Draconian Oklahoma Abortion Bill Goes Too Far

Its the primary one.

 

Interesting. Define "viability."

 

As in, in terms of being human life, there is no difference between an embryo, a very early stage fetus, and a viable fetus.

No, you are wrong.

So when is the process FULLY completed?

Yep, it's definitely not a house.

 

If moving away from a place you may have deep roots in, and family who live there, over political differences is a real solution, where will all the Repubs go who clearly don't like democracy?

 

I agree completely with your sentiments about abortion; I would say the same of my own feelings. What I disagree with you over is that something is missing from my logic. But first, be aware, that I am not making a general argument here, but a specific one. And because I am doing it with the very tight-lipped Chris 155au, I am not even sure what his argument is. But I think it was Arkanis, who referred to those on the Right, trying to ban abortion, as religious "nuts," to which Chris asked what religion had to do with it. So my answer is addressing the proposition that non- religious people are a notable part of the Pro- Life movement, which I find to be unlikely. I am also taking the word "religious," somewhat loosely: if one is a generic Christian, for example, who doesn't attend services, yet believes in God & Jesus, that would qualify, in my thinking. Yet, I still think the real center of that movement, is directly driven by preachers & their congregations.

All that said, the two arguments that I have most often heard, against abortion, are the unmistakably religious one, of the zygote containing a soul, from the moment of Conception, and the argument about the genetic blueprint for a complete human being contained in that forming fetus. This, in fact, is your own, essential argument. I would respond to that, much as I did-- theoretically, because he has not yet presented his argument-- to Chris. Just because, "if left alone, and nothing interferes," something would, ultimately happen, does not mean that one can treat things as if it already has. Life is not so assured. If a hyena comes upon a lion cub, she will not be afraid of it, because of what it will become, barring any unforeseen difficulties-- she will kill it, so that this never happens. That is not meant as a perfect analogy, obviously, just a demonstration of the point, that a thing is what it is at the time, not what it may become, if everything goes according to plan. There is no way you could be sure, for a more specific example, that a woman might not have a miscarriage, or a stillbirth.

I understand, though that this is a potential human, that we are discussing, and I do attribute value to that-- just not as much value as to an actually born infant. I don't see how you can claim them to be identical. Anyway, it is the value of this potential, which makes it a crime for anyone but the mother, to end its life, such as it is, which is not an independent life. As you'd said, this is due to the weight of the mother's own rights. But once a fetus becomes theoretically viable, outside of the womb, the mother's option to get rid of it, has expired. To be honest, even 24 weeks, I feel to be pushing it a bit, and don't know why it should take that long. To my mind, 20 weeks seems like it should be ample time, for the woman who wants to end her pregnancy, to do so, because the closer the fetus gets to viability, the more heavily one must weigh its right to life. But that is not what I am arguing with Chris. This argument is not about whether the cutoff should be 20 weeks, or 16 weeks, or 13 weeks, it is about those who wish to completely abolish abortion. And I think that Chris is incorrect, to maintain that it is not, by and large, religious fundamentalists, who are leading and soldiering that assault.

 

You really need more, to make an argument, Chris. Why does my house analogy-- with which you agreed-- not stand up, when it comes to the gestating human, under construction, not being different (as it, to all appearances is), at different stages of its development? I assume that you are aware that, in the first stages of life, the human embryo goes through what has been compared to a recapitulation of the evolutionary cycle, when it looks strikingly similar, at various points, to the embryos of fish, and amphibians, and so on. So please, sparing no words, explain how you see what exists, at those points, to be identical to the fetus in the birth canal, on the way to its delivery into the world. You realize that you have yet to put forth any argument, don't you?


Edit: And a person is always changing, so I am not trying to identify a static point, as should be obvious. There are nonetheless, certain thresholds that must be crossed, in order to fully qualify as a human being. Certainly one of the most important of these, has to do with higher brain function, which is the LAST thing to develop, in a human fetus.

BTW, I am not going to entertain endless questions of yours, if you are not going to lay out your actual argument, that the crusade to abolish abortion is not being led by those motivated primarily by religious zealotry.

 

I see NO ONE has been able to answer the question:


WHY does anyone think banning abortion will stop abortions?



It won't so I must conclude that misogynists just want women to suffer and/or legislators are extremely stupid.

 

Its the same definition its always been. The point at which the ZEF can live outside of the body.

 

Endless questions? How many of my reply sections was a question in my last reply?

 

Who said that it would?

 

And you acknowledge that this has evolved with medical technology? What if in the future a ZEF can at all stages of development live outside of the mother in an artificial womb in the case of some complication or even if the mother dies?

 

Abortion should only be allowed for extreme cases. Health of the fetus, health of the baby kind of deal. Rape victims I sympathize but it's odd to tell me that in order to make things right, we need to sacrifice a baby.

Have the baby, place it up for adoption. We should be trying to create a society that doesn't need to rely on immigration to replace the population. That's a broken society. Never mind that the act of abortion is barbaric and cruel.

Morning after pill is the olive branch and get out of jail free card. If you get raped. It should be an automatic that you use the morning after pill as soon as you can.

 

Knew someone would bring this up. My answer: Then let it. There is nothing saying that the mother cannot relinquish her Rights to the child. And to this day you can still drop a baby off at a church or Firehouse with no questions asked.

And it hasn't evolved all that much. RvW put it at 24 weeks. Right now its possible, but not always probable, for a baby to survive outside the womb at 22 weeks, and that is mainly due to advancements in prenatal care. If the mother didn't take care of her health or the babies that reduces drastically. 24 weeks is still considered the earliest best chance for viability.

 

UNCHERRY PICKED post:FoxHastings said: ↑
I see NO ONE has been able to answer the question:


WHY does anyone think banning abortion will stop abortions?
It won't so I must conclude that misogynists just want women to suffer and/or legislators are extremely stupid.

If it won't then why ban it?

It won't so I must conclude that misogynists just want women to suffer and/or legislators are extremely stupid.


And, chris, I am not going around and around with you over issues we've discussed before and I won't give you definitions of every word I use (like "the")

 

Oh so in that case we can just get rid of all laws on the books? Murder? Our murder laws haven't stopped murders. Theft laws, they haven't stopped theft. Strike the laws from the books!

Horrible use of "logic" there Fox.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
UNCHERRY PICKED post:FoxHastings said: ↑
I see NO ONE has been able to answer the question:


WHY does anyone think banning abortion will stop abortions?
It won't so I must conclude that misogynists just want women to suffer and/or legislators are extremely stupid.


If it won't then why ban it?

It won't so I must conclude that misogynists just want women to suffer and/or legislators are extremely stupid.


And, chris, I am not going around and around with you over issues we've discussed before and I won't give you definitions of every word I use (like "the")

No, it is logic. The crimes you mention are crimes against PERSONS, they cause disruption in society, cause chaos if unchecked.......abortion does not involve a crime against a person...and does NOT cause chaos in society.

Anti-Choicers cause disruption in society by trying to take away a basic human right, bodily autonomy.

If they believe that women should have the same rights as everyone else this would not be an issue.

Prohibition didn't stop drinking and repealing it didn't cause chaos.

 

I say that, out of familiarity with your method, Chris. Note, even here, you ask another question.of me, and yet answer none of those I posed to you. However, I am only asking you to state the basic explanation of your premise. You are asking other things of me, for I already have laid out my general argument.

 

See how you have to have criteria all of a sudden? That's called moving the goal posts. Face it, you used piss poor logic.

 

Senator Nasty—er, Blackburn—would have a hard time in a forum where she couldn't bully witnesses.

It's not that simple given there are genetic differences favoring non-XX people. Those differences may well be litigated.

Jackson was correct, Blackburn her usual demagogic self.

 

Existing at all. Canada has no abortion law and a low abortion rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
UNCHERRY PICKED post:FoxHastings said: ↑
I see NO ONE has been able to answer the question:


WHY does anyone think banning abortion will stop abortions?
It won't so I must conclude that misogynists just want women to suffer and/or legislators are extremely stupid.


If it won't then why ban it?

It won't so I must conclude that misogynists just want women to suffer and/or legislators are extremely stupid.


And, chris, I am not going around and around with you over issues we've discussed before and I won't give you definitions of every word I use (like "the")


No, it is logic. The crimes you mention are crimes against PERSONS, they cause disruption in society, cause chaos if unchecked.......abortion does not involve a crime against a person...and does NOT cause chaos in society.

Anti-Choicers cause disruption in society by trying to take away a basic human right, bodily autonomy.

If they believe that women should have the same rights as everyone else this would not be an issue.

Prohibition didn't stop drinking and repealing it didn't cause chaos.

LOL, see how you have no rebuttal.....

 

Like your post?

 

Pretty sure pointing out how you moved the goal posts IS a rebuttal. It means that your original statement, which I responded to was indeed flawed. So flawed that you needed to come back and set criteria. And even with your new criteria it is still flawed as there are plenty of laws on the books that regulate things that are not crimes against a "person" or would disrupt society if they weren't around. For just a small example: laws against lemonade stands.

 

Lots of old laws are just ignored. Laws we don't want are those authorities attempt to enforce but are widely disregarded and disrespected.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
UNCHERRY PICKED post:FoxHastings said: ↑
I see NO ONE has been able to answer the question:


WHY does anyone think banning abortion will stop abortions?
It won't so I must conclude that misogynists just want women to suffer and/or legislators are extremely stupid.


If it won't then why ban it?

It won't so I must conclude that misogynists just want women to suffer and/or legislators are extremely stupid.


And, chris, I am not going around and around with you over issues we've discussed before and I won't give you definitions of every word I use (like "the")


No, it is logic. The crimes you mention are crimes against PERSONS, they cause disruption in society, cause chaos if unchecked.......abortion does not involve a crime against a person...and does NOT cause chaos in society.

Anti-Choicers cause disruption in society by trying to take away a basic human right, bodily autonomy.

If they believe that women should have the same rights as everyone else this would not be an issue.

Prohibition didn't stop drinking and repealing it didn't cause chaos.

WHO is moving the goal posts ??? The one who changed murder to lemonade stands ....lololololol OH THOSE DISRUPTIVE LEMINADE STANDS!!!!


And STILL you can't provide a rebuttal....just complaints