Can pro life defend their position

[MAGAnificent]

You may have missed the fact that Dobbs wasn't a unanimous decision.

Did not have to be.

No, Roe v Wade isn't a horse and it isn't dead.

Roe V Wade is more dead then Joe Biden's brain cells.

 

[choiceone]

Word salad. You related to the cackler?

That isn't word salad. To be word salad, my utterance would have to involve linguistic problems not present here.

There is may be a disconnect between the woman's actions and her intent.

BUT, her actions are clearly responsible for WHERE the unborn child is. So... talk of the child as a "Rapist" or a "trespasser" is nonsense.

Women can become pregnant from being raped in a coma or while asleep. And when they use their own form of contraception or refuse sex if the partner doesn't use a form of contraception, they are clearly saying "yes" to sex and "no" to pregnancy.

For you do claim that her actions are responsible, therefore, is extremely odd. But of course, it is also dangerous, because, if you convince the government to take your attitude, women will eventually stop having sex with guys, because guys aren't necessary to organismic pleasure for women and they don't want to get pregnant that often. That will create a serious social problem.

And no, we are not going to have you circle around to a whole other argument, while this idiotic one just sort of fades away.


YOu want to move the goal posts to another line of defense, because this one failed,


THEN CONCEED THE POINT.

 

[choiceone]

Did not have to be.

Roe V Wade is more dead then Joe Biden's brain cells.

Roe v Wade is not dead, and if all of Biden's brain cells were dead, he wouldn't be able to stand or walk or be interviewed as he frequently is. You just want to say it's dead to make yourself believe that your political opponents won't ever get a national law that recognizes the rights of women and doctors at that level again.

 

[choiceone]

In the last few hours of a pregnancy the child is capable of independence.
I am not arguing for a change in the legal definition here. Just pointing out that that is all it is, a legal definition of independence. A legal definition of what a child is called. But in reality in a delivery room in the last few hours of pregnancy it is a fully formed baby that is being delivered not a developing fetus.
i was arguing against the point that a child is still not fully formed just because it is in a womb. Which of course is not true in the stated last few hours of pregnancy.

You write as if all 9 month fetuses are capable of independence, but some are stillborn.
I'm not talking politics. A fully formed fetus can be delivered as a stillborn because it fails to make the transition to infant born alive.

Of course it's fully formed. Any fetus after the point of medical viability is fully formed, even though it doesn't have a human EEG until about 28-32 weeks. Being fully formed is not equal to being born alive.

 

[Daisy]

 

[bubbabgone]

I have repeatedly said there should be no restrictions on abortion nor is there any rational or legal basis to restrict it. So I'm not sure why you ask questions I have already provided answers to.

What an odd question. After birth, abortion is a moot point, since there's no longer need or chance for abortion.

Are you saying it would be a life only after birth and can't be killed but a minute before birth it's okay? Or during birth it's okay to kill it?

 

[bubbabgone]

Nope. This op isn’t about me. This op is about giving pro lifers the opportunity to defend their position on abortion and the anti abortion laws they support.
Particularly in the context of women dying due to anti abortion laws.
Now. Care to address this issue? The other anti abortionists could really use some help.

Can't discuss an issue with someone without knowing their position. You think you know mine. What's yours?

 

[Lursa]

Can't discuss an issue with someone without knowing their position. You think you know mine. What's yours?

Have you presented yours? If not, why not?

You're asking questions but never answer any.
Again, what is your position on abortion?

Please respond to my posts first then. And I have answered yours many times here and am perfectly happy to do so, if you've missed it. (pro-choice, 100%. It means what it says, so dont divert by asking for clarification or providing your 'opinion' on it.)

But you first:

These are the kinds of decisions...and risks...that doctors face now. Risking their jobs, their licenses, even prison. When before, the woman and the doctor could decide together. And SHE COULD CHOOSE the risk. Many women do. What almost every anti-choice person seems to miss is that these women going to ERs and going in with bleeding and pain and other issues...these are the women who WANTED those pregnancies. These new restrictive, punitive laws are punishing women that WANT a baby and now, not only do they have pain and suffering and grief, they cant even get timely, appropriate medical care without govt delay and intrusion.​

​

Your comments on the actual results and consequences for the majority of women in such situations? Where's the justification for causing them such risks and pain?

 

[bubbabgone]

Why do you have to know his personal feeling about abortion. It has no bearing on the question he posed. You appear unable to explain how the anti-abortion laws your peers created and you support work for women who encounter those laws. Pro-choice advocates have alway understood the pros and cons of Roe. Why can't you explain the laws you advocated for?

See #1057

 

[Bullseye]

It shgould be an individual decision, Not a state decision

Then having the states in charge now can meet hat objective far better and a few dozen Washington bureaucrats. The people of the state set the conditions and the medical establishment follows them.

 

[Gordy327]

Are you saying it would be a life only after birth and can't be killed but a minute before birth it's okay? Or during birth it's okay to kill it?

"Life" isn't the issue or point, much less relevant. It's when it becomes a person that is, which is at birth and not before.

 

[bubbabgone]

"Life" isn't the question or argument. It's when it becomes a person that is, which is at birth.

So I ask again ... a minute before birth it can be killed, right? And during birth it can be killed, right?

 

[Gordy327]

So I ask again ... a minute before birth it can be killed, right? And during birth it can be killed, right?

Yes. Was I not clear it's not a lesson and has no rights at that point? But no one is having or performing an elective abortion at that point anyway. So your rhetorical is meaningless.

 

[soylentgreen]

You write as if all 9 month fetuses are capable of independence, but some are stillborn.
I'm not talking politics. A fully formed fetus can be delivered as a stillborn because it fails to make the transition to infant born alive.

Of course it's fully formed. Any fetus after the point of medical viability is fully formed, even though it doesn't have a human EEG until about 28-32 weeks. Being fully formed is not equal to being born alive.

Not at all. I have made it quite clear that the discussion is about the last few hours of pregnancy.
You are talking politics when you give only a legal definition of independence.
The discussion is about a normal healthy birth. Of course things would be different if you start throwing in random complications, like the child is born dead.
Only way you can win this argument is by pretending that the discussion needs to take into every random complication. If the child is born dead then yes it will not fit the criteria of independent. Pity you can not give a descent argument for a normal healthy birth.

 

[soylentgreen]

Yes. Was I not clear it's not a lesson and has no rights at that point? But no one is having or performing an elective abortion at that point anyway. So your rhetorical is meaningless.

You cannot have it both ways. Either it is yes based on it has been done. or it is no, because it is ethically and legally wrong to kill a baby minutes before birth.
And I would ask you and @bubbabgone under what circumstances would anyone abort a baby a minute before giving birth?

 

[quip]

No. I would never seek an outright ban on abortion. Never have. I am simply against abortion as a common form of birth control...the usual scenario: "Oops,dammit, I did not intend to get pregnant".

That doesn't seem especially 'staunchly' nor very 'pro-life'.
Seems your reality consists of controlling women's sexual proclivities over saving any nascent humans.

Rather a staunch 'anti-freedom-of-choice' advocate. Wouldn't you say?

 

[MAGAnificent]

That doesn't seem especially 'staunchly' nor very 'pro-life'.
Seems your reality consists of controlling women's sexual proclivities over saving any nascent humans.

Rather a staunch 'anti-freedom-of-choice' advocate. Wouldn't you say?

My personal stance is "limit abortion to cases of rape, incest, or mortal danger to the life of the mother.

 

[Bodi]

Which part of "I am a constitutionalist" did you not understand?

The part where you applaud oppressing people's inherent Human rights.

 

[Bodi]

My personal stance is "limit abortion to cases of rape, incest, or mortal danger to the life of the mother.

I pointed out how hypocritical your personal stance is in the allowing of killing humans in some cases but not other cases. But you Ignored it.

 

[MAGAnificent]

The part where you applaud oppressing people's inherent Human rights.

Murdering babies is not an inherent right.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I pointed out how hypocritical your personal stance is in the allowing of killing humans in some cases but not other cases. But you Ignored it.

Typical librul attempt to put everyone in one of two boxes with no excpetions.

 

[Gordy327]

You cannot have it both ways. Either it is yes based on it has been done. or it is no, because it is ethically and legally wrong to kill a baby minutes before birth.
And I would ask you and @bubbabgone under what circumstances would anyone abort a baby a minute before giving birth?

How is it both ways? Was my answer not clear enough for you? There is no baby until birth anyway. And who or what authority says abortion is wrong? Any abortion performed at a later point is done for medical reasons. Either way, it's an issue between the woman and her doctor.

 

[Gordy327]

Murdering babies is not an inherent right.

According to Dobbs, it is if a state allows it, right?

 

[Bodi]

Murdering babies is not an inherent right.

But you have said that you think there are times when murdering babies is ok. Why the hypocrisy?

 

[Gordy327]

My personal stance is "limit abortion to cases of rape, incest, or mortal danger to the life of the mother.

Why only there? What rational or legal basis is there to restrict abortion at all?