Abortion = Murder

If you want to discuss the issue of slavery in the colonies & in the fledgling US, we can do that. Just set up another thread, & we can have @ it.

 

All analogies are irrelevant. Women should have and do have the right to terminate their pregnancy for pretty much any reason.

 

Again, you limit your perspective to your own. If it were as simple as you state, there would be no issue.

The fundamental issue is the status of the unborn child - is it a person with rights or not? If it is a person with rights as pro-life people argue, then the same laws must apply to born and unborn, and killing a child born or unborn is murder with the exception that the life of the mother is significantly at risk.

 

Then why are states moving to ban abortion after 20 weeks? Why is there such a fight over the supreme court? Why are sentiments about abortion in flux? Because the tide is turning.

So far this is not a debate. If you want to change a persons position, then you have to address the issues that motivate that position. You refuse to see any basis for the pro-life argument so you cannot address the issues which motivate a pro-life position. Simply claiming "its the law" doesn't even come close to convincing anyone.

 

The post was not about slavery, it was addressing an attitude of another poster - if you want to address posts to others, read the previous posts leading up to it so you understand the context.

 

Exactly. In current law, there is no issue to abortion in the US under the guidelines of Roe v. Wade. The status of the fetus is marginal, until the fetus achieves viability. Abortion is freely permitted the woman in the 1st trimester. The fetus is not a person in the view of the law, nor does it have much protection under Roe, until it achieves viability.

 

deleted - duplicate

 

The state legislatures are moving to attempt to ban abortion after 20 weeks - it's just a matter of time before that is appealed up to the various courts & to the Supreme Court, which may hear the case or refuse, or simply remand it to a lower court. It looks to me like an attempt to chip away @ Roe v. Wade, but that's up to the SC. sentiments about abortion may indeed move about. But if that doesn't translate into steady pressure on the various legislatures, including Congress, it's a moot point.

Yah, this isn't much of a debate - in that your arguments are extra-legal. If you don't address the legality of Roe, you default to the status quo. I'm not sure it's possible to convince an anti-abortionist. On the positive side, abortion rates seem to be going down in the US. I hope it's that birth control information/education is widely dispersed & people take precautions when they don't wish to become parents. A few more long-term studies will tell the tale.

 

Law allows it. Period.

 

NO, you do NOT want EVERYONE to have the same rights...YOU want fetuses to have the right to us another person's body to sustain their lives , a right NO ONE ELSE HAS.




And as you have been told sexual intercourse and pregnancy are two different things but your comment on it proves you simply want to punish women for having sex....you want to take away THEIR rights , a punishment for having sex by forcing them to gestate and give birth....

 

I have an idea. Instead of suggesting that women who don't want to get pregnant quit having sex, why don't all the men who think abortion is immoral quit having sex. Birth control does fail, and not all women can use it. Men are responsible for every pregnancy. So, quit having sex.

 

The law does not exist in a vacuum. The law can be changed, and the law can be wrong. What you seem to be arguing is that the law is static, once a case is decided then the issue is resolved permanently - an obviously false arrangement.

 

As I stated earlier, the law does not exist in a vacuum. Social attitudes change and affect the law, unconstitutional laws are created and exist for a time until repealed. You want to limit the argument to the legal case of Roe, and nothing else. That's because you like Roe.

And as I stated earlier, there are very good arguments supporting abortion, arguments that deal with abortion on the grounds that pro-life people use, but I have never seen anyone in this forum come even close to those arguments. All abortionists on this forum do is resort to "its the law" (which is your argument) and "if you don't like abortion then don't have one".

You fail to even begin to convince a pro-life person because you do not engage pro-life people on their terms, you want to discuss the issue on your terms - and the pro-life people automatically reject your terms. So you make zero progress and conclude its impossible to change the opinion of a pro-life person - but the flaw is in your argument, not the attitude of the pro-life person.

 

You:""All abortionists on this forum do is resort to "its the law" (which is your argument) and "if you don't like abortion then don't have one".



YES, the law is important to decent law abiding people especially since it protects people from those tyrants who want to impose their own personal morals and prejudices as law.


Engage Ant-Choice people on their own terms? WHY? They never have a fact, the operate soley on emotions. They scream , ""Women are MURRRRRderers!"

....WHY should anyone SINK to their level ????

They claim a fetus is a person with unlimited rights and no restrictions...unlike ANY OTHER PERSON.........I won't sink to their level of Fetus Worship.

They deny science and claim no woman has ever been harmed by pregnancy.....I don't want to "engage pro-life people on their terms " if that's what stupid things they think...

 

What are the "terms" of the "pro-lifers"? That all abortions must be illegal under the Law of the Land and women must be deprived of their Constitutional rights?

Those are LEGAL DEMANDS so it makes sense to refute those an-American demands with the Constitutional rights protected by the Law of the Land.

You don't get to demand that the law must be changed and then refuse to deal with the unconstitutionality of what you are demanding.

 

Yep, obviously. I noted as much somewhere on here, someone else pointed out that laws can be wrong. & the remedy - if a society & its laws diverge sufficiently - is to revisit the law. Slavery, Prohibition, voting rights, property rights, who can inherit - have all changed over time in the US. (The other remedy would be to revisit society, or some combination of the two. We hardly ever look to change society, though.)

Where does your notion that an embryo is a person come from? Traditional ideas on that go back to quickening, when the fetus begins to move spontaneously, typically well into the 2nd trimester. & what makes that particular idea immune to time & the march of technology/science/biology?

 

Nah, you may wish it were so. & while we're @ it, I also noted previously that Roe v. Wade is vulnerable to technology/medicine/biology. Roe figures fetal viability as the bright line, beyond which the state can regulate abortion fully. The anti-abortion side needs to make hay while it can - very soon - in the next 20 or 30 years or so - we'll be able to transfer a fetus to a substitute or host uterus - possibly an ape (because they're close to human), possibly a ruminant; & sometime after that - another 10 years? - we'll be able to place the fetus in an artificial uterus. We can already artificially inseminate a host human uterus - that's been around for a while.

Once that biological threshold is crossed, all of the anti-abortion arguments collapse, as far as I can tell. Or do you have a response to that scenario?

 

Peoples attitudes regarding abortion change as medical science improves.
Imaging and the understanding of the development of an unborn brings better insight into the issue.
The improved ability of medical science expands peoples thought horizon. What was impossible 50 years ago is now routine - the ability to care for the unborn including performing surgery; severely injured adults who 50 years ago would have died can now be treated and recover to productive life; a person can be kept alive beyond a reasonable quality of life; even "dead" people can be kept alive.
End of life concerns, alzheimers, and aging make people think deeper about what it means to be alive and be "human".

People are more knowledgeable today than people 50 years ago.

 

Very good. Does that mean that the anti-abortion faction will go away once abortions go down to an absolute minimum?

 

Please tell me how you expect gestation , the forming of a fetus, to go faster......


Will gestation devolve into 8 months, 5 months, 2 months? WHY hasn't it yet???????

It's been thousands of years at 9 months why do you think it will change?

Are you talking about artificial wombs where a fetus can be taken out of a woman at 2 months and grown?

How would that affect women's rights to their own bodies or abortion?????

 

Once the number of abortions drop below some low threshold, I believe the entire issue will drop off the public radar because abortion will no longer be a "feminist" concern. Abortionists see the issue as a "womans issue" and they ignore the baby, once women have an alternative to abortion or no longer need abortion as a means of birth control, abortion is no longer an issue for "feminists" and political opportunists.

Pro-life priority is the baby and that issue still remains even with abortion at a low level, although the rhetoric and "volume" of the debate will decrease particularly with the removal of the "feminists" .

 

Charming quote marks. Yah, I think the spotlight will shift from abortion to the question of equity for women - especially single mothers. We - the society @ large in the US - need to make sure those mothers & children get the education & training & life opportunities they need to rise above their circumstances, whatever those may initially be - assuming that the mothers & children (& fathers, for that matter) want to rise in the World. I just read Hillbilly elegy, by J.D. Vance - an eye-opening memoir/account of the Scots-Irish in Appalachia in the US. Those people - that culture, & the Black & Hispanic cultures in inner cities - need the same kind of help in understanding the education system & society & economy they're in. We won't have much social tranquility until we find a way to assuage those desires.

& yes, we need to extend the same kind of help & education & guidance & acculturation to life in the US to anyone who asks. I would think that model programs already exist, I assume that we're doing something similar for the refugees who were coming in from the Middle East & other hotspots in the World. & if not, we need to do so.

 

HOW do you plan to have abortions "drop below some low threshold " ?

If they're below YOUR "threshold" will they be okeydokey?

WHAT is your "alternative" to abortion? There is only one and that's pregnancy with child birth.......


Has someone invented the perfect, safe, affordable to all, accessible to all birth control????


Why do you think women should be forced to use it?


You: ""Pro-life priority is the baby""


No, it isn't. In Minnesota the Republicans do NOT want state workers to get 6 weeks off for maternity leave.

The first six weeks are some of the most important for BABIES and the Anti-Choice faction doesn't care.

 

I normally ignore your posts because they rarely reflect the conversation. But in that post you so blazingly miss all the points that its hilarious. Learn to read what is posted, learn to read what is written and not what you imagine is written.

 

LOL! You can't answer the questions.....They make your whole argument collapse They address exactly what YOU wrote.


Want to try again without evading?:

HOW do you plan to have abortions "drop below some low threshold " ?

If they're below YOUR "threshold" will they be okeydokey?

WHAT is your "alternative" to abortion? There is only one and that's pregnancy with child birth.......


Has someone invented the perfect, safe, affordable to all, accessible to all birth control????


Why do you think women should be forced to use it?


You: ""Pro-life priority is the baby""


No, it isn't. In Minnesota the Republicans do NOT want state workers to get 6 weeks off for maternity leave.

The first six weeks are some of the most important for BABIES and the Anti-Choice faction doesn't care.