https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...n-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476 It's hardly off topic. Women feel they have a right to decide that supersedes the fetus' right to survive legal or not. Where is your argument?
You keep repeating the same fallacious gibberish - as if you have not been made of your fallacy numerous times. You have not proven - or even be able to make a reasonable case - that a child exists through all stages of pregnancy. Until you are able to do this - quit pretending that you have by assuming defacto that a child exists.
If the fetus is in between, the stage where it is both an entity and a non-child (wherever you feel that is), how much rights should it have? Say it's the stage right before you would consider it a "child" (still in the mother's womb though).
I would be interested in you answering your own question. I have answered all of yours and you, none of mine. Do you have answers?
How 'bout they give the woman one freebie abortion coupon, but she can't get another elective abortion after that. Surely the woman's individual reproductive rights are not worth the lives of TWO of these fetuses.
Uh, NO, rights are not limited to one use only....goodgawd! We don't get coupons to use our right to free speech once....rights aren't rationed..
When women get abortions, how often is it a zygote? That was my answer. There comes a point (or an interval) where the rights of the fetus should fall somewhere in between no rights and the rights of an adult human being. Even if the life of a fetus is worth less than the woman's reproductive choice, that still doesn't automatically mean there should be no restrictions on abortion.
"Does a fetus have rights" do you mean the right to use another human as a host without their consents? do you or I have that right, if I need your kidney can I just take it if I would die without it and you have an extra one?
That's not what electroencephalography studies reveal. The latest technology involves fetal Magnetoencephalography. It's sort of like an MRI, but can pick up the tiny electrical currents in the fetal brain. The technology is still in its infancy and they're still trying to resolves issues of resolution, since the fetal brain is smaller in size and it is having to go through the thicker layer of the woman's body.
Once significant brain function exists ... as per Electroencephalography - I agree that a human exists.
Why do I suspect Pro-choicers will be shifting the goal posts after this area becomes more well researched?
That answer is a little more clear. So you are pro-choice but want more restrictions than there already are. Does there need to be a way to adjudicate a woman's wish to have an abortion? Do we need to take into account past abortions, how many times did she take the morning after pill, her reasons for wanting the abortion, a psychological profile, her age, etc.?
WHY? WTF has the fetus's brain waves or lack thereof have to do with a woman's right to her own body? Absolutely nothing....
There are restrictions on abortion...where have you been for the last 20 years? And no, there really doesn't need to be restrictions on abortions but there is ...that does NOT GIVE FETUSES RIGHTS, it gives them , after viability, PROTECTIONS.
from a republicans views on the matter.... http://www.slate.com/id/2120872/ "a member of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn't possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain. Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead."
Shifting the goal posts from what to what - and in relation to what ? 1) If technology can show that sentience exists earlier than say 24 weeks to say 22 weeks then, it is what it is. I can't speak for other pro choice advocates but for me the goalposts do not move. The goalpost for what I consider to be a human is still sentience. 2) The legal argument is different than the moral argument. In cases where the fetus is past the above benchmark - a human from the moral perspective - you then have a case of conflicting rights between two humans. In the case where there is no legitimate "human" claim - this argument is no contest - the rights of the woman win by default. In the case where there is a legitimate "human" claim - the argument gets complicated.
What sums it up? I don't want to watch a sick Anti-women's rights film nor click on any Anti-Choicers link, so why don't you state what YOU take from this film? Your opinion.....?? Why do you think one person's opinion changes anything? If lack of "argument" is an indication then legal abortion is very safe
WHY? WTF has the fetus's brain waves or lack thereof have to do with a woman's right to her own body? Absolutely nothing.... Why did you leave this thread with unanswered questions?
Can I say, what a bizarre post. If you don't watch the video, then you won't know how the video sums up the thread. I can't feasibly watch the video and type out a dialogue of the entire video. The video is my opinion, watching the video will enlighten you to that opinion. To not watch the video, then you won't have a clue.
Guess I'm just not interested in the guy's opinion.....abortion is legal...and women have a right to their own bodies and noone can change that.
