body reality, we're not going to agree on that approach being effective or proper. PS, this is a tough topic, and I know I'm a guy and all, but this is such an important topic, and I hope I haven't inadvertently offended anyone with my positions.

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? 

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. But fair enough we just won’t discuss it

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.