Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

That's not an answer.

Do you think it's acceptable that the woman was forced to wait until 35 weeks to abort?

Definitely not. But there were medical implications. So it's not like it was a casual, elective abortion. THere were risks (to the physical outcomes for the unborn) that the woman CHOSE not to accept...so she should have been accommodated.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I'm not going back and rehashing the old discussion -- I'm not even going to go back and search because you missed it the first time. So far, every one of your questions has been asked and addressed in the thread.

I will be finishing the thread, so I hope you are being honest.

I'll tell you right now, I have not ever seen anyone produce a source for women having casual, elective late term abortions in the US so I do doubt you.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Definitely not. But there were medical implications. So it's not like it was a casual, elective abortion. THere were risks (to the physical outcomes for the unborn) that the woman CHOSE not to accept...so she should have been accommodated.

The physician's boards failed. The legal system had to step in -- in the form of a judge -- so, in the long run, the law was the answer to the woman's plight. How many women do you think slip through those same cracks but don't have the ability/knowledge to file suit?

The ONLY thing that will prevent that situation from occurring over and over and over is legal regulation.

You've been unable to offer any sort of acceptable alternative, yet you, like many others, do not understand the potentially harmful ramifications for the women caught up in that "no laws" system.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Why should a doctor be forced to do a procedure s/he doesn't want to do?

Sorry that you don't believe in a thing called freedom.

I do agree with that. It does cause a difficult situation. In the US the facilities that would do such a procedure are very limited...was there no such place in CA where she could go?

Also, if it was truly life-threatening to the woman, I believe the Dr should be obligated to comply with her wishes. That was not the case here.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

The physician's boards failed. The legal system had to step in -- in the form of a judge -- so, in the long run, the law was the answer to the woman's plight. How many women do you think slip through those same cracks but don't have the ability/knowledge to file suit?

The ONLY thing that will prevent that situation from occurring over and over and over is legal regulation.

You've been unable to offer any sort of acceptable alternative, yet you, like many others, do not understand the potentially harmful ramifications for the women caught up in that "no laws" system.

Why offer an alternative? There's a huge difference between denying a woman a late-term abortion and finding a Dr. willing to perform a procedure he or she is morally against. THis woman should not have run into that.

The "alternative" would be access to a register of Drs who would indeed perform such abortions.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I will be finishing the thread, so I hope you are being honest.

I'll tell you right now, I have not ever seen anyone produce a source for women having casual, elective late term abortions in the US so I do doubt you.

I never claimed women have casual, elective late term abortions, so I hope you will be reading the thread with honest intentions. I said that was not the point I was discussing. You will see your exact question pop up more than once and you can read my response. I did not and have not ever claimed they did.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I never claimed women have casual, elective late term abortions, so I hope you will be reading the thread with honest intentions. I said that was not the point I was discussing. You will see your exact question pop up more than once and you can read my response. I did not and have not ever claimed they did.

No but you did ask about where to draw that line, and what laws we should enact to prevent them. That was my interpretation.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Why offer an alternative? There's a huge difference between denying a woman a late-term abortion and finding a Dr. willing to perform a procedure he or she is morally against. THis woman should not have run into that.

The "alternative" would be access to a register of Drs who would indeed perform such abortions.

Forming a register of doctors would require a law, because those doctors would operate outside the boundaries of the physicians boards, so you're fight back where you started.

The answer is -- late-term abortions need implicit regulations so this type of thing doesn't continue to happen.

The repeated meme that no restrictions are necessary because women do not electively abort is meaningless in cases such as these.

I'm asking that people step outside the meme and think for themselves, which is apparently very difficult for some.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

No but you did ask about where to draw that line, and what laws we should enact to prevent them. That was my interpretation.

As I said, read the thread and my position will become quite clear to you. I have to go to work so I'll have to check back later.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

As I said, read the thread and my position will become quite clear to you. I have to go to work so I'll have to check back later.

Dont know how else I would interpret this:

That is absolutely NOT the point. We all agree that late-term abortions typically are for desperate health reasons. The point is whether we have the guts to say that if a woman wants a late term abortion for no reason other than her own desires, she should not be allowed to obtain it.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Forming a register of doctors would require a law, because those doctors would operate outside the boundaries of the physicians boards, so you're fight back where you started.

Could definitely be done at the professional association level. Would not have to be law.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Why should the unborn have rights? Just being human isnt the only reason to have rights recognized. Many factors are considered.

Initially, neither blacks or women had equal rights. In the US, blacks and women both had to have their rights considered and then recognized by SCOTUS. It was not just 'a given.' And SCOTUS legally recognized that blacks and women are equal and have equal rights. THey did the same for the unborn...and decided differently. There are many good reasons. THey had theirs, mine may be different.

For one thing, you cannot give any rights to the unborn without infringing on the rights of women. They CANNOT be treated equally. So then can you explain your grounds for giving the unborn rights that supersede those of women?

But here's mine:

LOL. So your argument is to make this a question of equality... and then take the side of inequality? Yeah, run with that. :roll:

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

LOL. So your argument is to make this a question of equality... and then take the side of inequality? Yeah, run with that. :roll:

Well yes of course. If it cannot be equal...then in the abortion debate, one must choose.

I choose women. I admit that. It's not that I hate or even think poorly of the unborn, but I do not see them as equal and would not see them have rights recognized. Because, again, they cannot have equal rights with the born and IMO, their speculative rights should not supersede those of women.

And I explained why I do not consider the unborn equal with born persons. I see no actual substance to explain your position or answer my direct question: So then can you explain your grounds for giving the unborn rights that supersede those of women?

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Well yes of course. If it cannot be equal...then in the abortion debate, one must choose.

I choose women. I admit that. It's not that I hate or even think poorly of the unborn, but I do not see them as equal and would not see them have rights recognized. Because, again, they cannot have equal rights with the born and IMO, their speculative rights should not supersede those of women.

And I explained why I do not consider the unborn equal with born persons. I see no actual substance to explain your position or answer my direct question: So then can you explain your grounds for giving the unborn rights that supersede those of women?

So following along with your analogy, slavery can not be equal so one must choose... and you are choosing the slave owner. Good look!

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

So following along with your analogy, slavery can not be equal so one must choose... and you are choosing the slave owner. Good look!

Um, again, a choice was made. If slaves are equal, then they cannot be owned. And the property owners have their right to that property infringed. (And did)

If the unborn have rights recognized, then the women have their rights to their liberty, privacy, due process, even life, infringed.

Still unable to answer direct questions tho, eh? "I see no actual substance to explain your position or answer my direct question: So then can you explain your grounds for giving the unborn rights that supersede those of women?"

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Um, again, a choice was made. If slaves are equal, then they cannot be owned. And the property owners have their right to that property infringed. (And did)

If the unborn have rights recognized, then the women have their rights to their liberty, privacy, due process, even life, infringed.

Still unable to answer direct questions tho, eh? "I see no actual substance to explain your position or answer my direct question: So then can you explain your grounds for giving the unborn rights that supersede those of women?"

Again, by your analogy you are siding with slave owners over the slaves. "Choices were made" ... indeed they were! You have chosen against slaves, by your own reasoning.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Um, again, a choice was made. If slaves are equal, then they cannot be owned. And the property owners have their right to that property infringed. (And did)

If the unborn have rights recognized, then the women have their rights to their liberty, privacy, due process, even life, infringed.

Still unable to answer direct questions tho, eh? "I see no actual substance to explain your position or answer my direct question: So then can you explain your grounds for giving the unborn rights that supersede those of women?"

Exactly.

And welcome back. Good to see ya.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Again, by your analogy you are siding with slave owners over the slaves. "Choices were made" ... indeed they were! You have chosen against slaves, by your own reasoning.

Um no, I agree with the legislative decisions that freed slaves and the SCOTUS decision that recognized blacks as equal in the US. Those are the 'choices' I referred to.

And SCOTUS has also ruled not to recognize rights for the unborn. I'm in agreement with that as well.

But we do note that you cant answer the question: I see no actual substance to explain your position or answer my direct question: So then can you explain your grounds for giving the unborn rights that supersede those of women?

If you cannot articulate your own position, perhaps a discussion board isnt the right place for you.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Um no, I agree with the legislative decisions that freed slaves and the SCOTUS decision that recognized blacks as equal in the US. Those are the 'choices' I referred to.

COOL! Then by your own analogy you will agree with future legislation that saves the unborn!

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

COOL!

But we do note that you cant answer the question: I see no actual substance to explain your position or answer my direct question: So then can you explain your grounds for giving the unborn rights that supersede those of women?

If you cannot articulate your own position, perhaps a discussion board isnt the right place for you.

.....

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

So then can you explain your grounds for giving the unborn rights that supersede those of women?

Hah, OK, can you explain why freeing the slaves should supersede the rights of the slave owner? After all, freeing the slaves would be horribly inconvenient for the slave owner, and financially burdensome. Why, it could take months for the slave owner to recover! There is also a slight chance they might die from stress of tending their own fields!

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Hah, OK, can you explain why freeing the slaves should supersede the rights of the slave owner? After all, freeing the slaves would be horribly inconvenient for the slave owner, and financially burdensome. Why, it could take months for the slave owner to recover! There is also a slight chance they might die from stress of tending their own fields!

But we do note that you cant answer the question: I see no actual substance to explain your position or answer my direct question: So then can you explain your grounds for giving the unborn rights that supersede those of women?

If you cannot articulate your own position, perhaps a discussion board isnt the right place for you.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

But we do note that you cant answer the question: I see no actual substance to explain your position or answer my direct question: So then can you explain your grounds for giving the unborn rights that supersede those of women?

If you cannot articulate your own position, perhaps a discussion board isnt the right place for you.

My answer to your question is right there in the answer you can't give. You can't answer my question without answering yours. Go ahead and try.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

My answer to your question is right there in the answer you can't give. You can't answer my question without answering yours. Go ahead and try.

Continuing to deflect I see. What part of directly answering a direct question are you incapable of?

But we do note that you cant answer the question: I see no actual substance to explain your position or answer my direct question: So then can you explain your grounds for giving the unborn rights that supersede those of women?

If you cannot articulate your own position, perhaps a discussion board isnt the right place for you.

As you say...go ahead and try.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Slaves and women were/are born persons.

The unborn are not US Constitutional persons.