You don’t understand and just keep creating your strawman argument. If your wife was going to die at any point in her pregnancy, what would you do?
FoxHastings said: ↑ Whole thread was a silly waste of time, no point to it... I support having NO abortion laws whatsoever...ever... It's a medical procedure, it is regulated.
Like Frankenstein? LOL Seriously thought it's about when does a fertilized egg which is obviously alive become human life worthy of human rights. First trimester most people think it's no more human than the hair on your head and can be just as easily removed but by the third trimester nearly everyone believes it's a human being and has a right to life just as it would after it's officially born.
I think at some point in this thread I decided you were just trolling and cut you out of the conversation. If it wasn't you it was someone just like you. LOL
No, "nearly everyone" does NOT agree it becomes a human being in the third trimester and has a right to life just as it would after birth. Most people do agree that in the third trimester of the life/health of woman and/or fetus is in jeopardy the fetus can be killed without asking it's permission.
Likely it was me as I tend to call out dishonestly and pointless garbage, many who post this get angry or defensive and try to make me go away. I usually just blow these individuals off with a simple Have A Nice Day though. Have A Nice Day
No. You posted bullshit and you didn't improve on the OP which is about "people eventually changing from pro-choice to pro-life."
Not strawman. The principal has to be consistent throughout the pregnancy, regardless of how many actually make use of the ability. Now I am not talking about a doctor's willingness, and I did stipulate earlier in the thread that there does come a point where logistically it is easier on the woman to just have an induced birth vs an abortion. But, again regardless of how many would bother to exercise it, does the right exist for a woman to have her pregnancy end at any point in the third trimester? If not why is this not inconsistent with the idea of bodily autonomy?
You do realize that I am the one arguing that the woman has the right to end the pregnancy, for whatever reason, not just medical emergency, even at any point of the third trimester, right? That answer should be obvious
Hey you were the one saying NO abortion laws. Logically that would mean laws regulating the procedures a well. That's why I asked.
To which I did point out that you OP is not clear on that. It reads as if people change their stance politically/legally at some point, as opposed to personally. And very rarely do you make an effort to make this clear elsewhere. I had to pry it out of you by asking specific questions.
Abortion in the third trimester with a healthy fetus and healthy woman doesn’t happen.......I’ve worked in clinics for years and never saw one case like that
FoxHastings said: ↑ Whole thread was a silly waste of time, no point to it... I support having NO abortion laws whatsoever...ever... It's a medical procedure, it is regulated. Nope, no logic in that at all.....just silliness...
No, but that doesn't stop me from pointing out good logic from my opposition or clarifying what they are saying if I am aware of it. Nor does it prevent me from noting faulty logic for those with whom I agree with the conclusion. That said, you still have not answered my question. Why isn't a law preventing abortions outside of lifesaving in the third trimester not a violation of a woman's bodily autonomy, but ones for the first or second are?
Thank you and I did just that. We took a really nice bike ride on the centennial trail along the Spokane river and took a nice swim too. And you?
Which is exactly what they do as statistics I've posted from multiple sources prove. By the third trimester very few people that start out pro choice such as myself go firmly pro life and turn against on demand abortion in overwhelming numbers.