I have an idea to calm the turmoil re abortion

I was quite clear in what I said and no it was nothing about what you just said. Try again.

 

Yes, support.

 

The risk of death from childbirth is 14 times higher than from abortion.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/
Here's the thing, if there is only a .1% chance of death from skateboarding, should you be forced to skateboard, or do you get to choose whether you take that risk or not. Or if you want to put another's life on the line, if there is a .1% chance that you will catch a fatal bloodborne pathogen from providing medical aid to a dying person, should you be forced to aid that dying person because life overrides use of bodily resources, or do you get to choose whether or not you take that risk?

If they are in your home providing a threat when you didn't invite them in, yes. But the way you presented it, the equivalent would be forcing the man to have his testicles removed before he ever had sex with the woman. The violation of bodily autonomy has not yet happened at that point therefore there is nothing to stop.

Since I never claimed anything about the definition of life, your question is a strawman.

That is irrelevant to whether or not someone gets to choose if they take the risk or not

Yes it is. Even when the baby dies in utero and does not get expelled on its own, the procedure to get it out is known as an abortion. I think that you have been suffering under a major false premise for a while if you believe that such a procedure is not an abortion.

All abortions are elective as the woman still gets to choose whether to risk her own life to continue the abortion, as some women have. Some have survived with no problems, others survived with damage, and still others did not survive. But the choice was still theirs.

Misrepresentation. Even that doctor noted that the vast majority of late term abortions are for other than medical issues.

And still does nothing to address the risks in pregnancy that you want to deny the woman to have the ability to choose whether or not she takes those risks. From the article of the one doctor:

First off, if the opponents would stop trying to prevent even the life saving procedures, they might find that proponents would be willing to give more ground. But in the end, it's not about the 1% of cases after 20 weeks. It is still about the ability to determine whether to take the risk or not to continue to be in a condition, and that of whether or not another being gets to make use of their bodily resources. If life is so precious, that a person does not have a right of bodily autonomy to refuse to provide their bodily resources in order to save or maintain a life, then we are justified in taking any of your organs or blood to save another, and you will be forced to take the risk that such will kill or damage you, no matter how low the risk.

 

Then the amount of time that a procedure take to correct the condition is irrelevant to whether the person gets to correct the condition. The only way that your comparison of taking time to repair a broken leg and taking time to birth an offspring to end the pregnancy works is to hold the position that faster methods to correct the condition cannot be used.

 

Not that is not a requirement no matter how much you try to squirm around with it.

 

To base our entire policy mother's being allowed to kill their babies up to the moment of birth on a .1% risk is utter folly, desperate folly.

You are talking RISK of something. So can I kill my neighbor because there is a .1% chance he will kill me?

You are the one asserting the the baby doesn't "look like" argument not me. Since when did that define a human life?

It is entirely relevant, pregnancy is an entirely natural process and does not on it's face pose an imminent threat to theblifenor health of the mother.

No it is not in is called a miscarriage and the baby can be expelled on it's in. An abortion is a proceedure to purposely kill a healthy baby.

I believe you are trying to redefine the term because your argument for mother's killingbtheir healthy babies simply because they don't want it to live anymore.

No they are not that is a specific term go educate yourself on it and get back to me.

Yes they are not to save the life of the mother.

I have addressed the risk head on.

No one is trying to prevent "life saving" when the mother's life is in IMMINENT danger stop with the strawman and the hyperbole it only shows how lacking are your arguments.

 

Exactly. The fact that an abortion corrects the condition of pregnancy faster than a cast corrects the condition of a broken leg does not invalidate the fact that one is allowed to correct a condition that they imposed upon themselves, assuming that such a correction exists.

 

What you seem to not understand is that a miscarriage is also an abortion. When an abortion occurs due to a medical procedure it is actually a medical abortion or induced abortion. Miscarriage is a natural abortion. And there are still plenty of times in which the offspring dies in utero and is not expelled out on "it's in". Hence the need for a medical abortion in such a case. If you can't comprehend what an abortion actually is, then we are done. I can't argue against your use of false statements, even if you believe them to be true. I won't call you a liar, because you believe them. But you are factually wrong, and until you can show that you understand what an abortion actually in, we are done.

 

That may be true, but I believe in reincarnation

 

Unless you are from the South in which case you believe in reintarnation

Sorry couldn’t resist

 

Why can't you MYOB where women's bodies are concerned? You can't enforce abortion laws because abortion pills (mifepristone and misoprostol) are easily had.

A fetus is not your neighbor.

It did when your pals were prepared to make a 10-year-old continue a pregnancy.

Not necessarily.

Your insulting remarks about women is noted.

Says the guy who makes dumb comments (see above).

 

Because an unborn baby is a human being a fact you have so self-servingly ignore to defend your position. Because you have to claim I am the one making an insulting remark when in fact I am the one speaking the truth. Why is that truth insulting to women?

 

It is not an induced abortion to purposely kill a healthy baby because the mother no longer wants it to live, , you know what our laws address, a fact you chose to ignore. Stop trying to conflate the two because you position is to hard defend.

 

WHAT? "Corrects" the condition of pregnancy? The "correct" condition of pregnancy is to kill the baby? You think that is how nature evolved is that the "correct" condition of pregnancy is to kill the life created before it is born? I don't know if I have ever heard such a absurd defense of mothers killing their unborn babies simply because they don't want them to live anymore.

 

The ten year old is also a human and a live interacting one at that. Would you see her treated the same way as the 11 year old in Argentina who was lied to and force hospitalised before she developed life threatening complications requiring emergency caesarean.

The baby did not survive

 

It is to remove the foetus. The sooner this is done the better

 

Talk about conflation - a six week old foetus is NOT repeat NOT a “baby”

 

What on earth are you talking about, interacting is not the definition of when a human being exist.

WHAT? "Corrects" the condition of pregnancy? The "correct" condition of pregnancy is to kill the baby? You think that is how nature evolved is that the "correct" condition of pregnancy is to kill the life created before it is born? I don't know if I have ever heard such a absurd defense of mothers killing their unborn babies simply because they don't want them to live anymore.

Yes it is as I have repeatedly shown, it's called the common language. It is an unborn baby. Stop with the self-serving denials.

 

And women who seek an abortion from Dr. Robinson are unable to get one from their doctor...

"Individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy for a number of reasons. As part of the Turnaway study out of the University of California San Francisco, from 2008-2010 over 440 women were asked about why they experienced delays in obtaining abortion care, if any. Almost half of individuals who obtained an abortion after 20 weeks did not suspect they were pregnant until later in pregnancy, and other barriers to care included lack of information about where to access an abortion, transportation difficulties, lack of insurance coverage and inability to pay for the procedure. This is unsurprising, given abortions can be cost-prohibitive for many; in a study from 2011-2012, the median cost of a surgical abortion at 10 weeks was $495, jumping to $1,350 at 20 weeks (range $750-$5,000) excluding the cost of travel and lost wages. Yet the Federal Reserve Board found 40% of U.S. adults do not have enough in savings to pay for a $400 emergency expense, meaning many individuals may need to delay having an abortion until they can raise the necessary funds."

"Additionally, of all the abortion-providing facilities in the U.S., only 34% offer abortions at 20 weeks and just 16% at 24 weeks, meaning individuals may need to travel a significant distance to find an available, trained provider. Abortions at this stage also typically require two days to complete with inpatient care, as opposed to outpatient or at-home management that is possible earlier in pregnancy.1 In the years since these data were collected, dozens of abortion restrictions have been enacted across the county, including mandated waiting periods; it is therefore possible that individuals seeking abortion today may face even more delays in care than these data reflect."​

Individuals also seek abortions later in pregnancy due to medical reasons. With medical advances, many genetic fetal anomalies can be detected early in pregnancy; for example, chorionic villus sampling can diagnose Down Syndrome or cystic fibrosis as earlier as 10 weeks gestation. Structural fetal anomalies, however, are often detected much later in pregnancy. As part of routine care, a fetal anatomy scan is performed around 20 weeks, which entails ultrasound imaging of all the developing organs. Many structural anomalies are discovered at this time that would not have been apparent previously. A proportion of these are lethal fetal anomalies, meaning that the fetus will almost certainly die before or shortly after birth, meaning the fetus may be nonviable.2 In these cases, many individuals wish to terminate their pregnancies, rather than carrying the pregnancy until the fetus or newborn passes away. Very often these pregnancies are desired, making this decision exceedingly difficult for parents. Inadequate data exist to know how many abortions later in pregnancy occur due to fetal anomalies, but a study by Washington University Hospital showed almost all women whose fetuses had lethal fetal anomalies chose to terminate their pregnancies."​

 

Which has nothing to do with the fact that women mostly seek third trimester abortions for the same reasons as women do in the first and second.

 

Over and over again, you misidentify the fetus as a "baby." It's as though you didn't take high school science.

It's "common language" amongst those who want to abuse the English.

I guess you might win if people ever accept "unborn baby" oxymoron.

 

No they don't.

 

I never said a fetus isn't a "human being." The fetus isn't a person.

What "truth?" Your "unborn baby" is an oxymoron.

You accuse them of "killing their baby" when they're not killing a person. You threaten their basic rights with illegitimate laws.

Women will never give up opposing your anti-abortion laws by trying to repeal them, and disobeying them, if necessary.

 

The key here is that it isnt just her life that is involved and and being risked. Not when the "correction" is the killing of another person (as the pro-life see it). We are talking about a small risk to her life vs the certain death of the other life.

And if she knowingly and purposefully took action to create the situation, why doesn't she have a duty to see the other life that she has put in danger to safety?

If I kidnap somebody and tie them up in my airplane, and they then become a nuisance, is it ok for me to toss them from the plane to die, or do I have a duty to land it and then let them go?

 

Yes, that is the key. SHOULD the unborn be considered a person and if so, at what stage of development?

And if it is not a person (as is current law; which could change) should we nevertheless afford it some rights like we do non-human animals in animal abuse and cruelty cases? If so, on what basis.

Also, we should see consistency in abortion and murder cases on this question. If I murder a pregnant woman, should that count as double homicide?