Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And nobody forced these women to meet men with whom they might have sex. In other words, it's turtles all the way down.
Seriously, it seems to me that we have one of two choices:
-- Allow abortion. Women seeking an abortion (and not all will), will be attended to by licensed physicians and other professional medical personnel, in sanitary facilities, and under controlled conditions, approved by the medical licensing body. Making it legal does not mean that every pregnant woman will take advantage of the legality. Some will, some won't.
-- Disallow abortion. Women seeking an abortion (and some will), will be attended to by "a friend of a friend," who may or may not be a licensed physician, and who may or may not be armed with a coat hanger or other inappropriate instrument, in facilities that may be less-than-sanitary, and under no oversight by any governing body. Making abortion illegal does not mean that all pregnant women will not seek out an abortion, by whatever means. Some will, some won't.
The point is, that outlawing abortion won't stop the practice. The question really boils down to, if the procedure is going to be performed (which it will be, regardless of laws), then how is it to be performed? Under medical conditions or under questionable conditions?
Either way, this is a decision that should be between a woman and her physician. Those parties, plus perhaps the father, are the only parties that should be involved. Legislators, and courts, and lobby groups, and--oh, what the heck--potential grandparents--should butt out of what is a very personal decision on the woman's part.
Uh, no. There are many positions in between those two poles, and that is where most of the American people are on this issue. Restrictions like banning 3rd trimester abortions, prohibiting abortions for the purpose of sex selection, banning partial-birth abortion enjoy/enjoyed overwhelming support.
A small percentage of Americans agree with your position that the state has no compelling interest in stopping abortions under any circumstances. Understandable, given that normal people will reasonably conclude that late-term abortions are nothing short of infanticide and normal people find that rather disturbing.
You articulated a principle that the state should stay out of women's medical decisions. Such things should be exclusively between "a woman and her doctor." I'm curious if you extend that principle to medical decisions beyond abortion? For example, Medicare has a whole booklet of limitations on what medical procedures women (and men) will be allowed to have under the program. If the state has no business getting into the medical choices of women, it's difficult to conceive how anyone taking that absolutist position could ever support the state having a program like Medicare or something like single-payer. Or here's another situation: how about a 15 year-old girl who wants to go through conversion therapy? Given that absolutists like you invariably oppose parental consent laws for minors, I take it, to be intellectually and logically consistent, you would argue that the state should not get between the choice for conversion therapy by that girl that she makes with her psychiatrist?
Planned Parenthood and NARAL are to the Democrats what the NRA is to the Republicans: interest groups who elicit obsequiousness from the party, which leads it to take ridiculous, absolutist positions that are out of step with most Americans and serve the financial interests of those organizations rather than the country.
Do you understand that viability can be determined long before the moment of birth?
Do you understand that the laws Democrats are calling for now aren't talking about simply needing to save the life of the mother during a complicated birth?
Yes, I understand that viability is determined before birth. Do you understand that the laws Democrats are calling for are talking about fetuses that are not viable?
It is being punished. Pregnancy is life-changing. It is laden with risks. If you can't get pregnant, then you have no idea. And a fertilized egg isn't a baby, and a non-viable fetus isn't a baby. You and I may have different opinions, but your opinion does not negate my opinion. My opinion is valid, and is even supported by science. Your opinion is valid, but is supported by faith, not science.
Please explain the scientific determination of when the fertilized egg becomes a human being/baby.
Science can tell us things like when brain activity begins, when the heart begins, it can even tell us when pain begins to be experienced, but the judgment about when that egg becomes a baby cannot be determined by science. You will note that we have folks here and elsewhere who will argue that the 9-month old unborn child really isn't a child, yet. Their position is that upon which side of the mother's abdominal wall the child is located determines whether he/she is a human who is owed protection under the law.
Uh, no. There are many positions in between those two poles, and that is where most of the American people are on this issue. Restrictions like banning 3rd trimester abortions, prohibiting abortions for the purpose of sex selection, banning partial-birth abortion enjoy/enjoyed overwhelming support.
A small percentage of Americans agree with your position that the state has no compelling interest in stopping abortions under any circumstances. Understandable, given that normal people will reasonably conclude that late-term abortions are nothing short of infanticide and normal people find that rather disturbing.
You articulated a principle that the state should stay out of women's medical decisions. Such things should be exclusively between "a woman and her doctor." I'm curious if you extend that principle to medical decisions beyond abortion? For example, Medicare has a whole booklet of limitations on what medical procedures women (and men) will be allowed to have under the program. If the state has no business getting into the medical choices of women, it's difficult to conceive how anyone taking that absolutist position could ever support the state having a program like Medicare or something like single-payer. Or here's another situation: how about a 15 year-old girl who wants to go through conversion therapy? Given that absolutists like you invariably oppose parental consent laws for minors, I take it, to be intellectually and logically consistent, you would argue that the state should not get between the choice for conversion therapy by that girl that she makes with her psychiatrist?
Planned Parenthood and NARAL are to the Democrats what the NRA is to the Republicans: interest groups who elicit obsequiousness from the party, which leads it to take ridiculous, absolutist positions that are out of step with most Americans and serve the financial interests of those organizations rather than the country.
I don't get this example. Medicare (or any insurance company) refusing to pay for a medical procedure isn't the same as Medicare (or any insurance company) refusing to allow you have a procedure.
FWIW, a 15 year old who wants conversion therapy strikes me as tragic, personally, but I don't think the state should intervene if she and her doctor feel it's the best course of action.
If a fetus is viable, then the doctor will deliver it. If the fetus is non-viable (it won't survive, it may make it through childbirth, but it won't be able to breathe, or it won't be able to sustain a heartbeat, or it will be brain-dead), then to protect a woman's life or health, the doctor will be allowed to abort it.
I don't think you truly understand what non-viable means.
Yes, I understand that viability is determined before birth. Do you understand that the laws Democrats are calling for are talking about fetuses that are not viable?
Did you watch the video?
They're talking about abortion up until birth for the sake of the mother's mental health.....not unviable babies
And who gets to determine how "viable" is legally defined?
If a fetus is viable, then the doctor will deliver it. If the fetus is non-viable (it won't survive, it may make it through childbirth, but it won't be able to breathe, or it won't be able to sustain a heartbeat, or it will be brain-dead), then to protect a woman's life or health, the doctor will be allowed to abort it.
I don't think you truly understand what non-viable means.
So now you're disagreeing with yourself.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
No one waits until moments before birth to determine if a fetus is viable. WTH are you talking about?
Please explain the scientific determination of when the fertilized egg becomes a human being/baby.
Science can tell us things like when brain activity begins, when the heart begins, it can even tell us when pain begins to be experienced, but the judgment about when that egg becomes a baby cannot be determined by science. You will note that we have folks here and elsewhere who will argue that the 9-month old unborn child really isn't a child, yet. Their position is that upon which side of the mother's abdominal wall the child is located determines whether he/she is a human who is owed protection under the law.
Which side of the mother's abdominal wall does determine UNDER THE LAW whether a child is a human being. This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of law.
As for the scientific determination of when a fertilized egg becomes a human, I don't believe that science has weighed in definitively on what makes a human a human. But we have some guidelines, because we have ways in which we determine if someone is alive or not. When someone is in a car wreck, and they have no brain activity, and a machine is required to breathe for them, we recognize that that person no longer has meaningful life. We have scientific thresholds of what level of brain activity is required for a person to think, to communicate, to live. A fertilized egg doesn't have a brain. Brain development is something that doctors monitor during a pregnancy. And that is one of the ways we determine viability.
I am not disagreeing with myself. You are disagreeing with me, and your understanding of viability seems to be at odds with the general understanding of the word.
I don't get this example. Medicare (or any insurance company) refusing to pay for a medical procedure isn't the same as Medicare (or any insurance company) refusing to allow you have a procedure.
FWIW, a 15 year old who wants conversion therapy strikes me as tragic, personally, but I don't think the state should intervene if she and her doctor feel it's the best course of action.
A great many women and men have no choice, due to income. If Medicare will not cover the procedure, they cannot have it.
There are many other medical choices over which the state exercises influence or control. You'll forgive me, but I don't think folks who argue the state should not have any power over the medical decisions of women really mean it. They just believe in it for this one particular type of procedure and that's because it's entirely a political issue to them and they must take this position.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
