Late-term Abortion Conundrum and Science (global warming, racist, Sanders, Alabama)

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by saibot

It will never happen, and I suppose many people will be enraged at the very idea, but since it's acceptable for a man's "right to choose" to be a parent or not to end when he decides to have sex, it would only be fair for the woman's "right to choose" to be a parent or not to end at the same moment. No one would be forcing anyone to have or not have an abortion. Both parents agree to support the child they made the joint decision to risk creating, or one agrees to raise the child single-handed and lets the other one off the hook, or they agree to let the child be adopted.

But yeah, bodily autonomy. Oh well, there are all kinds of situations in which a person has the right to do whatever they want with their own body, up to a certain point, but not beyond that, and that is totally accepted by society. If you simply refuse to pay your traffic ticket, your body may end up in jail. It happened to my brother.

I see your point but it kinda weird's me out that people who see abortion as murder start turning it into a man/woman issue. If it's a child it should be the child's best interest not the parents.

Are you guys trying to stop murder here or what's going on?

Edit: for any pro-lifers, what is the main crux of the problem as you see it? I was under the assumption that you guys saw it as murder and therefore wrong. Now I am seeing these arguments that women deciding to terminate a pregnancy have an unfair opportunity simply because men don't have the same opportunity.

[Ellis Bell]

Neither the science nor the Bible are to believed. We can believe that which we want to believe and justify our actions any way we please. Problem solved.

[saibot]

Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8

I see your point but it kinda weird's me out that people who see abortion as murder start turning it into a man/woman issue. If it's a child it should be the child's best interest not the parents.

Well, yeah. If it's a child, it's in the child's best interest not to be killed. That is actually the point, not what is in the best interest of other people including the parents. (I am not saying women need to be willing to actually forfeit their lives; I draw the line there. Self-defense is still a thing). As I said, my suggestion would never happen because it would require people to think about the consequences of their actions beforehand, to be responsible for their actions, and to refrain if they're not willing to accept the consequences. It's absolutely hopeless.

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by saibot

Well, yeah. If it's a child, it's in the child's best interest not to be killed. That is actually the point, not what is in the best interest of other people including the parents. (I am not saying women need to be willing to actually forfeit their lives; I draw the line there. Self-defense is still a thing). As I said, my suggestion would never happen because it would require people to think about the consequences of their actions beforehand, to be responsible for their actions, and to refrain if they're not willing to accept the consequences. It's absolutely hopeless.

Ok thank you for responding. When I talk to pro-life people I assume we have the same outlook except I draw the line at consciousness (I'll also accept viability) and they draw it at conception. That's why a lot of the pro-choice arguments seems weak to me. When I hear pro-choice people speak I imagine it sounds the same to you as it would to me if we were talking about a healthy 3rd-trimester pregnancy. Parents rights would be irrelevant to me at that point.

All that being said, the biggest problem I have is when we try and get the government involved in this. Laws that are morally based really should have consensus. There is greater consensus at points such as viability and very little at conception so that's reasonable. Making anti-abortion laws at conception or heartbeat is serving the morality of a smaller group. I suspect consensus would be really low around the moment of birth for healthy babies so we can't have it there. That's imposing a worldview of the minority on the majority. They shouldn't be able to use our government to do that.

[rjshae]

I'm hoping some day there will be a third option, like storing the fetus in some sort of sci-fi stasis pod until some parents are ready to adopt it. One can hope...

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8

Ok thank you for responding. When I talk to pro-life people I assume we have the same outlook except I draw the line at consciousness (I'll also accept viability) and they draw it at conception. That's why a lot of the pro-choice arguments seems weak to me. When I hear pro-choice people speak I imagine it sounds the same to you as it would to me if we were talking about a healthy 3rd-trimester pregnancy. Parents rights would be irrelevant to me at that point.

So you are against the New York abortion laws then?

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

So you are against the New York abortion laws then?

I'm against any laws that restrict abortion. I think the government needs to stay out of it. I don't share your concerns that women are going to abort healthy pregnancies in that later months let alone as the child is being delivered. Even if a woman wanted to I highly doubt she'd find a doctor willing to do so. I see where your concerns are though.

I've interacted enough to see that, at least some pro-life people, have this ugly idea that women who have abortions are a bunch of horny, non-principled women who have no sense of decency or responsibility. Apparently they make the choice in some sort of weird vacuum where they don't take the potential partners feelings or situation into consideration and actually use it as a reason to further discriminate against men. It's almost as if these harlots enjoy murdering children. Don't even get me started on what you must think of doctors. There are mentally ill women who actually do murder their children. I have yet to see where a doctor signed off on that. I prefer not to dehumanize people the way you do.

But let's say I'm wrong and it turns out you were right. If women started directing the doctor to murder the child as it left the birth canal I would say that we need a law against that. Hey, we'dfinally be in agreement! yea!

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by Tall Traveler

I agree with Democrats on many issues but I can never vote for someone that thinks it's quite okay to kill a baby.

Who is advocating infanticide?

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by jjrose

How does a developing fetus develop in it is not in a womans body, attached to her depending on her body to provide nutrients, oxygen, and waste removal?

No person has the right to use another persons body to keep them alive.

I really don't get this argument. That is the way reproduction works in humans. Not to mention, do you think a fetus is a person?

Originally Posted by Nanny Goat

Right. The statistics for them are very small. A few %, most likely due to health reasons of the woman.

There is no need to do an abortion, that is kill the fetus, in the third trimester d/t a health problem in the mother. The protocol is to deliver the baby, and hope that s/he lives (with appropriate care). The later this happens in pregnancy, the better the chances of the baby surviving. The only reason to do a late term abortion, instead of delivering the infant, is a serious problem in the infant.

Originally Posted by Fifty Seven

Well when the first movement actually happens. The definition of quickening is strange, I agree, and even stranger is that there is no term for the actual first movement. Seems to me the term should apply to that, and not when it is first felt. We don't define most words that way. Like an explosion, we don't define it as only having happened after someone feels it.

The problem is, the fetus has probably been moving well before the mother feels the movement. "Quickening" occurs earlier in subsequent pregnancies than in first pregnancies b/c the mom knows what the feeling is.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by jjrose

How does a developing fetus develop in it is not in a womans body, attached to her depending on her body to provide nutrients, oxygen, and waste removal?

No person has the right to use another persons body to keep them alive.

And yet, you're here, alive and well.