thett3

I honestly believe in a postmodernist world that this question can never be answered. When there are infinite genders, then there are no genders. Male can be female and female can be male ONLY because those 2 terms are both indistinguishable concepts in a postmodern world.

Couple reasons, whenever your brain identifies your gender as separate from the typical biological state of sex a couple of things happen. Your brain becomes more stressed with the dichotomy, your body is forced to deal with that increased stress, thereby making other symptoms worse. Considering that whenever people are considered others they are treated harsher this all compounds.

 But you chose to ignore all my contentions and reiterate opposition to throwing babies in the trash can. While that is certainly your prerogative, I think it says quite a bit.  

And don't you think your focus on third trimester abortions (1% of cases) seems a little weird?

I wouldn't be surprised if it included price controls. This administration is  committed to repeating every mistake of the Carter era while dealing with inflation

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?

It was to allocate 20-30 million in funding to help ease the shortage. Biden used emergency powers (defence production act) anyway.

Does anyone know why Republicans voted against the baby formula bill? Didn’t Democrats want to compromise? 

As a rapidly shrinking minority party, the GOP is objectively the more divisive.  Strategically, their only hope for continued relevance is to split the Democratic party into 2 factions. 

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.

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.

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

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?

Child mortality or the under-five mortality rate refers to the probability of a child dying between birth and exactly 5 years of age, expressed per 1,000 live births. In 2020, 5.0 million children under 5 years of age died. This translates to 13,800 children under the age of 5 dying every day in 2020.

Yeah, I'm real worried about fetuses.

What fascinates me is how it is the left wing that is being so psychopathic and the right wing being so empathetic, considering that the mother's position is that of the merciless landlord's and fetus that of the helpless squatter in this analogy.

Plus, you are discounting the fact that consent can be withdrawn. A woman can consent to sex and change her mind during the act and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Consent is conditional, provisional, subject to change.

Also, we have a deterrent against breaking the agreement. You certainly can't force landlord or tenant to do anything. You can make them sorry they didn't honor their word. But, again, there is no agreement or promise for an unwanted pregnancy

I take it you recognize the problem with your landlord analogies.

I have already answered a derivation of this question and my answer remains the same: Abortion during pregancy is justifiable because of self-ownership.

The monthly cycle would be a tragic and mournful event if women did have an obligation to the contents of their wombs, don't you think? Instead of a first period being a sign a feminine maturity, it would the first in a long line of failures to uphold this imagined obligation. It might be better to ask why you think reality should be different.

What lease exists between a woman and the contents of her womb? Is a squatter a 'good tenant'?  Your scenario has no relevance.

In order to truly tax the rich, all income taxes, including capital gains, would have to be abolished and replaced with wealth taxes.

*born. There is no inherent obligation between a woman and the contents of her womb.

Bodily autonomy is the only right actually at play here. If someone (even a born person) lives in or off of my body, I have the right to evict. Not one of us has a right to use any body other than our own without consent.

Not everything that tugs on our heart strings warrants government intervention. Why don't you find it completely disgusting and barbaric to shrug off immigrants, abandon refugees, and ignore others in life or death situations that might rely on help from the U.S. government to intervene and save their lives? I'm not trying to sound snarky here - just showing that the prioritization of American lives is morally arbitrary and rooted in pragmatism. There is only so much we can and should police. 

As I said, I used to agree with using viability as a point in time in which the government's interests could theoretically override the value of bodily autonomy. But I cannot think of a scenario in which the government controlling people's bodies in such an invasive way could ever be justified, even if the fetus is 9 months old.

this claim is provably false

It boggles my mind that many think that a viable fetus is a living human being that carries moral weight but gleefully ignore the plight of immigrants and homeless people and children being slaughtered in warzones.

the overwhelming majority of abortions are a consequence of economic instability

if people "really really cared" so much about "the baby" then you'd think they'd spend their "holy fervor" on ACTUALLY HELPING SINGLE MOTHERS

instead of focusing on filling up our already overcrowded prisons

No, but it is much easier to argue in stark black and white moral terms. Nuance is hard.

Are there actually anyone important advocating for abortion up to the point of birth?

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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.

what's your position on providing food and shelter for single mothers ?

The fetus/baby is not truly an independent, individual human until the chord is cut, and the living baby --now not a fetus--- has taken its first in-spirited breath. No breath and the baby does not live.

do you believe countries that outlaw abortion have better public health outcomes ?

When a 21-year-old Native American woman from Oklahoma was convicted of manslaughter after having a miscarriage, people were outraged. But she was not alone.

Brittney Poolaw was just about four months pregnant when she lost her baby in the hospital in January 2020.

This October, she was convicted and sentenced to four years in prison for the first-degree manslaughter of her unborn son.

US women are being jailed for having miscarriages - BBC News

does this "public health" policy inform your stance on abortion perhaps ?

the argument at the time was, "we don't know how deadly this will be, so better to force it on everyone now before the worst-case-scenario takes us all by surprise"

this will also be the argument for the inevitable next "public health scare"

That wasn't the question. The question was whether abortions late in the pregancy should be allowed. Given that people can die or suffer if abortion isn't allowed late in the pregnancy it should be legal. 

I am very resistent to the framing of abortions late in the pregnancy being for frivolous people not really committed to pregnancy or a child. That is simply not the case. The question of whimsical 'up to the moment of birth abortions' is dismissive of real people with real grief. It pretends there is a problem while threatening to create a problem for people who already have too many.

There's some people that think being able to feel pain is the threshold. Being able to retain long-term memories is not a viable threshold since newborns can't do that.

so, you're "pro-mandatory-vaxx" ?

at what point does a woman not have godlike sovereignty over what happens inside her own body ?

and at what point is she required to get your personal approval ?

think of a "non-abortion" example please

If you were to ask how many children go without getting adopted, the answer may surprise you. Although it is difficult to quantify, roughly 20,000 children “age out” of foster care each year. This means they are now legally adults without ever finding a family through adoption.