How is abortion anyone's business or concern?

[Smallishbear]

You or I
Your granting the unborn an enhanced right to life that the born are barred against.

Are you and I ever going to be fully in a woman's womb where her choice is to either have birth or kill us?

The question seems... farcical?

And no, I'm not. Claim without support is, again, dismissed without support.

 

[quip]

Are you and I ever going to be fully in a woman's womb where her choice is to either have birth or kill us?

The question seems... farcical?

And no, I'm not. Claim without support is, again, dismissed without support.

Strawman notwithstanding, I and anyone else has every right to refuse you life-saving blood, bone marrow etc.

Again, what special trait gives the fetus carte blanche to a woman's womb?

 

[Smallishbear]

Strawman notwithstanding, I and anyone else has every right to refuse you life-saving blood, bone marrow etc.

Again, what special trait gives the fetus carte blanche to a woman's womb?

Strawman? It was your argument. The term you're looking for is false equivalency, by you. I simply made it equivalent (which is not a strawman).

And again, special compared to what? Your last answer to that didn't work (as a false equivalency).

And yes, you have that right to refuse me... which has nothing to do with the discussion we are having as it would be another false equivalency if you tried to use it in this argument.

(Lastly, nothing in my argument would give a fetus "carte blanche to woman's womb"... not sure where you got that from as a basic reading of my argument would not support that).

 

[quip]

Strawman? It was your argument. The term you're looking for is false equivalency, by you. I simply made it equivalent (which is not a strawman).

And again, special compared to what? Your last answer to that didn't work (as a false equivalency).

And yes, you have that right to refuse me... which has nothing to do with the discussion we are having as it would be another false equivalency if you tried to use it in this argument.

If I have the right to refuse you (or vice versa), why doesn't a woman have the right to refuse the fetus?

 

[Smallishbear]

If I have the right to refuse you, why doesn't a woman have the right to refuse the fetus?

Because they're not equivalent. Thus my statement about false equivalence fallacy. Do you need me to explain the difference between pregnancy and a blood / bone marrow transplant both to the donator and receiver? I sure hope not.

 

[quip]

Because they're not equivalent. Thus my statement about false equivalence fallacy. Do you need me to explain the difference between pregnancy and a blood / bone marrow transplant both to the donator and receiver? I sure hope not.

You're asserting a right-to-life for the unborn equal to that of the born. You can't simply move the goalpost. There's no fundamental difference from me using parts of my body to sustain your life to that of the fetus sustained by the womb. You're not being logically consistent.

 

[Smallishbear]

You're asserting a right-to-life for the unborn equal to that of the born. You can't simply move the goalpost. There's no fundamental difference from me using parts of my body to sustain your life to that of the fetus sustained by the womb. You're not being logically consistent.

How many times are you going to make false statements about my argument? Your first sentence is false as posted.

2nd. I haven't moved the goal posts... claim without support is AGAIN dismissed without support (fallacies seem to be YOUR thing).

And yes there are fundamental differences between a blood / bone marrow transplant and pregnancy. That I had to actually type that to counter you makes me sad.

And for you last sentence, you know what's coming. Claim without support is dismissed without support.

 

[quip]

How many times are you going to make false statements about my argument? Your first sentence is false as posted.

2nd. I haven't moved the goal posts... claim without support is AGAIN dismissed without support (fallacies seem to be YOUR thing).

And yes there are fundamental differences between a blood / bone marrow transplant and pregnancy. That I had to actually type that to counter you makes me sad.

Under the context, principles and constraints to the right-to-life there's absolutely no fundamental difference.
You're grasping at straws.

 

[quip]

First sentence: You're asserting a right-to-life for the unborn equal to that of the born.

How many times are you going to make false statements about my argument? Your first sentence is false as posted.

You're not? Then what's all the prior rhetoric regarding "competing rights" at the "development point of viability" nonsense?

Please, be consistent.

 

[Smallishbear]

Under the context, principles and constraints to the right-to-life there's absolutely no fundamental difference.
You're grasping at straws.

There is difference. And positive claimant is you. So...

You're grasping at straws (and fallacies).

 

[Smallishbear]

First sentence: You're asserting a right-to-life for the unborn equal to that of the born.

You're not? Then what's all the prior rhetoric regarding "competing rights" at the "development point of viability" nonsense?

Please, be consistent.

You are attempting to place my position at an extreme without the constraints I've placed on it. By removing those constraints and colors to my position, you're falsifying what it is.

Just don't do that... it's not that hard.

 

[quip]

There is difference. And positive claimant is you. So...

You're grasping at straws (and fallacies).

Specious incidentals.....the principles remain identical. Deal with it.

 

[quip]

You are attempting to place my position at an extreme without the constraints I've placed on it. By removing those constraints and colors to my position, you're falsifying what it is.

Just don't do that... it's not that hard.

What constraints might those be?

 

[Smallishbear]

What constraints might those be?

I've pointed them out before. You're sealioning.

Why are you making arguments about my position if you don't know what my position is?

 

[Smallishbear]

Specious incidentals.....the principles remain identical. Deal with it.

Claim without support is dismissed without support.

If you don't want to fill your burden of proof fine... but your claim fails then.

Deal with it.

 

[quip]

@Lursa @Gordy327
I'm definitely sensing a pattern here.

 

[Smallishbear]

@Lursa @Gordy327
I'm definitely sensing a pattern here.

Same.

 

[quip]

Same.

That's good! Identification is your first step.

 

[Smallishbear]

That's good! Identification is your first step.

I’m well past the first step with the 3. It’s more about the step that the 3 are on.

 

[choiceone]

I think that's a logical argument.

I simply disagree with the balance of competing interests of elective abortions up to birth. It's a subjective argument about when we SHOULD (if ever) take into account the fetus and its life.

The dichotomy of pro-choice and pro-life (at the extremes) really kind of does a disservice to the vast majority of people in the middle somewhere.

No, this dichotomy doesn't do a disservice. You have zero interest in a stranger's body. You have no right to know whether or not she's pregnant, or menstruating, or menopausal, or has cancer. It's not your business, because her body doesn't belong to you, she's an individual person, and she therefore has 4th A rights.

Just as you have no such right to her body, the vast majority of people, regardless of their beliefs, have no such right. How then can they possibly have an interest in competition with hers. You can't take account of a fetus and its putative life when you don't have a right to know whether or not it exists.

 

[Smallishbear]

No, this dichotomy doesn't do a disservice. You have zero interest in a stranger's body. You have no right to know whether or not she's pregnant, or menstruating, or menopausal, or has cancer. It's not your business, because her body doesn't belong to you, she's an individual person, and she therefore has 4th A rights.

Just as you have no such right to her body, the vast majority of people, regardless of their beliefs, have no such right. How then can they possibly have an interest in competition with hers. You can't take account of a fetus and its putative life when you don't have a right to know whether or not it exists.

That’s one of the worst argument ever as any abortion provider would know that a fetus exists. Which negates your entire argument about no abortion restrictions because you don’t have right to know.

If you’re talking about me, personally, as I am not someone that would enforce this, my knowledge of any individuals state of pregnancy is not necessary.

Just an absolutely terrible argument.

 

[choiceone]

That’s one of the worst argument ever as any abortion provider would know that a fetus exists. Which negates your entire argument about no abortion restrictions because you don’t have right to know.

If you’re talking about me, personally, as I am not someone that would enforce this, my knowledge of any individuals state of pregnancy is not necessary.

Just an absolutely terrible argument.

I don't disagree on the fact that the woman who goes to an abortion provider would let that provider know that a fetus exists inside her body. But that woman doesn't let YOU or the GOVERNMENT know. Medical consultations are considered private - you have 4th Amendment protections from unreasonable search or seizure of person, papers, etc. The only possible way the state can have an interest or power in this case is as follows.

States have the power to regulate the practice of medicine. They therefore have the right to make the medical practice of abortion illegal. However, they can't do this with all abortions, because the woman's life can be clearly threatened by pregnancy. Accordingly, states have to make an exception so that a medical professional with medical indications of the threat can perform abortion at least to save a woman's life.

At the same time, if they don't make exceptions to save the health of a woman's major organ functions, or save a fetal twin's life, or in the case of a fatal fetal anomaly or rape pregnancy, many doctors think the state law is demanding that they provide sub-standard medical care to their mature female patients.

Similarly, the federal government is still in the middle of a court case with the state of Idaho in which the federal government says that a hospital that receives any federal funding has to provide stabilizing medical care for a patient in an emergency situation (EMTALA law). If Idaho loses this case and bans abortion even when it is standard stabilizing medical care, no hospital there will be able to take Medicare or Medicaid funds.

So this isn't just about so-called elective abortions. A state's anti-abortion ban is likely to cause a woman to die, lose her future fertility, be seriously disabled, etc., if it doesn't make enough exceptions. When it does, you can be sure that people here will protest just as loudly as they did when an Irish hospital's refusal to perform an abortion to complete the incomplete miscarriage of Savita Halappanavar led to her death and a changed national abortion law called "Savita's Law" in Ireland.

 

[Smallishbear]

I don't disagree on the fact that the woman who goes to an abortion provider would let that provider know that a fetus exists inside her body. But that woman doesn't let YOU or the GOVERNMENT know. Medical consultations are considered private - you have 4th Amendment protections from unreasonable search or seizure of person, papers, etc. The only possible way the state can have an interest or power in this case is as follows.

States have the power to regulate the practice of medicine. They therefore have the right to make the medical practice of abortion illegal. However, they can't do this with all abortions, because the woman's life can be clearly threatened by pregnancy. Accordingly, states have to make an exception so that a medical professional with medical indications of the threat can perform abortion at least to save a woman's life.

At the same time, if they don't make exceptions to save the health of a woman's major organ functions, or save a fetal twin's life, or in the case of a fatal fetal anomaly or rape pregnancy, many doctors think the state law is demanding that they provide sub-standard medical care to their mature female patients.

Similarly, the federal government is still in the middle of a court case with the state of Idaho in which the federal government says that a hospital that receives any federal funding has to provide stabilizing medical care for a patient in an emergency situation (EMTALA law). If Idaho loses this case and bans abortion even when it is standard stabilizing medical care, no hospital there will be able to take Medicare or Medicaid funds.

So this isn't just about so-called elective abortions. A state's anti-abortion ban is likely to cause a woman to die, lose her future fertility, be seriously disabled, etc., if it doesn't make enough exceptions. When it does, you can be sure that people here will protest just as loudly as they did when an Irish hospital's refusal to perform an abortion to complete the incomplete miscarriage of Savita Halappanavar led to her death and a changed national abortion law called "Savita's Law" in Ireland.

Considering I’ve been very clear about the need for strong and very robust exceptions to any restrictions based on the health / well being I’ve the mother and the viability of the fetus, I’m not sure what you post has to do with a response to mine.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Abortion is a medical procedure as well as a woman's personal choice, regardless of the reasons, and is a matter between herself and her doctor. Any medical procedure is a private matter and concern of the patient seeking or needing it. But some anti abortionists argue abortion is "everyone's concern." But why is that? No other medical procedure gets the visibility and scrutiny abortion does. No one cares much less knows if someone has some other medical procedure, elective or otherwise. Why is abortion different? Abortion does not affect anyone (other than the pregnant woman) or society in general. Neither has anyone been able to demonstrate otherwise. So how is abortion anyone else's business or concern?

In Canada and my life abortion is solely a matter between a woman and her doctor.

Period!

The only exception is if a specialist is needed. Not even the father has a say. The 'baby' is not life until it draws a breath. Until then it is part of the woman's body.

That's my stand. That's the stand of my government and the Dominion of Canada.

It is so carved in the 'law of the land' even the most anti-abortion fanatics won't even raise the subject.

You see, Canada is the only country that has absolutely NO LAW concerning abortion. Not even regulations!

The abortion laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in the 90's....and no government has had the balls to try to re-introduce ANYTHING! EVER!

The leader of the Conservative Party has to keep a lid on the evangelicals, because he'll lose the election if he mentions abortion!

I like that arrangement. We don't have to listen to flaming superstition from Christians.

Canadian women play hockey. Politicians don't.

 

[Gordy327]

In Canada and my life abortion is solely a matter between a woman and her doctor.

Period!

The only exception is if a specialist is needed. Not even the father has a say. The 'baby' is not life until it draws a breath. Until then it is part of the woman's body.

That's my stand. That's the stand of my government and the Dominion of Canada.

It is so carved in the 'law of the land' even the most anti-abortion fanatics won't even raise the subject.

You see, Canada is the only country that has absolutely NO LAW concerning abortion. Not even regulations!

The abortion laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in the 90's....and no government has had the balls to try to re-introduce ANYTHING! EVER!

The leader of the Conservative Party has to keep a lid on the evangelicals, because he'll lose the election if he mentions abortion!

I like that arrangement. We don't have to listen to flaming superstition from Christians.

Canadian women play hockey. Politicians don't.

Canada has it right. A shame we can't seem to follow suit.