-->
@3RU7AL
what's your position on providing food and shelter for single mothers ?
I'm in favor of a welfare state
Restrictions on Abortion
Posts
Total:
329
-->
@thett3
I'm moving rapidly to the extreme pro-life camp
phenomenal,
knowing what you believe and why you believe it is always better than sitting on the fence
-->
@thett3
Why the fuck would we prefer to kill babies at that stage of development instead of allowing them to be born?
First and foremost, you need to address the pregnant mother. You find it repulsive to even consider the pregnant womans concerns and rights to of her and the organism of her body autonomy. it is one thing for society to prevent uncalled for births --no thanks to your political and religious type--- .and quite another to sitck your nose into pregnant womans bodily concerns, without her consent. You dont get it and never will, because..........ego.
I find your actions to not consider the wishes of the pregnant woman be repugnant, repulsive and disgusting at best and at worst, dominating control over women, without their consent. I call this sic-n-the-head. If you can think of a better term for you actions, please share.
-->
@ebuc
First and foremost, you need to address the pregnant mother. You find it repulsive to even consider the pregnant womans concerns and rights to of her and the organism of her body autonomy. it is one thing for society to prevent uncalled for births --no thanks to your political and religious type--- .and quite another to sitck your nose into pregnant womans bodily concerns, without her consent. You dont get it and never will, because..........ego.I find your actions to not consider the wishes of the pregnant woman be repugnant, repulsive and disgusting at best and at worst, dominating control over women, without their consent. I call this sic-n-the-head. If you can think of a better term for you actions, please share.
If a woman is 26 weeks pregnant she's had like four solid months to consider what to do about the pregnancy, if the baby can survive outside of the womb why would we kill it instead of letting it survive outside of the womb? America is an insanely wealthy country and babies put up for adoption are snatched up immediately. I don't have any sympathy for the wishes of someone who had four solid months to think about what to do about the pregnancy and chooses to abort it after the point where it could survive outside the womb
-->
@3RU7AL
what's your position on providing food and shelter for single mothers ?
Welfare state for how many humans on Earth? Theses type people are clueless to reality because, their mind-set stems from in 2000 year old biblical, patriarchal concepts of males control the females, end of story. Aka misogyny.
These religous based types have no grasp of energy needed to sustain 7.6 people on Earth --at current rising standards of living-- much less any comprehension of what is currently the state of Earth ecological demise.
Some of the native indians of N. America had sayings and ethical moral codes about respecting the Earth. Whites European babarians walked all of that set of ethical and moral codes. Savages concerned about nature. No, they didnt have any grasp of that, because they were to busy dominating the indians, to actually learn their ways.
Do any of these types foresee an end to humanty's ways? Many people did in 6o's, 70's and 80's and it concerned about muturally assured destruction of humanity. These days these types of people --and others-- can barely get their head out of their armpits to have a larger comprehension of reality. Sad :--(
-->
@thett3
what's your position on providing food and shelter for single mothers ?I'm in favor of a welfare state
good to know
do you suppose, that perhaps, if we gave women with unexpected and or unwanted pregnancies the incentive of reasonable nourishment and decent place to live (especially if they need to immediately move away from their parents and or spouse and or common-law spouse) that perhaps, maybe a large percentage of these "problem" abortions would simply disappear on their own, without turning these women into criminals ?
interesting note
Mexico has by far the lowest (per capita) abortion rate and Russia has the highest (at nearly double the United States)
-->
@thett3
If a woman is 26 weeks pregnant she's had like four solid months to consider what to do about the pregnancy, if the baby can survive outside of the womb why would we kill it instead of letting it survive outside of the womb? America is an insanely wealthy country and babies put up for adoption are snatched up immediately. I don't have any sympathy for the wishes of someone who had four solid months to think about what to do about the pregnancy and chooses to abort it after the point where it could survive outside the womb
ECTOGENESIS FTW
-->
@ebuc
It's actually 7.8 billion people on Earth. Did you know that there are only 900 million dogs on this planet?
-->
@FLRW
world population in 1951 = 2.5 billion souls
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, and now there are 6.8 billion more humans than dogs.
-->
@thett3
...I'm moving rapidly to the extreme pro-life camp...
Your choice, and not a hard one for your type to make, just lean a little and fall of that side of the fence, and blame it on the warm wind coming from a pregnant womans state of consciousness, on that particular day. Typical of your stereo-typical type. Sad :--(
The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind...Bob Dylan tune
-->
@thett3
have you noticed? i'm sure you have. almost none of the people who are for complete legality of abortion is willing to entertain answering the question of what happens when a woman abuses the privilege, and gets a late late term elective abortion for a stupid and immoral reason. i think it shows how weak their position is.
-->
@FLRW
It's actually 7.8 billion people on Earth. Did you know that there are only 900 million dogs on this planet?
Blame that one on China? Dog meat is nutritious yes? Thank god India doesnt think dogs are sacred?
So were headed toward 1 billion dogs within next 10 years? More PVC plastic to the oceans as result of dogs?
Humanity needs to ' get real ', and fairly quickly, altho, some say it is already too late because of the amount { Parts Per Million } of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, and absorbed by the oceans. Its called the critical point of no return.
Karma is reaping what one sows. Ask some of N American indians about their ancestors about their ethical and moral codes involving nature/ecology in relation to human actions.
-->
@thett3
Most people don’t want to ban abortion entirely but also don’t think it should be legal up to the moment of birth. What do you think the limit should be and why?
I say it should be legal up until the point of viability. My position is based on the woman’s right to her own body, so if the fetus can survive outside of it then that no longer applies.
-->
@thett3
It is the question because it's the question I asked.
If that is the question you intended to ask in the OP, it wasnt communicated very well.
If you have no moral issue with someone choosing to kill rather than deliver alive a fetus of 39 weeks because the mother is the unquestioned sovereign of her own body you shouldn't have a problem saying that.
In my opinion, abortions later in the pregancy are morally acceptable in the case of maternal endangerment, fetal death/incompatibility with life, or in cases where unreasonable restrictions/dishonest actors (pregnancy centers hiding the fact they don't provide abortions) prevent abortion earlier in the pregnancy. I do hold that people are the unquestioned sovereign of their own body (I like that phrase), and ultimately that is justification enough for an abortion anytime during pregancy.
Is a late abortion wise? No. That is one of the reasons why they are rare because the later the abortion the higher the risk. Discontinuing a pregancy is something that should be (and typically is) done very early. Late abortions are generally done as a matter of necessity.
I don't even understand how an "abortion" at an absurdly late stage like 39 weeks would differ from another form of induced deliver, other than deliberately killing the fetus.
Ok. I'm not a doctor. I trust your google-fu works just as well as mine. ;-)
For example, in a partial birth abortion [...]
Partial birth abortions are banned - as they should be. Abortions should occur before birth (even a partial one).
You good with that for a 39 year old healthy fetus, for elective reasons?
I'm not good with that for a healthy mother. If the mother is healthy, I (in my non-expert opinion) think the safest route is to go through with the birth. I am open to changing my opinion on this if and when better information comes along though.
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm not good with that for a healthy mother. If the mother is healthy, I (in my non-expert opinion) think the safest route is to go through with the birth. I am open to changing my opinion on this if and when better information comes along though.
Okay that’s what I was trying to get at. You do support *some* restriction on abortion even if it would only prevent a tiny percentage of abortion. At what point do you think the cut off should be for elective abortion?
Also is the safety of the mother the only thing that matters to you? Do you truly, in your heart of hearts, not assign any moral weight whatsoever to a fully viable fetus?
-->
@Double_R
I say it should be legal up until the point of viability. My position is based on the woman’s right to her own body, so if the fetus can survive outside of it then that no longer applies.
This is what I consider to be the reasonable pro choice position
-->
@n8nrgim
have you noticed? i'm sure you have. almost none of the people who are for complete legality of abortion is willing to entertain answering the question of what happens when a woman abuses the privilege, and gets a late late term elective abortion for a stupid and immoral reason. i think it shows how weak their position is.
Yes the unwillingness to answer a yes or no question is very telling. Not having third trimester abortions really isn’t an extreme ask at all. I was shocked to see people advocate for it
-->
@thett3
This is what I consider to be the reasonable pro choice position
I think that's a highly Dated position considering we have the technology to grow a child outside of the womb from the moment of fertilization.
All of the tests on animals were aborted after 4 weeks due to ethical concerns, but we have the technology to do it.
-->
@Greyparrot
I mean technology has already made abortion itself unnecessary. We have reliable and readily available contraceptives and they only improve each year. The only area I think dems are really right on with this stuff is that it’s better to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place by making sure people have access to ways to prevent that. A lesser evil than abortion imo
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not sure how well developed they'd be though?
Whether they would receive everything necessary for development, that they would receive 'normally developing?
-->
@Lemming
That's why they aborted them after 4 weeks. They didn't want to see what would happen.
-->
@thett3
Okay that’s what I was trying to get at. You do support *some* restriction on abortion even if it would only prevent a tiny percentage of abortion. At what point do you think the cut off should be for elective abortion?
I have answered this. "I do hold that people are the unquestioned sovereign of their own body (I like that phrase), and ultimately that is justification enough for an abortion anytime during pregancy."
The law is meant to protect people. While personhood is defined by birth, the law has nothing other than pregnant people to consider.
Also is the safety of the mother the only thing that matters to you? Do you truly, in your heart of hearts, not assign any moral weight whatsoever to a fully viable fetus?
Personally, I assign moral significance at the capacity for consciousness (6 months of pregnancy or so). However, this is not sufficient weight to override a woman's ownership of her body. Imo, no person (born or not) has sufficient moral weight to override another person's ownership of their body.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Personally, I assign moral significance at the capacity for consciousness (6 months of pregnancy or so). However, this is not sufficient weight to override a woman's ownership of her body. Imo, no person (born or not) has sufficient moral weight to override another person's ownership of their body.
Why not? A woman at six months of pregnancy has had at least five months to get an abortion and chose not to. Now the fetus is so developed it could live outside of her. and you acknowledge it’s a conscious human being. How is killing it acceptable in that circumstance? And besides, unless you’re an ancap we restrict what people are allowed to do with their bodies all the time. What makes this case any different
-->
@oromagi
I think governments should trust the wisdom and experience of doctors and mothers and stay out of it to the maximum extent possible. I have zero expertise in the matter and so my opinion is worse than unwanted but also probably oversimple and wrongheaded. I suggest we leave the entire question in the hands of obstetricians and their patients.
I find this view a bit concerning- that if you aren’t an expert on the matter or directly involved then you believe we shouldn’t have a say in it and not regulate it.
That brings all of democracy into question considering most citizens are ignorant on either all or all but one issue.
You may not know a lot about guns (at least not an expert), so why should you have any say on gun control on gun owners? You also probably aren’t an expert on crime, criminal justice, or crime prevention. So if you don’t have a graduate degree in these areas, why wouldn’t that invalidate your opinion in the same way it does with staying away from doctors and pregnant women?
I suggest we leave this in the hands of gun owners and FFL dealers
-->
@thett3
Why not? A woman at six months of pregnancy has had at least five months to get an abortion and chose not to. Now the fetus is so developed it could live outside of her. How is killing it acceptable in that circumstance? And besides, unless you’re an ancap we restrict what people are allowed to do with their bodies all the time. What makes this case any different
I have an issue with one person being forced to provide their organs, tissue, blood for the benefit of another. If I somehow cause another person to need a kidney (and mine is compatible) no one would dare suggest I be forced to hand mine over (not even after 6 months), but this is exactly what some expect pregnant women to do. We should be consistent. Either bodily autonomy applies equally to everyone or it doesn't exist. I refuse to accept the latter.
-->
@thett3
Are there actually anyone important advocating for abortion up to the point of birth?
if someone intentionally or recklessly causes another person to need an organ, i would say it would be fair to expect the culprit to fork over the organ. it's not politically correct to say this, but at least i'm being consistent given i expect women after a couple trimesters to have a moral obligation to the baby.
also, the difference in forking over an organ and maintaining a pregnancy is a matter of balancing the competing factors involved. a woman after giving birth will remain relatively unscathed, usually. someone forking over an organ may incur significant damage. but yes, totally i would require someone fork over an extra kidney if a birzarre and rare situation that might be necessary.
-->
@Earth
No, but it is much easier to argue in stark black and white moral terms. Nuance is hard.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Typical response from the lazy "trust authority" crowd that can't be bothered to take individual responsibility for society and passes that off to "the experts"