CDZ From Pro-Choice to Pro-Life (what changed my mind)

[JaggedZenMonkey]

As hard as you try, you right wing extreme authoritarian statists will never be able to stop abortions. The ONLY thing you might be able to stop are SAFE abortions.

While that may be true, I nor anyone else is responsible for a woman's actions but herself. Her choices = her consequences.

Now answer theses questions...

If YOU want a woman's uterus to become property of the state, then YOU have to accept THOSE consequences.

Why should anyone be held accountable for anyone else's actions but those who act them out? If a woman does not want a child, it is perfectly within her power and scope of control to prevent a pregnancy. Her uterus is in her own power. She has the power to prevent pregnancy.

A pregnancy requires special care and services for a woman. Are YOU willing to PAY for her prenatal care? Are you willing to PAY for her numerous doctor visits, tests, vitamins and ultrsound? Are YOU willing to PAY for her special diet and make sure she eats healthy? Are YOU willing to make sure she doesn't smoke or drink to protect the health of the embryo?

No - We all need to be accountable for our own actions.

Are you willing to PAY her prenatal care and delivery costs which can range from about $9,000 to over $250,000?

Are YOU willing to PAY for her maturity leave from her job?

No again. I'd like to know at what point you think anyone should NOT be accountable for what we ourselves do and are in control of?

What if the woman has medical complications that leave her permanently disabled? Are YOU willing to PAY to support her the rest of her life?

Your arguments are based on what woman do and should have total control over. If a woman does not want a child, that woman should exercise what she is in control of (her body) and not get pregnant in the first place. Your entire spill is a non sequitur and only applies if a woman fails to exercise control over herself, which is exactly what my previous post alluded to.

I have some starling news for you to swallow...abortion is LEGAL in the United States...swallow hard.

Women are in control of their own uterus. The truth is YOU want to control what she does with it. So YOU become responsible.

Yes they are ... for now. I nor anyone else are responsible for a woman's actions but herself. Her choices = Her consequences. Why should anyone be held accountable for anyone else's actions but those who act them out? If a woman does not want a child, it is perfectly within her inherent power and scope of personal control to prevent a pregnancy, except in cases of rape. Her uterus is in her own hands and power. She has and deserves that power and control. If a woman doesn't want a child they should not get pregnant. That's the truth of the matter. I have no desire to control what woman do. Woman are in no uncertain terms responsible and in control of their own actions, their own body, their uterus, and should be held accountable for their personal actions like every one else. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned the same will be true still.

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

OK JaggedZenMonkey...let's get to the bottom line...answer required.

If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

Personally? I think they should be charged with a hate crime, given they could have prevented the pregnancy in the first place, except for in cases of rape. I would actually make provisions for rape and incest, but these are my personal biases and beyond my scope of power and control as an individual. If the courts ruling does not make provisions for rape and incest based on the constitution, then such cases could prove tragic for both the mother and perhaps the child, but necessary to uphold constitutional law.

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

No copyright infringement had been made. You want a source? Fine: U.S. Constitution Abortion and Personhood Jurisprudence American Right To Life

I find your attempts to evade the discussion dishonest 1. I quoted from the constitution directly. 2. I borrowed (in part) text that addresses the issue directly in relation to the constitution. 3. You cry foul based on no copyright infringement of information readily available in the public domain. You are evading and I don't blame you. You don't have a leg to stand on.

I find plagiarism highly dishonest...

I do as well. Nothing was plagiarized, but your dishonest approach to this discussion is quite indicative of how desperate you are to invalidate and evade any further meaningful discussion. I'm sure you think your accusations hold weight. They do not, nor do your opinions relating to the topic at hand.. Try again.

Hang on buster...You posted a whole wall of text without providing your source. You tried to portray it as your words and hide the fact it was OPINION from a far right wing anti-abortion website.

You absolutely plagiarized...

Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work.

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. I stole absolutely nothing. I used readily available and known information in the public domain and borrowed from the text. No copy right infringement took place. No plagiarism took place. Also, nothing I posted falls in the category of opinion. I posted constitutional facts that you deny. You're free to think what you want, but you're mistaken. You would be laughed out of court if you insisted what I posted was plagiarism.

No buster...you posted someone elses OPINION and tried to pass it off as your words. You are being dishonest

I posted facts relating to the constitution and bits of text readily available to the general public that were not subject to copyright laws along with my own chosen words . Plagiarism it was not. However, I did directly quote the constitution. Your accusation is:

 

[Bfgrn]

Personally? I think they should be charged with a hate crime, given they could have prevented the pregnancy in the first place, except for in cases of rape. I would actually make provisions for rape and incest, but these are my personal biases and beyond my scope of power and control as an individual. If the courts ruling does not make provisions for rape and incest based on the constitution, then such cases could prove tragic for both the mother and perhaps the child, but necessary to uphold constitutional law.

A "hate" crime???!!!??!!

And what would the penalty be Josef Stalin?

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes they are ... for now. I nor anyone else are responsible for a woman's actions but herself. Her choices = Her consequences. Why should anyone be held accountable for anyone else's actions but those who act them out? If a woman does not want a child, it is perfectly within her inherent power and scope of personal control to prevent a pregnancy, except in cases of rape. Her uterus is in her own hands and power. She has and deserves that power and control. If a woman doesn't want a child they should not get pregnant. That's the truth of the matter. I have no desire to control what woman do. Woman are in no uncertain terms responsible and in control of their own actions, their own body, their uterus, and should be held accountable for their personal actions like every one else. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned the same will be true still.

HELLO? Is there anyone home McFly?

YOU want to eliminate "HER choices"...and make it YOUR choice...That now makes it YOUR responsibility.

 

[mamooth]

[Her choices = her consequences.

Yep. And one of those consequences is she could choose to have an abortion. That's liberty. Deal with it.

A woman's body does not belong to you or your precious authoritarian state. If liberty bothers you that much, go somewhere else more to your liking. There are plenty of third world dictatorships and Islamic states that implement the same anti-liberty policies which you advocate. Democracies, not so much.

I have no desire to control what woman do.

Then why have you been posting pages about how you want to forcibly prevent women from having abortions?

 

[midcan5]

Powerful piece.

'We Do Abortions Here'

Sallie Tisdale | Harper's | 7th August 2015

"Excerpt from a longer article behind Harper's paywall; but so powerful is the writing and the subject that an excerpt may suffice. "In abortion the absolute must always be tempered by the contextual, because both are real, both valid; both hard. How can we do this? How can we refuse? Each abortion is a measure of our failure to protect, to nourish our own. Each basin I empty is a promise—but a promise broken a long time ago.""

Context I We Do Abortions Here by Sallie Tisdale Harper s Magazine

We do abortions here. A nurse s story Harper s Magazine

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Given that I've been PRO CHOICE most of my adult life, I'm beginning to rethink that position now. Through Roe vs. Wade woman have been granted the legal right to decide the value of every unborn human life and have been granted the absolute power to legally terminate all of them at their sole discretion. This is not...

...

"Roe vs. Wade woman have been granted the legal right to decide the value of every unborn human life and have been granted the absolute power to legally terminate all of them at their sole discretion." - JaggedZenMonkey

This is not true. simply not true. Though nature has given every woman the right to decide the value of each and every potential human life, because nature gave her control over her own body. It is society that restricts a woman's liberty when she is pregnant. Nature places no such restrictions.

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

Yes they are ... for now. I nor anyone else are responsible for a woman's actions but herself. Her choices = Her consequences. Why should anyone be held accountable for anyone else's actions but those who act them out? If a woman does not want a child, it is perfectly within her inherent power and scope of personal control to prevent a pregnancy, except in cases of rape. Her uterus is in her own hands and power. She has and deserves that power and control. If a woman doesn't want a child they should not get pregnant. That's the truth of the matter. I have no desire to control what woman do. Woman are in no uncertain terms responsible and in control of their own actions, their own body, their uterus, and should be held accountable for their personal actions like every one else. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned the same will be true still.

HELLO? Is there anyone home McFly?

YOU want to eliminate "HER choices"...and make it YOUR choice...That now makes it YOUR responsibility.

It's OUR responsibility even before a pregnancy ever occurs. However, men cannot control a woman's body. A man cannot force himself on a woman legally, a man cannot force a woman to take precautions. The same is true for woman. We are responsible for ourselves. When pregnancies occur, both parties should be accountable and required to take responsibility. I have supported pro choice most of my adult life. What I can no longer support is a woman's right to terminate human life at her sole unrestricted discretion. It gives woman unequaled and absolute power to determine every unborn humans value in this nation. Who lives and who dies - Who's valuable and who's not. No one should be given such unequaled power in life EVER, particularly when people have become so haphazard and abusive about it. Roe vs Wade is under a very serious threat and in part because people (both men and woman) can't seem to control themselves in the bedroom and take precautions. Woman who abuse this power are threatening every other woman's right to choose. What's sad is many support them. Many are taking advantage of the right to choose to the point of outright abuse. I changed from being pro choice to pro life. Are you trying to change my position? Give me a good reason to revert back to such a primitive mentality.


McFly ... Cute!

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

Given that I've been PRO CHOICE most of my adult life, I'm beginning to rethink that position now. Through Roe vs. Wade woman have been granted the legal right to decide the value of every unborn human life and have been granted the absolute power to legally terminate all of them at their sole discretion. This is not...

...

"Roe vs. Wade woman have been granted the legal right to decide the value of every unborn human life and have been granted the absolute power to legally terminate all of them at their sole discretion." - JaggedZenMonkey

This is not true. simply not true. Though nature has given every woman the right to decide the value of each and every potential human life, because nature gave her control over her own body. It is society that restricts a woman's liberty when she is pregnant. Nature places no such restrictions.

Nature has given the female mammalian gender the ability to harbor, sustain, and provide an environment perfectly suited for the development of individual and separate life forms. Nature did not give them the legal right to terminate the individual and personal life developing within themselves. Humans did. Humans created laws. Humans developed the ideal of human rights. Laws are required. Without laws, men would be just as free to terminate any life they desired. Woman have the legal power to decide who lives and who dies without restriction in a society built on law and the ideal that humans have basic rights. Woman decide the value of the life they harbor and have been granted unrestricted legal rights to terminate them all. That's one hell of a one sided power.


At what stage does the ideal of human rights have value in your opinion?


0. As an ideal only?
(seed)


1. After the ideal has been conceptualized?
(fertilization)


2. When the ideal has made some developmental progress?
(grows roots)


3. After the ideal has made substantial developmental progress and has gained momentum?
(grows stems and leaves)


4. When the ideal has nearly completed its developmental progress and is reaching completion?
(begins to flower)


5. After the ideal has been given birth, becoming a very real part of every humans existence?
(produces fruit)


Individual human development begins immediately after fertilization. Sperm alone isn't equivalent to a human life. An unfertilized egg isn't equivalent to a human life. It takes both to begin the process of life for each of our individual and personal human existences. You may not view a zygote to be a human. You may not view a tadpole to be a frog, or a caterpillar to be a butterfly. "Zygote" is simply a term used for a human in early stages of development. Tadpole is a term used for a frog in early stages of development. The same is true for a caterpillar, chrysalis, etc.


Different stages entail different abilities and appearances. We grow, we develop, we gain different abilities and change our appearance through the many developmental stages we go through. When you were born, you had far less abilities and your appearance was far different than now. When you became a toddler your abilities increased and your appearance further changed, and on to your teenage years, adulthood, middle age, to senior citizen and until you die. The fact is our individual human life began the moment we were conceived. We remain in constant and ongoing processes of development throughout our entire lives. This begins when the sperm fertilizes a human egg cell.


Let me tell you all a little more about myself. I was robbed of my future when I was sent to a juvenile detention center for accidentally catching my school on fire. My education suffered, and my character severely questioned. I had plans of becoming a physical therapist. I was an honor student prior to this, was beat relentlessly in the detention center, and my grades suffered greatly after. It was a matter of trying to fit in. Needless to say I was hard pressed to be accepted to a reputable University after my basic education ended. I ended up going to a technical school and became a HVAC technician. Then, my girlfriend I had met on the job had my unborn child killed despite my opposition. It devastated me. I literally broke. Soon after I broke down I started self medicating, which ended up becoming a life long battle for me.


My future was taken from me because I threw a cigarette in the garbage can when my teacher walked in the bathroom. While robbing potential futures aren't criminal, taking human life is. At least it is for those considered to be persons. The entire issue boils down to human rights and when humans establish person hood. When are we considered to be unique individual human beings? At conception? Zygote stage? Fetal stages? At birth? This is one reason I use the ideal of human rights in this discussion. At what point does the ideal of human rights become valuable? Likewise, at what point does human life become valuable?

 

[JoeMoma]

OK JaggedZenMonkey...let's get to the bottom line...answer required.

If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

A better question would be what should be done to those that provide the illegal abortions (if abortions are made illegal)?

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes they are ... for now. I nor anyone else are responsible for a woman's actions but herself. Her choices = Her consequences. Why should anyone be held accountable for anyone else's actions but those who act them out? If a woman does not want a child, it is perfectly within her inherent power and scope of personal control to prevent a pregnancy, except in cases of rape. Her uterus is in her own hands and power. She has and deserves that power and control. If a woman doesn't want a child they should not get pregnant. That's the truth of the matter. I have no desire to control what woman do. Woman are in no uncertain terms responsible and in control of their own actions, their own body, their uterus, and should be held accountable for their personal actions like every one else. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned the same will be true still.

HELLO? Is there anyone home McFly?

YOU want to eliminate "HER choices"...and make it YOUR choice...That now makes it YOUR responsibility.

It's OUR responsibility even before a pregnancy ever occurs. However, men cannot control a woman's body. A man cannot force himself on a woman legally, a man cannot force a woman to take precautions. The same is true for woman. We are responsible for ourselves. When pregnancies occur, both parties should be accountable and required to take responsibility. I have supported pro choice most of my adult life. What I can no longer support is a woman's right to terminate human life at her sole unrestricted discretion. It gives woman unequaled and absolute power to determine every unborn humans value in this nation. Who lives and who dies - Who's valuable and who's not. No one should be given such unequaled power in life EVER, particularly when people have become so haphazard and abusive about it. Roe vs Wade is under a very serious threat and in part because people (both men and woman) can't seem to control themselves in the bedroom and take precautions. Woman who abuse this power are threatening every other woman's right to choose. What's sad is many support them. Many are taking advantage of the right to choose to the point of outright abuse. I changed from being pro choice to pro life. Are you trying to change my position? Give me a good reason to revert back to such a primitive mentality.


McFly ... Cute!

I don't believe you were ever "pro choice". And you are not pro life either. You are anti-women. YOU want to control women and decide her life and destiny. You don't see women as an individual, or an equal, you see women as a "vessel" and her uterus as a property YOU should control.

Individual responsibility applies to YOU, not others. You decide for you. You don't get to decide for others. Do you understand and comprehend how that works? Each and every human has the right to decide their OWN destiny. That includes when and if to have children.

You decide for you, and ONLY you...is that clear?

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde

 

[IsaacNewton]

Given that I've been PRO CHOICE most of my adult life, I'm beginning to rethink that position now. Through Roe vs. Wade woman have been granted the legal right to decide the value of every unborn human life and have been granted the absolute power to legally terminate all of them at their sole discretion. This is not a right or power that should be given to anyone. Woman ultimately decide who lives and who dies - who's valuable and who is not, and many people have absolutely no problem with this. At one time I didn't either, but then I never thought about this issue in these terms.


Many pro choicer's suggest woman can be trusted with such absolute power. Still, there are over 1,000,000 abortions taking place in this nation annually, an estimated 850,000 of which could have been prevented absolutely by being more responsible. I realize that what people do in the bedroom is not my business (thank God). However, if a couple do not want an unwanted pregnancy, it can be prevented. There are quite a few options that will never result in pregnancy. Abstinence being one of many. Also, there are no contraceptives that offer 100% pregnancy prevention. That's an important thing to consider also, but I digress.


While woman's personal issues are not my business either, granting any human absolute power to determine the value of, and the authority to terminate unborn human life at their sole discretion is my business as an American citizen. This issue is about human rights. It's about granting human entities far too much power. It's about ethics and even morality for some. Heck, I'd prefer deliberate and well focused genetic engineering over the haphazard method of determining human value utilized by some, and that's a VERY frightening proposition. It's unethical too. Many pro choicer's suggest woman should be fully trusted and able to retain this undeniably unequaled liberty and power. I Am now in disagreement. Yesterday I was on the fence. The day before I was pro-choice.


You can thank those with fictitious and hostile arguments that are irrelevant to the discussion thrown against people who actually care about everyone involved. You can thank those who outright deny and sugar coat the harsh reality of abortion, their unwillingness to discuss the issue honestly, their want to suppress responsible behavior, their indirect encouragement of irresponsible behavior, their indirect encouragement of accountability avoidance, and the fact that all this threatens not only the human rights of woman, but the human rights of everyone else in this nation, as well as the future of the entire human race. I thank them for opening my eyes. There is no room nor chance for compromise between the opposing views. I understand this now. This issue is going to back to court as it needs to.


Furthermore, many pro choicer's have the gall to mock those who place trust in God. I find this quite ironic being that 850,000 woman annually have proven themselves (some over and again) to be terribly irresponsible when it comes to this issue (abusive even). The unequaled and absolute power granted to them over unborn human life is being abused without question. None of us should have this kind of power. Not you, not me, not our government, not woman, not men, not anyone ... Ever (.) If a woman's right to choose is to remain a right, very real limitations of that power need to placed upon them. Otherwise, Roe vs. Wade should be overturned indefinitely, which is where this issue is heading and at a very rapid pace. If woman have the absolute power to determine the value of, and the authority to terminate all unborn human lives at their sole discretion, then the future of humanity is at stake and placed solely on the character of woman, many of whom have proven themselves over and again to be abusive of this power.

If women are forced to carry all children to term regardless of their wishes, then each person that demands abortion be outlawed should be forced to pay the amount of money it would take to raise a child to 18 years old so a growing fund would result to care for these children until adulthood. I mean if we are going to force people to do things, let's be fair.

If you missed it, it was like someone turned on a light and all the roaches scattered for cover.

 

[Bfgrn]

OK JaggedZenMonkey...let's get to the bottom line...answer required.

If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

A better question would be what should be done to those that provide the illegal abortions (if abortions are made illegal)?

Well, JaggedZenMonkey wants the woman charged with a "hate crime"...that is even more punitive than the dictator Josef Stalin.

In 1936, Stalin banned abortion in Russia...

LAW ON THE PROHIBITION OF ABORTIONS:

• For the performance of abortions outside a hospital or in a hospital under conditions violating the above provisions, the doctor performing the abortion shall be criminally punishable to the extent of one to two years of imprisonment, while for the performance of abortions under insanitary conditions or by persons who have no special medical education a criminal penalty of no less than three years’ imprisonment shall be fixed.

• For compelling a woman to undergo an abortion, a criminal penalty of two years’ imprisonment shall be fixed.

• In relation to pregnant women undergoing an abortion in violation of the said prohibition, to establish as a criminal penalty a social reprimand, and in the event of a repetition of the violation of the law on the prohibition of abortions, a fine up to 300 Rubles.”

• Someone conducting a “back-room” or “coathanger” abortion — AT LEAST 3 years jail.

 

[Debra K]

"Never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right."

The Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The High Courts key admission:

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."


When a human egg is fertilized, that individual humans existence and personhood has been initiated and determined. Even its very genetic code has been determined. Everything that human will ever be is contained within that fertilized cell. Human life and individual personhood begins and is established when a human cell has been fertilized. Whether that cell implants to the uterus is another story. Human life and the personhood of that life begins and is determined at conception. The science behind this is undeniable with any validity at all. Each individual, and each already determined personhood of each individual are enabled to continue development once the fertilized cell implants to the uterus. The personhood has been determined and that persons individual existence will undergo further development just like the rest of us.


The facts are every human is still in developmental stages. I am still in developmental stages, you are still in developmental stages, babies, toddlers, teens, adults, seniors, etc. People discriminate against the personhood of unborn human lives based on the zygote and even the fetus not looking like us, not being able to think like us, not being able to breath like us, etc. It's PC standard to not even speak a discriminatory word much less take a human life based on discrimination. What you are looking at is possible future abortions being deemed discriminatory hate crimes against the personhood of unborn human lives.


Consider the fact that unwanted pregnancy can be prevented absolutely, the fact woman have been granted absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever potentially have life at all at their sole discretion in this nation, the fact that the entire cause of human rights is negated by the insistence that unborn human life has no true value until [insert answer here] when it has been proven that human life undeniably begins to develop and its personhood established the moment conception takes place, as well as the fact that many woman are undeniably abusing the power they've been granted, and you have a sure fire recipe for overturning Roe vs. Wade.


How many decades have woman been entrusted with this right? How often is this right being abused? How resistant are the pro choice crowd to cooperation? How often is the horror of abortion sugar coated for sake of pandering to PC sensitivities? The pro choice PC crowd has literally ensured they lose the right to choose and by their own selfish devises. I was completely pro choice up until 2 days ago. Yesterday I was on the fence. This morning I changed my stance entirely based on many variables already stated ad nauseam, but namely that abortion is unconstitutional.


If woman wish to retain even a small portion of their right to choose, something needs to be done by the pro choice crowd and cooperation needs to be pursued relentlessly by them (if this is even an option at all at this point). If not, there are going to be woman getting back alley abortions, more unnecessary deaths, and people possibly being charged with hate crimes because of, and all because they refuse to live responsible sex lives. As it is, unequaled power and absolute authority over every future unborn human life in this nation have been granted to even the most selfish, irresponsible, and haphazard woman among us. How does this not concern people?

In essence, the court did rule abortion "constitutional"...by ruling that banning abortion is unconstitutional.

Abortion
Abortion.—In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. In doing so, the Court dramatically increased judicial oversight of legislation under the privacy line of cases, striking down aspects of abortion-related laws in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review.558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."561

557 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973). A companion case was Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). The opinion by Justice Blackman was concurred in by Justices Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Powell, and Chief Justice Burger. Justices White and Rehnquist dissented, id. at 171, 221, arguing that the Court should follow the traditional due process test of determining whether a law has a rational relation to a valid state objective and that so judged the statute was valid. Justice Rehnquist was willing to consider an absolute ban on abortions even when the mother's life is in jeopardy to be a denial of due process, 410 U.S. at 173, while Justice White left the issue open. 410 U.S. at 223.

It was only ruled unconstitutional because human personhood could not be verified at that time. Times have changed.

Times haven't changed...the ruling and the law are not based on some dubious definition of "human personhood". The law is based on viability.

The fetus or baby is viable
This refers to the time in pregnancy when the baby, if born now and prematurely, has a reasonable chance of survival. For most hospitals in the United States the age of viability is about 24 weeks 0 days of the pregnancy. However, being born at 24 weeks does not mean that most babies will survive or that if they survive they will have no problems. The chances of survival increase with each day after 24 weeks, and the risks of complications decrease.

At 24 weeks is the cutoff point for when many doctors will use intensive medical intervention to attempt to save the life of a baby born prematurely including doing a cesarean section. Between 23 and 24 weeks is a "gray zone" where most doctors would not intervene. And below 23 weeks weeks doctors are unlikely to do a cesarean section for fetal reasons and most neonatologist will not resuscitate a baby born before 23 weeks, and many won't resuscitate a baby born between 23-24 weeks.

A baby born at 24 weeks would generally require a lot of intervention, potentially including mechanical ventilation and other invasive treatments followed by a lengthy stay in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Odds of survival increase as the pregnancy progresses, and even an extra week in the womb can make a difference. In general, premature babies born closer to 37 weeks will be much better off than those born before 28 weeks.

The law that gave woman unequaled and absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could possibly ever have life at all in this Nation at their sole discretion and whim does not follow the definition of viability on a baby website. It follows the definition of personhood YOU call dubious, which determines when life begins.and the personhood of each individual human life established. Lets talk about viability though. You seem to think it's a good argument. Lets explore it in contrast to personhood. Then lets talk about the 14th amendment.

A fetus is not a "person" entitled to protection under the 14th Amendment. Even Justice Scalia thinks your argument is wrong.

Catholic Conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia Not Pro-Life PewSitter.com

It came as no surprise when a dear friend, Andy V. of Minnesota, wrote me concerning a comment Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made during an interview with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes on April 27 [2008]. Since I never watch network programming, which is, I presume, a blessing, I simply had no idea what the Catholic Scalia had said.

Perhaps you did, but in case you are uninformed, the following is from the transcript of that interview:

"What is the connection between your Catholicism, your Jesuit education, and your judicial philosophy?" Stahl asks.

"It has nothing to do with how I decide cases," Scalia replies. "My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don't count pregnant women twice."

Given the title of your thread, your absurd rant about women (hate speech, really), and your unwillingness to engage in a rational discussion, (i.e., repeating yourself and ignoring the law of the land), I suspect perhaps you're spewing anger at a woman in your life who would not let you control her mind and body.

Anyway, you don't get to control other people ... and that might be frustrating for you ... but you're not anyone's lord and master. If you insist on being a dictator, most people will run as fast as they can away from you.

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

O.k., so I'm accused of hating woman because I value all human life, everyone's human rights, and human equality for all? That's what this issue comes down to for me, but this isn't about basic human rights for the pro choice crowd at all. Is it? It's about wanting the legal right to evade accountability when two people make a mistake that involves the creation of a human life. The "mistake" could have been prevented with simple personal choices that don't involve the termination of the human life created. Accuse me of whatever you like. So far, I'm a liar, a misogynist, absurd, a dictator, a wanna be lord and master, etc. Is there anything else you people would like to add to this discussion that doesn't involve insult and accusation? You don't like my position? Fair enough. I no longer agree with yours. Insult, accusation, and willful refusal to discuss this issue without hostility seems to be the modus operandi. I gave my reasons for changing my position on the issue openly. I own that position. It's mine to bear. The way this discussion is going, and how these discussions typically go, I'll not be changing back and you won't be changing either. This was never my intention to begin with. Thanks for the amicable discussion folks. Well, at least some were willing to actually discuss the issue without all the negativity. Others, not so much.

 

[Scorpion]

Liberals are all about science until one has an 'inconvenient' pregnancy.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I always find it fascinating that men who can never experience the joy anguish or pain of pregnancy are obsessed with abortion? The amount of internet bandwidth that goes into this debate must astound, it may even beat Hitler or Munich references? It's so simple when all you have to do is expound on a subject that for most of us will never even be decisive. But the poor soul who has made a mistake or has accidentally become pregnant must face a world that knows what's best for you and will kill to prove it.

Abortion is the hypocrite's crutch, it requires nothing of the hypocrite, controlling the lives of another person is what they desire most, taking care of or assisting the same person is something they loathe. Empty moralizing is their trademark. A child dies every 15 seconds in the world of natural causes, do you ever hear the hypocrites mention them? And every married couple, every month aborts life, unless they attempt to conceive the potential life present, they just pretend it is something other than what it is. The same people who argue against supporting a woman's right to contraceptive medicine, gladly pay for boner medicine, I guess males matter more than women in their world, and so it goes.

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

''God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul,' Conservative evangelicals didn’t always care much about abortion or contraception. The strange story of how they came to be obsessed with them.' By Jamelle Bouie

"In his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics, Jonathan Dudley notes that most evangelicals held far more liberal views at the time. “God does not regard the fetus as a soul no matter how far gestation has progressed,” wrote professor Bruce Waltke of Dallas Theological Seminary in a 1968 issue of Christianity Today on contraception and abortion, edited by Harold Lindsell, a then-famous champion of biblical “inerrancy.” His argument rested on the Hebrew Bible, “[A]ccording to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”"

Hobby Lobby and contraception How conservative evangelicals went from not caring about abortion and birth control to being obsessed with them.

Hm...

Is lack of proper health care legalized murder? Is collateral damage murder? Are sanctions which only kill children and the sickly murder? Is the lack of a fair wage and a place to sleep murder? If parents can be held accountable for their children after birth and society finds it acceptable to punish them, then shouldn't all those who argue against healthcare, child support, food programs, and welfare, shouldn't they too be held accountable? Is invading a sovereign nation on trumped up charges murder? Did you protest Iraq? Did you cry these crocodile tears? So called pro life may be the biggest hypocritical religious position of modern America as none of these people want to support the living, feed the hungry, stop war, or follow their own phony stance and have lots of children. None would take care all the children born except to place them into servitude and condemn them. Hypocrites all.

Why is it that men who cannot make this decision know the proper decision? Keep your religion out of other people lives.

Does pro-life include not eating and killing other life forms for surely they suffer and die at a more advanced level of life and feeling?

Each month a women, a couple, decide on whether the cells, the potential person cells are to be discarded or if they are to attempt a conception and thus life. If they choose not to create life, is that OK, for surely this is life (cellular life) being discarded? Why are some cells more important than other cells.

Two out of five (or more) conceptions end naturally, who is at fault here? Nature, god, who? Are these conceptions humans? If so support an effort to end this.

How is it that a decision, a moral judgment, that a women or a couple makes is thought of as wrong by another person or entity who have no authority to tell or command another person? And not only do not care but would be offended if asked to support or raise the child. It is so easy to preach and have superior values when nothing is required.

I repeat when anti-abortion foes stop the needless deaths of living, feeling humans throughout the world who die every 15 seconds, when they even care and protest that this happens, when they protest wars that kill the innocent, when they provide welfare and care for the homeless and the hungry in America and the world, then I will take them serious. But until then they are hypocrites because their only desire is to control another who they do not care about and probably condemn. It's so easy to be moral when nothing is required of you and you do nothing but preach and legislate.

"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." HISTORY OF ABORTION

the reason people are so obsessed with ending abortion is because they have not overcome a necessary mental barrier. this sis one of those issues where clear philosophical thought is imperative, and the people who are not capable of that default and say "stop killing babies" when in fact, if you think about it, abortion is not really murder, at least not of a sentient being. and besides, as you said, people die more than once every five seconds. another thing that people cannot seem to understand is that unless you know a person or that person was affecting your life, if they die it is not any different than any other person dying. I thought of this recently when someone in my community was diagnosed with cancer, and their family started fundraising. practically everyone donated money. many of them never give to charity. their $50 would have made a much larger difference loaned out to people through kiva, or paying for a child to have surgery to fix his cleft lip, but never mind that, they would rather make paying medical bills a little easier for some kids parents than actually make a difference, only because they live closer.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

O.k., so I'm accused of hating woman because I value all human life, everyone's human rights, and human equality for all? That's what this issue comes down to for me, but this isn't about basic human rights for the pro choice crowd at all. Is it? It's about wanting the legal right to evade accountability when two people make a mistake that involves the creation of a human life. The "mistake" could have been prevented with simple personal choices that don't involve the termination of the human life created. Accuse me of whatever you like. So far, I'm a liar, a misogynist, absurd, a dictator, a wanna be lord and master, etc. Is there anything else you people would like to add to this discussion that doesn't involve insult and accusation? You don't like my position? Fair enough. I no longer agree with yours. Insult, accusation, and willful refusal to discuss this issue without hostility seems to be the modus operandi. I gave my reasons for changing my position on the issue openly. I own that position. It's mine to bear. The way this discussion is going, and how these discussions typically go, I'll not be changing back and you won't be changing either. This was never my intention to begin with. Thanks for the amicable discussion folks. Well, at least some were willing to actually discuss the issue without all the negativity. Others, not so much.

I don't consider abortion murder. nobody is accusing you of anything, but you have not thought through the issue. I ask you to think about it. think about it his subject requires philosophical consideration. you changed one way, which means you are not one of those people who takes a position and refuses to give it up no matter how incorrect it is (really hate those). im just asking you to think about it.

 

[Debra K]

O.k., so I'm accused of hating woman because I value all human life, everyone's human rights, and human equality for all? That's what this issue comes down to for me, but this isn't about basic human rights for the pro choice crowd at all. Is it? It's about wanting the legal right to evade accountability when two people make a mistake that involves the creation of a human life. The "mistake" could have been prevented with simple personal choices that don't involve the termination of the human life created. Accuse me of whatever you like. So far, I'm a liar, a misogynist, absurd, a dictator, a wanna be lord and master, etc. Is there anything else you people would like to add to this discussion that doesn't involve insult and accusation? You don't like my position? Fair enough. I no longer agree with yours. Insult, accusation, and willful refusal to discuss this issue without hostility seems to be the modus operandi. I gave my reasons for changing my position on the issue openly. I own that position. It's mine to bear. The way this discussion is going, and how these discussions typically go, I'll not be changing back and you won't be changing either. This was never my intention to begin with. Thanks for the amicable discussion folks. Well, at least some were willing to actually discuss the issue without all the negativity. Others, not so much.

You're building numerous straw men arguments and swinging at them with all your might. It's not inviting or appealing.

In fact, your arguments are all about YOU, which is very narrow-minded.

You have the right to believe whatever you choose to believe ... but other people have that same right.

You do not have the right, however, to impose your beliefs on other people.

It doesn't matter how angry you get or how much you think you're right ... other people have minds of their own and are entitled to use them.

You have chosen to discuss a subject that has already been determined.

Women have the right to determine for themselves whether or not they will carry a pregnancy to term. You might not like that women have that power of self-determination over their own bodies and lives, but that circumstance doesn't change the law of the land.

That power over procreation does not belong to you ... it doesn't belong to voters ... it doesn't belong to the government. Thus, your opinion on the subject isn't relevant to anyone.