Restrictions on Abortion

I agree. Despite arguing in favor of the pro-choice position, I have done my best to argue against platitudes which would seek to dehumanize a zygote/embryo/fetus. 

Who here has stated that it's okay to kill a 30 week fetus because of bodily autonomy?

I ask again: when does one's body stop being one's body?

Right now, father's should pay child support. I would like to see father's helping with pregnancy if they aren't already.

This is disingenuous. We have accepted reasonable restrictions set by Roe for 50 years. ...It is not abortion advocates that have stacked the court for the purpose of dismantling cases for the sake of abortion restrictions

This is why I respect your position even though I completely disagree with it. While I don’t know your philosophy that well it seems like your position comes from an absolute and unwavering commitment to a principle that I don’t share. The others I’m not so sure about

Danielle, skepticalone, and FLRW all said they support elective abortion up until the moment of birth, oragami refused to directly state that but he said he doesn’t support any restrictions 

I don’t believe that it ever does stop, of course. But I am in favor of reasonable limits on what people are allowed to do with it.

The view I have is that at *some point* (when is debatable) the right to choose has been exercised and we have to prioritize the right to life of the fetus.

I just don’t have any sympathy for someone who had like 25 weeks to get an  abortion and didn’t 

is it perhaps a violation of self-ownership to force a man to provide a physical dna sample based on an accusation ?

based on what principle ?

We’ve been going back and forth for several pages now about abortions after the point of viability, and several others have supported your position

Also nobody “stacked” the courts. As far as I know nobody added seats

The right to oneself is fundamental, and basis to every other right. That is the reason my commitment to the principle is unwavering. Undermining the right to self, undermines every other right.

How you "feel" about it, or anyone else for that matter, does not disqualify her right.

based on what principle ?

If a woman has no choice but to bear the burden of pregnancy, then it is fair fathers should provide support. 

I have stated, in principle, self ownership justifies abortion up to birth. That is not the same as 'refusing to accept even the tiniest of restrictions'. That's hyperbolic. Restrictions are literally the law of the land. Again, it is not pro-choice folks trying to abolish Roe.

  You're right, no one has added seats, but seats have been stolen. This has the same effect even if it is not technically 'stacking the court'. Same difference.

(IFF) it is considered "unfair" for a woman to be FORCED to support (gestate) a child she does not want (THEN) it is equally "unfair" for a man to be FORCED to support a child he does not want

The double speak is incredible.

No seat has been “stolen.” The one being hyperbolic is you 

Clearly, you don't understand my position, and I don't understand what you think my position is

At least 1 of those seats (if not 2) should have been chosen by Democratic presidents if Republicans weren't bending the rules purely for political gain. There's nothing hyperbolic about that. That is a different discussion though.

Do you think a person has a right to use your body without consent?

Do you think children have a right to use their parents organs without consent?

Do you think it is wrong consent is required to interact with other people?

Do you think it is wrong consent can be withdrawn?

Unless you answered affirmatively, you rationally understand self-ownership even if you have difficulty coming to terms with it emotionally.

“Republicans won enough senate elections to take a majority and exercised that power in a way I found distasteful” is not even close to the same as saying the courts were “packed” or seats were “stolen.” Not holding a hearing for Garland was not “bending the rules” (itself a significant walk back from “stole” or “packed”) although it was a violation of an established norm. 

Yes, actually I won't tell if I have or haven't actively done it but I totally support opt-in default for using my dead body for research, even transplants if I am totally doomed, some countries only let you opt in to one of the two

Do you think children have a right to use their parents organs without consent?

During the time all others do it, yeah.

Do you think it is wrong consent is required to interact with other people?

Yes. [...] I have no clue what your question even is.

You mean during sex? No

The emotions matter, they are how morals are formed.

my dead body

The law should not be based on emotionality, but reason.

The emotions matter, they are how morals are formed.

Id expect my dad to do so if he wasnt a deadbeat sack of shit and his kidney was viable.

I'll just point out you're consenting to having your body used without your consent. (That would be consent).

The right to oneself is fundamental, and basis to every other right. That is the reason my commitment to the principle is unwavering. Undermining the right to self, undermines every other right. Let's indulge that the fetus has a "right to life" (I quote to suggest that interpretations of life, much more a "right to it," are various.) Why does the fetus's right to life supersede its mother's right to herself, as it concerns part of herself--namely her womb? And why is her behavior of her own womb subject to referendum, not to mention "our" priority?

If you mean a contract you want out of midway, sorry but that is some tough shit unless you have a good reason for it. Go to court in that case.

Your position is bullshit.

If you don't want a law based on morality, our positions are more different than I could begin to reconcile.

unfortunately not everyone agrees on exactly what "morality" is supposed to mean

If you don't want a law based on morality, our positions are more different than I could begin to reconcile.