You have a second rate mind. This is not over and in the end there are no winners here. You want babies to be born but you don’t care about them at all after that.
questions for abortion supporters in this thread.
at what point in a pregnancy is abortion WRONG and why?
Is 1 milisecond before it exits the birth canal and is born ok?
while in the birth canal?
right before labor pains?
whats your standard?
If the child is born 3 months premature and I intended on getting a late term abortion but couldn't perform in time can I "abort" the child during the delivery?
Why draw the line at conception. Why isn't a sperm a person? It is also capable of being a human. Of course it needs things to become a human, but so does a fetus. Drawing the line at conception really isn't any less arbitrary than saying sperms are also people. In which case masturbating should be illegal.
Alternatively, the genetic material could be defined as a person once it realizes it exists as an entity (this is typically around 1 years old).
These two lines seem quite extreme, but they are only to highlight how absurd it is to being drawing the line based on the definition of a person.
An alternative. Say you wake up in a hosptial and you are connected via some medical device to a stranger. If you undo the device and leave, the strager dies. Sha'll you be destined to live in the hospital bed for the rest of your life? It surely would be noble. I think most people would say though that the stranger has no right to your body and you can leave if you want. But anti-abortion folks need to say that you are mandated to stay in the bed hooked up to the stranger for the rest of your life.
Not false in the least. You evidently have no understanding of statistics and maybe less of modern science. Fewer than 1.5% of abortions are due to rape or incest. About 6% are for the health of the mother. Ectopic pregnancies and genetic issues are typically discovered in the first ultrasound (typically between 10-12 weeks) and subsequent amnio. If an individual would terminate a pregnancy due to a genetic condition (not all people would), there are NIPTs that can indicate the need for a confirming amnio for most conditions. My wife and I were told that one of our identical twins had a marker for downs syndrome (nuchal translucency outside of normal during the 10 week ultrasound). We didn't do the amnio because we wouldn't terminate the pregnancy because we would not end the life just because it might be imperfect (and because the odds that one identical twin would have downs and the other would not were exceedingly rare).
The thing that nobody talks about is how ineffective abortion is as a policy as a means of decreasing out of wedlock births. Before Roe v. Wade, the incidence of out of wedlock births was far lower than in the aftermath (even before Carter further destroyed the institution of marriage with the WIC program). This is because women were less likely to engage in sex outside of marriage (the percentage of 16-year-old females who had engaged in sex jumped from 13.8% from 1965-1969 to 28.1% by 1975-1979 after abortion and the pill became widespread). The increase in engagement in high-risk behavior due to the perceived risk reduction from the availability of contraception and abortion more than overcame the perceived reduction in risk provided by the availability of those same prevention strategies. Out of wedlock births increased from 322,000 to 515,000 over that same period (even with abortions among unmarried increasing from 88,000 to 985,000). So, the increased availability of abortions and the pill led to a 60% increase in out of wedlock births (and an increase in pregnancies overall by 265%. I'd call that a failure of policy.
An analysis of out-of-wedlock births in the United States (brookings.edu)
There's a difference between people reporting having sex out of wedlock and it actually happening. Also your quoting stats from 50 years ago and including a time-period where there was a "sexual revolution". Also, it's free goddam country, I don't give an S about people having sex outside of marriage. What gives you the right to judge people for their sexual behavior? Seriously. It is also a HUUUUGE misconception that married women don't have abortions. That is completely untrue, they are a large demographic group that need access to these services.
Your "facts" about ectopic pregnancies are just plain wrong. The first symptoms of ectopic prgnancy begin within 12 weeks, it absolutely CAN happen where it is not found out much later than 15 weeks, generally symptoms develop before then, but misdiagnosis happens all the time!!
Your information about genetic testing is also not correct. Yes there are many tests that begin within that time-frame, MANY POOR WOMEN DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS TO PRE-NATAL CARE and will not be tested until much later in their pregnancies. MANY PRE-TEENS and TEENAGERS WHO GET PREGNANT DO NOT KNOW THEY NEED TO GET TESTED AND HIDE THEIR PREGNANCIES UNTIL MUCH LATER INTO THE PREGNANCY. We should not force them to carry fetuses that are essentially dead in the womb. Same goes for anyone who has been raped, immigrants, refugees, people who normally have irregular periods (those with fibriods, endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome, or have IUD's,) might not KNOW they are pregnant until after 15 weeks. It happens. We don't live in a Utopia. There are so, so many examples where your perfect little time-frame just does not fit. So then it is just a rule that punishes these women for circumstance out of their control. And then it also gets into a creepy place where everyone is up in a woman's business when they are just trying to figure something out with their Dr's. Yes their should be a limit, and most people agree that it is if the fetus reaches a point where it is viable for life outside of the uterus, then an abortion should not be allowed to happen (unless there are extreme/severe circumstances at play)
Then you have health conditions that put mothers' at risk, where they have to decide to keep a fetus or abort. A terrible, terrible decision AND a private one. Some of those include finding out they have agressive cancer and need to undergo chemo immediately to survive, even though they are pregnant, or people who have rare heart conditions or who need to take blood thinners to stay alive, who find out they are pregnant and discuss options with their MD, and try for a healthy pregnancy but have "health scares" or emergencies later on that require a choice between keeping the pregnancy or literally continuing to risk their life. People who have severe seizure disorders, kidney/liver disease, autoimmune disease, type 1 diabetes. I've listed high risk situations, there are so so many.
What if something happens late-term? A car accident that deprived the fetus of Oxygen for too long of a period, so they are essentially brain dead but still have a heart beat? What about placental abruption where the placenta disconnects suddenly from the lining of the uterus, depriving the fetus of essential nutrients? You would force these people both to A) tell you everything about their specific health care situations to justify a needed medical procedure and or B)force them to keep something that is essentially dead inside of them for months, just so it can maybe, just maybe take one breath after labor then immediately die?
Even after you say all of these example are ok/exceptions for the rule, why then are they ok and not "murder" but a woman choosing to end a pregnancy because it's just not right for her "murder"? Same argument goes for rape. You are not a Doctor, you are not an OBGYN, you think you KNOW more than you do, you cannot replace these medical professionals, there are too many scenarios you just don't understand because you have not studied nor encountered them in your life. That's why it is between the MD and their patient, not up to pencil pushing law-makers or armchair laymen like you and me.
What do you think caused the sexual revolution? And in another post you said you were opposed to late term abortions, but above you just gave a bunch of reasons for them. Which is it?
Hearing a lot of Leftists, from Obama to Whoopi, say that abortion is a "difficult choice." Okay, please explain why. The only answer: because there is the life of a preborn child involved. Now explain why your personal interests allow for its death.
I'm an older guy whose views on abortion have evolved quite a bit over the years.
I was raised a catholic and was taught that abortion was wrong.
I grew up, shrugged off religion, but retained many of the core values I was raised with in a catholic family. This included opposition to abortion. I don't believe in god, or gods, but that has nothing to do with it for me. The idea of terminating a human life is heinous to me.
For me, personally, the idea of abortion remains abhorrent.
All that said, the idea of abortion is also entirely hypothetical for me. I'll never have to get one myself, being a guy. I'll also never father another child.
For many other people, abortion is a very real consideration. It's not my place to decide for them what is right or wrong. That's a societal decision. In a perfect world, society would get it right, but the reality is that society's views are influenced strongly by those with no skin in the game; men like me for whom the choice is purely hypothetical.
In my ideal world, the legality of abortion would be decided only by those with skin in the game, namely women. I might not like what they might decide, but it doesn't affect me the same way it affects them.
In summary, I abhor the idea of abortion and am strongly opposed to it from a philosophical point of view. At the same time, I believe quite strongly that I have no business voicing my own views and influencing the lives of those with a legitimate interest in the question, namely women.
I'm pro-choice and a constitutionalist, so looking at it from the gov's perspective, there is nothing explicitly in the constitution that makes abortion legal etc. Roe v Wade wasn't even about abortion itself but rather a woman's right to privacy...and privacy is spelled out in the constitution. So it's a stretch to say that abortion should be legally defined by the gov without ant explicit law. However, leaving it up to the states is obviously hugely problematic especially given those states in areas like the bible belt. Ultimately, we can't flip flop when it comes to gov intervention and Ive seen a number of issues where people clutch their pearls at the thought of gov ruling but then adamantly want gov ruling on something they should have no jurisdiction over. The only real solution here is to make this a bill and sign it into law....which has been proposed and passed through the senate before, though I think it failed at the house. People should be yelling at their reps to sign abortion protection into law so that the gov finally has a leg to stand on when ruling...otherwise Roe V Wade can definitely be seen as unconstitutional given the scope of the law.
Maybe if you could actually read, you'd see that I explicitly said the opposite.
You’re right, I missed the end of your first paragraph. You are consistent in believing that people aren’t ultimately in charge of their own bodies. I guess if you need my blood, you can throw me in jail to take it from me, whether or not I want to give it.
These women are fully in charge of their own bodies. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the women getting abortions were fully in charge in the creation of those children, not the "evil christian white male fascists." But it's not the woman's body that's in question, it's the child that she's trying to kill. What you and the anti-lifers are doing is arbitrarily defining who gets to be a person and who gets to be in charge of their bodies based on what's the most convenient to you.
"Roe v Wade wasn't even about abortion itself but rather a woman's right to privacy...and privacy is spelled out in the constitution."
What?
No matter how you feel about abortion, if you’re intelligent and honest you should agree that Roe was a flagrantly terrible decision. It located a “right to abortion,” which is not in the Constitution, within the “right to privacy,” which is also not in the Constitution.
Hearing a lot of Leftists, from Obama to Whoopi, say that abortion is a "difficult choice." Okay, please explain why. The only answer: because there is the life of a preborn child involved. Now explain why your personal interests allow for its death.
Explain why the women carrying same said unborn child cant decide and why a bunch of strangers get to decide? Abortion is part of health care which as the most developed country to ever exist we should be expanding and improving NOT moving back to the dark ages.
What other Pro-life/Anti abortion measures are you willing to support?
Improved and more readily available sex-ed?
Free contraception?
Both have proven to reduce abortion rates drastically without banning a potentially life saving medical procedure.
But the goal here is not to reduce abortion but to inflict a religious based moral code on a single gender who you view whose only purpose is to produce children.
What's next for the supposed freedom loving extreme right movement in the US?
The big question is whether women will be able to figure out how to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Maybe stop raping them.
Just like Bill Cosby's so-called victim. Nobody's raping that, or the vast majority of women that claim to have been assaulted. Stop blaming men, and close your legs. And if you do get pregnant, killing a baby at 5 months gestation is just that, killing a baby.
"Roe v Wade wasn't even about abortion itself but rather a woman's right to privacy...and privacy is spelled out in the constitution."
What?
No matter how you feel about abortion, if you’re intelligent and honest you should agree that Roe was a flagrantly terrible decision. It located a “right to abortion,” which is not in the Constitution, within the “right to privacy,” which is also not in the Constitution.
idk what you're "what"-ing about when you literally said what I did. We are saying the same thing, buddy. When I said privacy is spelled out, I was referring to the 14th amendment which is widely interpreted as privacy protection. Linking abortion rights to privacy protection via the 14th amendment is obv a stretch which is why the ruling falls apart.
Hearing a lot of Leftists, from Obama to Whoopi, say that abortion is a "difficult choice." Okay, please explain why. The only answer: because there is the life of a preborn child involved. Now explain why your personal interests allow for its death.
Explain why the women carrying same said unborn child cant decide and why a bunch of strangers get to decide? Abortion is part of health care which as the most developed country to ever exist we should be expanding and improving NOT moving back to the dark ages.
What other Pro-life/Anti abortion measures are you willing to support?
Improved and more readily available sex-ed?
Free contraception?
Both have proven to reduce abortion rates drastically without banning a potentially life saving medical procedure.
But the goal here is not to reduce abortion but to inflict a religious based moral code on a single gender who you view whose only purpose is to produce children.
What's next for the supposed freedom loving extreme right movement in the US?
Great points.
I just hope that the freedom loving extreme right movement in the US is now going after all these guns who bring death to so many every year. That has to be stopped to.
Hearing a lot of Leftists, from Obama to Whoopi, say that abortion is a "difficult choice." Okay, please explain why. The only answer: because there is the life of a preborn child involved. Now explain why your personal interests allow for its death.
Exactly, if a zygote was just a lifeless pile of goo it would not be a "difficult choice" at all. All these leftists are deluding or being intentionally disingenous themselves when they say an unborn person is not alive. It's all just mental gymnastics so they can convince others and themselves that murder in this case is the moral thing to do. They strategically and arbitrarily apply logic in order to win whatever argument they're in at a given moment.
At the time of the 14th Amendment abortion was criminalized in every single state. So, by definition, it provided ZERO abortion rights or right to "privacy".
5 unelected liberal judges in black robes invented abortion rights out of thin air.
I’d like to ask those with an anti abortion stance whether:
1) Should couples who have created fertilized embryos be able to discard them or must they be frozen indefinitely if not used, or do these embryos have a right to be implanted in somebody’s uterus?
2) Should it be illegal for a potential living organ donor, be it kidney, liver or even bone marrow, to refuse donation that would save somebody’s life?
79% percent of planned parenthood clinics are in minority neighborhoods. That is not by accident. That is by its founder, Margaret Sanger’s, eugenicist design.
Explain why the women carrying same said unborn child cant decide and why a bunch of strangers get to decide? Abortion is part of health care which as the most developed country to ever exist we should be expanding and improving NOT moving back to the dark ages.
What other Pro-life/Anti abortion measures are you willing to support?
Improved and more readily available sex-ed?
Free contraception?
Both have proven to reduce abortion rates drastically without banning a potentially life saving medical procedure.
But the goal here is not to reduce abortion but to inflict a religious based moral code on a single gender who you view whose only purpose is to produce children.
What's next for the supposed freedom loving extreme right movement in the US?
Great points.
I just hope that the freedom loving extreme right movement in the US is now going after all these guns who bring death to so many every year. That has to be stopped to.
Abortion has killed over 60,000,000 people since Roe. It is FAR deadlier than privately owned firearms and it's not even close.
The only thing that has killed more people than abortion is communism. Also one of the left's favorites...
Whether or not you view it as murder is up to you. I have a hard time seeing it that way. Tiny clumps of cells just can't get my sympathy I guess. The woman hating religious zealotry isn't helping.
Thanks for proving the point I made in my second paragraph. You are claiming that people are only deserving of life if elicit sympathy from you. Your morality judgements are based on your emotions at the time. Probably also tops the comment about there being too many people as the most psychopathic thing somebody has said on this tread.
So I’m a psychopath who bases my morality judgements on my emotions at the time. Inherently contradictory. If you thought zygotes were tiny humans, you would be baffled by how many die of natural causes. It’s basically a plague of miscarriages. The fact that we don’t talk about that at all or dedicate large amounts of resources to fixing that problems shows you what humanity thinks of zygotes. It’s really no different to me than the sperm or egg on its own.
Side note, humanity should be having more sex, not less. Sex is overwhelmingly a good thing. Brings people together. Birth control should be free and available to teenagers. I’m tired of pretending sex is bad because god said so.
I’d like to ask those with an anti abortion stance whether:
1) Should couples who have created fertilized embryos be able to discard them or must they be frozen indefinitely if not used, or do these embryos have a right to be implanted in somebody’s uterus?
2) Should it be illegal for a potential living organ donor, be it kidney, liver or even bone marrow, to refuse donation that would save somebody’s life?
These are really good points. When you undergo fertility treatment 6-12 eggs are usually successfully fertilized in a laboratory. But only one is implanted and the rest are destroyed.
I have yet to see a pro-life protest at a fertility center, only at abortion centers.
No, he or she isn’t saying that “only ‘people deserve life if they elicit sympathy.’”
You’re contending that the zygote, from the moment is formed, is a fully fledged and independent person and this person and myself and a majority of the United States are saying, “no it isn’t.”
If I assume your position, then yes, I think we’d need to state to somehow monitor every person capable of bearing children to regulate and prevent untimely deaths of these recently created people. About half of zygotes fail to implant. Assuming your view would posit that around of all people die before they reach an advanced stage of gestation.
And if you assume my position, that a developing human fetus because a fully fledged person somewhere later in the pregnancy, then these early stage abortions we’re discussing aren’t murder at all.
I’m not asking you to agree with my position on personhood in the stages of human gestation, but do you agree that if one holds my view that I’ve just described, then a first trimester abortion is not murdering anyone?
"Everyone agrees" it's not a human life? This idea could only be brought to us by the same group of Einsteins telling us that biological males can be "women" (and vice versa). What a triumph for science!
If this "clump of cells" is not a human life, can you explain to everyone why there is a "medical imperative" to destroy these cells via abortion?
I think that everyone recognizes these cells and the potential they represent: human life. Pro-lifers acknowledge this directly, and Abortionists acknowledge it by demanding that they must be allowed abort this life form in order to prevent it from gaining consciousness.
Do whatever mental gymnastics you need to perform in order to justify actions which are convenient for you, but, make no mistake, this is a human life we are talking about.
I didn't write "everyone agrees," I wrote that "a majority of the United States" doesn't consider a zygote and the embryo at the earlier stages of human gestation to be a fully fledged person, which is true. Find me someone who is putting the contents of women's monthly cycles under the microscope to see if a zygote or tiny embryo has been ejected to see if a life has been lost.
If the zygote/early-stage embryo isn't a person, what's the point of abortion? To arrest the process that, if uninterrupted, will lead to the formation of a distinct and fully-fledged person. If I plant an avocado seed in the ground, I don't immediately have a sapling. But if I wait long enough and allow it the right conditions, I will.
The mental gymnastics I see in this case come from you. You're fooling yourself if you believe that banning abortion wholesale will actually stop abortions. They've happened throughout the history of human society and will continue to happen as long as there are unwanted pregnancies. If you want zero or as close to zero abortions to take place, then work towards providing those conditions that make unwanted pregnancies a thing of the past: comprehensive sex education, ease of access to multiple forms of birth control, financial resources for expectant mothers. This isn't a mystery. Women will tell you why they decided to end a pregnancy.
And side note on your snide remark on gender identity: if everyone in your society treats and addresses you as a man, then that's your gender identity, regardless of what your biological make up is. Plenty of societies in history had more than two genders and it wasn't an issue for them.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.