Seriously...What is The Deal with Abortion?

[ThisIsMe]

What ever it is, it has no individual rights until viability (IMO). Until then, it's the mother's rights that are primary. As you point out about "goo", I think it's important to point out this:
Why can't a fetus be claimed as a dependent?
Why doesn't an embryo have an SS number or benefits?
Why do people say I have 3 children and one on the way instead of 4 children?
If you had an embryo and a baby already born and could only save one...which would it be?
Why is it far fewer seem to care about the hundreds or thousands of leftover embryos in storage that are eventually discarded or given to research? Where's all the fuss about genocide?

It isn't so black and white and the problem, from my view, is heavily one of rights (I don't believe in any inherent sanctity of human life above all other life) but I do believe in the right to make decisions on my own body and medical care, and as long as what is in my body, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, child, baby - all are accurate - can not exist outside it, it is part of my body and not an independent being with rights.

Why can't a fetus be claimed as a dependent?
Why doesn't an embryo have an SS number or benefits?
Why do people say I have 3 children and one on the way instead of 4 children?

Why do most women, shortly after pregnancy, but before the baby is born, form a strong emotional attachment? If it was just goo, it would be silly to form an emotional bond with it.

 

[Coyote]

It absolutely, is and you completely ignored what I said.

Again. The phrase “reproductive choices“ deals with reproduction. Once you’re pregnant you have already reproduced. It is beyond the point of reproduction. Therefore the phrase is blatantly dishonest.

Reproduction doesn't end with conception, it begins with it - in fact, most fertilized eggs (the moment of conception where some would give them rights) fail to even implant. Reproduction means it goes on to birth, its a process and THAT is what matters about reproductive choices - the the choice to prevent reproduction and the choice to interrupt it - it is all reproduction. You're playing semantical games.

Secondly, we’re not talking about your body, we’re talking about the human being you want to kill. So that’s another dishonest thing proaborts say.

Ah...so it's "proaborts" now. Well, you forced-pregnancy/anti-choicers come up against a wall here.

Either a person has rights or they don't. Who's rights are paramount? You would force an 11 yr old child victim of incest to carry to term. You would force a rape victim to carry to term. At that point you have removed rights and free agency from the woman and turned her into nothing more than a vehicle for a pregnancy. Can she be sued for miscarriage? For not taking vitamins? For missing a doctor's appointment? For not taking care of herself? For trying to commit suicide? For anything that could conceivably negatively impact the life inside her? Who's rights are more important? Try to make an internally consistent argument here.

And by the way, that argument is easily debunked. If “my body my choice” truly is what it all hinges on, then it should apply throughout the entire pregnancy.

Should it? At what point does the baby acquire rights that equal or supercede the host's (because that is all she is in your eyes)?

If I went with the anti-choice argument, it is at conception. That means even if the mother's life is threatened, if the pregnancy was forced on her - she could do nothing about it, not even a morning after pill. After all it applies through the entire pregnancy right. Nor could she use the most reliable means of birth control, such as IUD's because they prevent implantation (murder in your view).

So let me ask you this, and please answer with a yes or no. Do you think it is morally justifiable to butcher a baby in the womb who is literally minutes away from delivery, for no reason except the mother decided she didn’t want the baby? Yes or no? And don’t start with the reasons why late term abortions happen because that is completely irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make here. The point is if “my body my choice” really is what it all hinges on, then it would apply throughout the entire pregnancy, so answer the question please.

That's an easy answer: No.

But your question is is based on something that is false, it doesn't happen. It isn't even about "late term abortions" being rare. When a baby is that close to delivery it isn't an abortion, it is birth. The baby is born, whether cesarian or vaginal, it is not butchered.

So - let me ask YOU a similarly false question, with the SAME restrictions as you gave me: yes or no only please.

Do you think it is morally justifiable to butcher a pregnant woman, within the trimester of pregnancy, when an abortion would save her life?


No rights are unrestricted or without some responsibility including the right to one's own bodily choices.

I feel abortion should never be 100% illegal for the simple reason that the mother's life should always be prime unless she herself indicates she wants the child to have priority if a decision ever had to made. I also feel no woman should ever be forced to carry a dead child within her, unwillingly, and there are some birth defects that are severe (as in the child will die at birth or shortly after) and might not be detected until the later stages of pregnancy.

I think a reasonable point for the assumption of some independent rights is at viability, when it can survive outside of the mother's body.

 

[buttercup]

Why do most women, shortly after pregnancy, but before the baby is born, form a strong emotional attachment? If it was just goo, it would be silly to form an emotional bond with it.

It is interesting, isn’t it, that you can have two pregnant women at the exact same stage of pregnancy, and if the baby is wanted, it’s a baby…. but if the baby is unwanted, it’s ”goo.” The pre-born baby is the same in either case, which is why it’s completely illogical to claim that people decide when life begins. Um, no, we don’t arbitrarily decide when life begins, talk about anti-science.

 

[Coyote]

Hey, I get it. Its just goo, with no rights. Got it.

So, if someone pushes a pregnant woman down a flight of stairs and she miscarries, LOL, sucks to be you. Oh, and sorry they made a mess of your goo situation.

If a pregnant woman falls down the stairs and miscarries, you would have her arrested and tried for manslaughter. Sucks for the woman.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If a pregnant woman falls down the stairs and miscarries, you would have her arrested and tried for manslaughter. Sucks for the woman.

Baloney

 

[Coyote]

Why do most women, shortly after pregnancy, but before the baby is born, form a strong emotional attachment? If it was just goo, it would be silly to form an emotional bond with it.

I actually don't make the argument that it's "just goo", so I'm not sure where you are pulling that from unless you also regard pregnant women as little more than vessels. I have little doubt there is attachment...whether it's from neurochemicals or hormones or something much higher. If the baby is wanted, that is one thing. If the baby is unwanted, then in those early stages...what is it? A microscopic group of cells that might someday become a human being. If I were to hold an embryo in one hand and a day old baby in the other and said only one could be saved, what do you think most people would choose?

 

[Coyote]

Baloney

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/28/she-miscarried-after-being-shot-prosecutors-are-weighing-manslaughter-case-against-her/

These women say they had miscarriages. Now they're in jail for abortion.

In El Salvador, the law is clear: If you have an abortion, you go to jail. But many women say they were wrongfully convicted. Could it happen in the U.S.?

www.cbsnews.com

 

[buttercup]

That's an easy answer: No.

GOOD, that’s all I wanted to know, because that proves the “my body my choice“ argument is false. It doesn’t matter if late term abortion is rare, that’s completely irrelevant, because again, if the bodily autonomy argument is true and what it all hinges on, then it would apply throughout the entire pregnancy.

So your statement (which is sane, thank you) shows that it doesn’t hinge on that. What it really hinges on is when a human life begins.

I’m sorry for not replying to each one of your other points, I just don’t have time right now to go through it all point by point, but if I do later, I will.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Women aren’t a microscopic percentage.

Most women do not murder their own children, nor do they demand a right to do so.

 

[Coyote]

GOOD, that’s all I wanted to know, because that proves the “my body my choice“ argument is false. It doesn’t matter if late term abortion is rare, that’s completely irrelevant, because again, if the bodily autonomy argument is true and what it all hinges on, then it would apply throughout the entire pregnancy.

So your statement (which is sane, thank you) shows that it doesn’t hinge on that. What it really hinges on is when a human life begins.

I’m sorry for not replying to each one of your other points, I just don’t have time right now to go through it all point by point, but if I do later, I will.

Looks more like you are dodging having to answer BUT, I'll hold off on that opinion pending the answer.

But no it is not when "human life begins" that's not it at all. It technically begins at conception though my view is that until birth (or, living outside the mother) it is only a potential human life. The issue is at what point does it have "rights" that equal or supercede the woman's rights?

I already said I don't hold human life in and of itself any more sacred than other life.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Marjorie Dannenfelser: Left's outcry over Texas abortion ban has little to do with science, protecting women

For the past half century, the pro-abortion Left has attempted to deceive the American people about the science, facts, and the law surrounding abortion.

www.foxnews.com

The abortion issue affects a microscopic percentage of the American public. So far less than one percent that it is virtually un-measurable. And if abortions were totally outlawed (which in Latin one might refer to as the status quo ante - the way things used to be), MOST of the affected women would merely and painlessly change their reproductive behavior to adapt. Aside from rape, there is no reason for any woman to become pregnant in this country, if she actually does not want to get pregnant. And certainly, organizations like Planned Parenthood would make contraception, sterilization, and meaningful advice available to all. The result of an absolute ban on abortions would be a couple thousand "unwanted babies" each year in our nation of more than 330 million - babies for whom adoptive homes could be easily found.

And yet any threat to the Court-given and totally illegitimate "right to abortion" is treated as though it is a threat to ALL WOMEN, and indeed to ALL AMERICANS!

This is bullshit, on steroids.

What is the Real Reason for the hysteria about this matter? Is it just a fundraising tool for Democrats? Do Democrats really suppose that the female population is too stupid and careless to react appropriately to restrictions (or a ban) on abortions?

Their father is the devil.

Truly, some diabolical influence must be involved.

There is no practical reason at all for such a large portion of the population to give so much weight to demanding a “right” to kill innocent children in cold blood. It goes against instinct, it goes against common sense, it goes against common decency. If anything is the hallmark of a supernatural evil influence on Mankind, this is it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why is it the same people who claim life is precious want to kill brown people immigrating to this nation or want to nuke Muslims, cut off educational funding and welfare for children?

Defending our nation from foreign invaders and terrorists is not at all comparable to murdering innocent children in cold blood.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

or enthusiastically support a death penalty that has killed innocent people...

Errors happen. Some times someone who is innocent is convicted of a capital crime, and put to death. More often, a dangerous criminal is allowed to go free, and goes on to kill an innocent person.

An important point is that nobody gets the death penalty without a very stringent due process of law, to attempt to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he has, in fact, committed a serious enough crime to warrant such a punishment.

100% of the intentional victims of abortion are innocent. Not one baby murdered by this means ever committed any crime at all, much less any crime that rises to anywhere near the level to call for being put to death.

It takes a morally-fucked-up, subhuman, soulless sociopath such as yourself to even think of trying to make this comparison as you did.

You should be deeply ashamed, but to experience such shame would require you to have a conscience and a soul which you very obviously lack.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/28/she-miscarried-after-being-shot-prosecutors-are-weighing-manslaughter-case-against-her/

These women say they had miscarriages. Now they're in jail for abortion.

In El Salvador, the law is clear: If you have an abortion, you go to jail. But many women say they were wrongfully convicted. Could it happen in the U.S.?

www.cbsnews.com

WAPO..... baloney.

 

[colfax_m]

Most women do not murder their own children, nor do they demand a right to do so.

What makes you say the second part?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Errors happen. Some times someone who is innocent is convicted of a capital crime, and put to death. More often, a dangerous criminal is allowed to go free, and goes on to kill an innocent person.

An important point is that nobody gets the death penalty without a very stringent due process of law, to attempt to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he has, in fact, committed a serious enough crime to warrant such a punishment.

100% of the intentional victims of abortion are innocent. Not one baby murdered by this means ever committed any crime at all, much less any crime that rises to anywhere near the level to call for being put to death.

It takes a morally-fucked-up, subhuman, soulless sociopath such as yourself to even think of trying to make this comparison as you did.

You should be deeply ashamed, but to experience such shame would require you to have a conscience and a soul which you very obviously lack.

Leftists go to great extremes to prove a fetus isn't life....but goo on Mars would drive them to masturbation

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is crap like this that make me realize for many of these people, it isn't about children it is about controling [sic] and curtailing a woman's rights.

Society has a legitimate interest and duty to “control and curtail the rights” of an individual that intends and desires to unjustly murder another human being. In fact, that's perhaps one of the most essential legitimate functions of government, to protect the right of every human being not to be murdered.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Society has a legitimate interest and duty to “control and curtail the rights” of an individual that intends and desires to unjustly murder another human being. In fact, that's perhaps one of the most essential legitimate functions of government, to protect the right of every human being not to be murdered.

It's not life, it's a "zygote".....rolls eyes

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The fact humans have a very high rate of reproduction is not good.
It is a left over from before humans had not yet learned how to make defensive weapons, but no longer lived in the safety of treetops either.
It is a fatal reproductive rate that can not be sustained.
If not stopped, we will go extinct just as any species that over populates its resources does.
That will kill hundreds of times more people than abortions do.
And what better people to kill than those who do not yet care?
Would you rather they all got to be adults so they could die in horrible agony in the perpetual wars that over population always cause?

You act like sex is bad.
It isn't.
We are programmed to need sex, in order to even just be normal.
Implying sex is the problem is totally wrong.
Sex drive is inherent and can't be changes and should not be ignored.

If you think that it is justifiable to kill human beings, in order to reduce the population, then start with yourself.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If you think that it is justifiable to kill human beings, in order to reduce the population, then start with yourself.

A model every abortion supporting loon should consider