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.
So what about conjoined twins? Should one of them be able to unilaterally decide to kill the other one if it's causing an inconvenience? If you believe that a woman can do whatever she wants with a baby up until the cord is cut, I don't see how you could possible disagree with this...
As far as the viability argument, when does a baby actually become viable? Yes, it's possible for it to survive, even if born something like 1-2 months early, but even after that, it's only with a lot of help. Even a full term baby cannot survive on its own for very long. In practical terms, there is very little difference between a baby at birth -1 month and a baby at birth + 1 month...
Please read my previous posts and you'll realize that your questions are directed toward the wrong posters.
I've never felt extremely warm or fuzzy toward my early-pregnancy fetii, no. Actually, I really don't feel highly fuzzy about them at all till after I get to take a post-labor nap.
Doesn't seem to me to be a black'n'white issue. Pro-lifers who object to hormonal birth control methods seem to be highly consistent in their personal practices, but I really don't see the American public jumping on the hardline anti-birth-control bandwagon anytime soon.
Comstock laws are dead and gone in the name of the Right to Privacy, and wasn't that the whole pin the SC hung RvW on? You'd have to reverse the ruling on birth control before you had any real success with recriminalizing abortion.
And, anyway, what's the real frequency of the dreaded post-viability abortion? The whole discussion just seems like something straight outta the culture wars of 1994.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
The crux of the pro-choice argument is that the baby is part of the woman's body and she should have sole discretion as to how its treated. Since the baby is still a part of the woman's body up until the umbilical cord is cut, then the pro-choice argument should still be valid. If the viability argument is then used, then the pro-choice argument is then negated. Either one believes in choice or one doesn't. A more reasonable argument would be that one believes the woman should have the choice up until the fetus/baby is considered viable, at which point its rights should be recognized. Still, at this point the woman's body argument is still invalid.
I totally disagree with your statement about the so-called crux of the argument, especially your attempt to insert the word 'baby' when by definition a baby has been through the process of birth. In my eyes the crux of the argument is whether a fertilized egg is a human being, I don't believe it is. When/if I ever do I'll become strongly anti-abortion.
Please, how disingenuous.
It has been expressed very clearly by several people on this thread that basically, if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. No one is trying to force you to end a pregnancy in any manner. We need NO LAWS to give people the right to choose for themselves.
What you are stating is that you want people, other than those personally involved, to decide what happens to my body.
Perhaps you should read The Handmaid's Tale.
What amazes me is that "conservatives" who want the government out of so much of our lives, e.g. taxes, guns, etc. want the government to decide something as basic as sex and reproduction choices. Don't they see the hypocrisy in that viewpoint? It's a control issue based on a religious viewpoint.
"Don't like slavery, don't own a slave." That logic was flawed then and now!
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
You use the biological terminology to divert the focus from what is a growing human being. This is not unlike the ugly "clump of cells" phraseology used by others who employ your tactics.
Still NOTHING but a lame attempt to twist my words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
When does the "clump of cells" cross over into "baby" territory? Four weeks? Eight weeks? You are on extremely thin ice -- especially if you've seen photographs of babies at those stages.
I NEVER claimed to be capable of making that determination but.................one thing I'm 100% sure of, I don't trust Congress or the SCOTUS to make that determination. I believe it best left to the woman, her doctor and if she desires a representative of the religion she may practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
The Law stand[s] as it currently does" because the SCOTUS decreed that it was so -- no legislator ever passed a law, no voter ever voted. I am astounded that so many on the "pro-Choice" side are smugly satisfied with having such momentous things as legalized manslaughter imposed on the country by five old white men in black robes.
I have to say I don't have much respect for those who attempt to buttress their at best weak arguments with inappropriate terms like 'manslaughter' and other BS. If you can't make a meaningful, logical argument for your position I have no interest in the BS.
I have to say I don't have much respect for those who attempt to buttress their at best weak arguments with inappropriate terms like 'manslaughter' and other BS. If you can't make a meaningful, logical argument for your position I have no interest in the BS.
Given his belief that the unborn child is a human being, manslaughter applies as a valid term.
Manslaughter - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.
In my opinion, it's a generous choice of words, since I would consider abortion in most cases to be premeditated.
If an unfertilized egg is considered human life, then yes. I still haven't seen an unfertilized human egg that was able to produce a human being though.
Supposedly there was a shark recently that had a virginal birth, but I haven't read up on it enough to comment.
If an unfertilized egg is considered human life, then yes. I still haven't seen an unfertilized human egg that was able to produce a human being though.
IUDs are also believed to prevent pregnancy by thinning the lining of the uterus so that fertilized eggs cannot implant. Which would be manslaughter if you had that belief. Negligent homicide if you believed it and STILL used that form of contraception.
I'm just sayin'. I know folks who really do abhor the IUD on those grounds. Good for them, but I'm not interested in having that enshrined in law.
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.
