Is this an extreme position?

[choiceone]

That is s form of slavery, IMO,

I agree, but people actually individually choose to do it. Gross.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

That's a word for it. I'd called her intentionally dishonest and worse. She's less a person seeking the truth than a far-right propagandist pretending to care about individual rights except as it pertains to the four-dimensional space she occupies.

Here's my theory. She has a narrative she heard on Fox News: "Leftists want zero restrictions so they can kill live babies". So, she put up her poll, waiting for the first person to say, "they want zero restrictions", so she can "pounce" and say, "See!".

When we answer her question with any nuance, she's not ready for it and gets very frustrated. She wants a "yes or no", but regarding medicine, it's not that simple.

 

[choiceone]

Suppose no one does. Should people be punished if they refuse to take care of it?

No matter what punishment you impose, if it's less than death or disablement or physical injury, it's way less than pregnancy/childbirth. Pregnancy/childbirth if unwanted are a form of cruel and unusual punishment. You'd be better off going to jail for a year except that the US stupidly has male guards in female prisons, so there's a real chance of rape, which could also force unwanted pregnancy on you.

 

[Josie]

Here's my theory. She has a narrative she heard on Fox News: "Leftists want zero restrictions so they can kill live babies". So, she put up her poll, waiting for the first person to say, "they want zero restrictions", so she can "pounce" and say, "See!".

When we answer her question with any nuance, she's not ready for it and gets very frustrated. She wants a "yes or no", but regarding medicine, it's not that simple.

You sure make a lot of presumptions.

The question isn’t about medicine. It’s about laws.

And I don’t watch Fox News.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

You sure make a lot of presumptions.

The question isn’t about medicine. It’s about laws.

And I don’t watch Fox News.

People are not going to answer your questions the way you'd always like. Especially when it's obvious you're trying to set some kind of trap. Just say what you want to say. You want there to be zero abortions, or you want abortions with "x" restrictions.

You're playing the "gotchya" game. It's pretty obvious.

 

[Josie]

People are not going to answer your questions the way you'd always like.

Weird.

In what way do you think I want them to answer?

Especially when it's obvious you're trying to set some kind of trap. Just say what you want to say. You want there to be zero abortions, or you want abortions with "x" restrictions.

You're playing the "gotchya" game. It's pretty obvious.

I have said what I want to say.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Here's my theory. She has a narrative she heard on Fox News: "Leftists want zero restrictions so they can kill live babies". So, she put up her poll, waiting for the first person to say, "they want zero restrictions", so she can "pounce" and say, "See!".

I'm not a leftist and I want zero restrictions.

 

[aociswundumho]

No matter what punishment you impose, if it's less than death or disablement or physical injury, it's way less than pregnancy/childbirth. Pregnancy/childbirth if unwanted are a form of cruel and unusual punishment. You'd be better off going to jail for a year except that the US stupidly has male guards in female prisons, so there's a real chance of rape, which could also force unwanted pregnancy on you.

You're evading the argument, just like @Lursa is.

The idea is that the mother may kill the baby because the baby doesn't have the right to live at the mother's (or anyone else's) expense. That doesn't change once the baby is born.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

I'm not a leftist and I want zero restrictions.

I understand, but as I was trying to explain to the OP, doctors, including those who perform abortions, are 'restricted' by what is best for the patient. Not every case "fits in a box". Medical issues are fluid/change. We can't have politicians with zero medical understanding making rules for doctors, other than they need to adhere to their oath.

 

[dockside]

Yes...no restrictions is very extreme. There is a point where there is zero doubts that what is being killed is a baby, and there isn't many things more heinous than that.

But what if it is a dead baby/fetus at 7 months and carrying it to term would certainly cause sepsis in the mother and her possible death?

 

[Gordy327]

Do you think there should be any laws about abortion?

Other than medical privacy and standards of practice that goes along with every other medical procedure, no!

 

[CLAX1911]

Abortion in Europe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Despite a wide variation in the restrictions under which it is permitted, abortion is legal in most European countries. 95% of European women of reproductive age live in countries which allow elective abortions or for broad socioeconomic reasons."

It's also a different calculation when there's a broad social safety net and universal healthcare. Do you support universal health care?

Generally the cut off is 12-14 weeks. The point I was making is that all the way up and including birth is extreme.

 

[choiceone]

You're evading the argument, just like @Lursa is.

The idea is that the mother may kill the baby because the baby doesn't have the right to live at the mother's (or anyone else's) expense. That doesn't change once the baby is born.

I'm not evading. Abortion doesn't kill any embryo/pre-viable fetus because it doesn't have the right to have its body parts inside the woman's body without her full and free consent to that. Hence, nonconsensual pregnancy is closer to rape than any other sort of crime. No one has the right to have its body parts inside you, just as no one has the right to use your blood in a transfusion, which is virtually happening in pregnancy. It is such a violation of an individual's autonomy and bodily integrity that it is not hard to imagine women committing suicide rather than continuing pregnancies.

A newborn doesn't have the right to force anyone to take care of it. Legal mothers and legal fathers are voluntary, because they can arrange adoption for their kids, and women who give birth can also take their newborns to safe havens for them with no questions asked.

The newborn, however, does have a right to someone's care for it, either by adoption or because the government of the whole society takes responsibility. I have no quarrel with this.

But you are dishonest in saying that abortion is killing a baby. First, because a non-viable embryo/fetus is not a baby by conventional definition where I live, and second, because the intention of abortion is to end a pregnancy, not kill a non-viable embryo/fetus.

I say this even though I think a woman has every right to end an embryo/fre-viable fetus, and especially base this on the fact that a victim of rape/incest has a right to end an embryo/fetus tracing to rape/incest. But still, abortion means to end a pregnancy. Since I think all the life is the woman's, at least before viability, I don't really think about the previable unborn at all.

 

[aociswundumho]

I'm not evading. Abortion doesn't kill any embryo/pre-viable fetus because it doesn't have the right to have its body parts inside the woman's body without her full and free consent to that. Hence, nonconsensual pregnancy is closer to rape than any other sort of crime.

Nonsense. The fetus didn't ask to be there. Outside of rape, the woman knows that engaging in sex means there is a possibility of pregnancy. I don't see how the fetus can be at fault here.

No one has the right to have its body parts inside you, just as no one has the right to use your blood in a transfusion, which is virtually happening in pregnancy. It is such a violation of an individual's autonomy and bodily integrity that it is not hard to imagine women committing suicide rather than continuing pregnancies.

Sure, I would agree with that.

A newborn doesn't have the right to force anyone to take care of it. Legal mothers and legal fathers are voluntary, because they can arrange adoption for their kids, and women who give birth can also take their newborns to safe havens for them with no questions asked.

The newborn, however, does have a right to someone's care for it, either by adoption or because the government of the whole society takes responsibility. I have no quarrel with this.

Both of those statements can't be true at the same time, so pick one and stick with it.

But you are dishonest in saying that abortion is killing a baby.

No, you're being dishonest. Tell me, are there any babies in this graphic?

First, because a non-viable embryo/fetus is not a baby by conventional definition where I live, and second, because the intention of abortion is to end a pregnancy, not kill a non-viable embryo/fetus.

I say this even though I think a woman has every right to end an embryo/fre-viable fetus, and especially base this on the fact that a victim of rape/incest has a right to end an embryo/fetus tracing to rape/incest. But still, abortion means to end a pregnancy. Since I think all the life is the woman's, at least before viability, I don't really think about the previable unborn at all.

Viability has nothing to do with it, and the term itself is nothing but a judgment call.

 

[Gordy327]

Nonsense. The fetus didn't ask to be there. Outside of rape, the woman knows that engaging in sex means there is a possibility of pregnancy. I don't see how the fetus can be at fault here.

Immaterial. The fetus is occupying and feeding off of the woman's body. If she doesn't want it there, she can abort it.

Sure, I would agree with that.

if so, then one cannot be compelled to remain pregnant against their will.

No, you're being dishonest. Tell me, are there any babies in this graphic?

View attachment 67423972

No!

Viability has nothing to do with it, and the term itself is nothing but a judgment call.

False! Viability is a medically determined time frame and there is no rational reason to limit abortion before viability.

 

[Josie]

False! Viability is a medically determined time frame and there is no rational reason to limit abortion before viability.

Is there a rational reason to limit it after viability?

 

[Josie]

And I'm not going to dig up your Covid posts, but I know you were denouncing the vaccine.

Oh, really? Show me.

Still waiting...............

 

[TXNormalGOP]

Still waiting...............

Oh, Good morning!!! Happy NFL Sunday! You a fan? I will, when I have time, go back and find our exchange about the vaccine and Covid measures. Do you really want me to, though? It feels like we should just let it go.

 

[Josie]

Oh, Good morning!!! Happy NFL Sunday! You a fan? I will, when I have time, go back and find our exchange about the vaccine and Covid measures. Do you really want me to, though? It feels like we should just let it go.

I'd love for you to.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

I'd love for you to.

Well, I cannot find our exchange. I will concede you are a total advocate of the Covid vaccine.

You win!

 

[Josie]

Well, I cannot find our exchange. I will concede you are a total advocate of the Covid vaccine.

You win!

It's strange that you remember conversations we've never had.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

It's strange that you remember conversations we've never had.

I know! When I start hearing voices, it will really be time to worry!

 

[Dans La Lune]

Generally the cut off is 12-14 weeks. The point I was making is that all the way up and including birth is extreme.

Which does not happen in this reality except if it threatens the life of the mother. Show me a real world example where a mother carries a baby for 9 months, and at the last second conspires with her licensed doctor to kill the viable baby. Show me anything close to this. I dare you.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Why would you say something about me that's untrue?

Why did you avoid (weakly) answering my challenge until just now? Have you been cornered enough?

If a woman or girl has been raped, she should receive an abortion without any trial or conviction of the rapist.

How do you determine if a girl has been raped? Seems like an awfully big loophole. Just walk in and say, "I've been raped".

We both know that you don't mean this in practical terms.

It should be up to the doctors to determine if the mother's life is at risk. My issue is with elective abortions.

You didn't address any of the real-world scenarios I presented. I consider this a full dodge.

Doctors refusing potentially life-saving abortion treatment over legal fears, Indiana doctor says

Indiana doctor Katherine McHugh speaks about how her practice has shifted since Roe v. Wade was overturned and anticipation of the state's abortion ban going into effect.

abcnews.go.com

For doctors, abortion restrictions create an 'impossible choice' when providing care

Physicians must treat in line with patients' wishes and standards of care. Some medical ethicists say that abortion bans will force doctors to disregard these obligations in order to follow the law.

www.npr.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2022/09/08/medical-exemptions-abortion-bans-wont-protect-womens-health/

Doctors report compromising care out of fear of Texas abortion law

A new paper from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project says the confusion may be a harbinger for a post-Roe v. Wade world.

www.texastribune.org

I believe if government had less control over healthcare, the astronomical medical pricing would drop.

Based on what data or evidence? This is like saying, 'If government stopped enforcing laws and regulations, corporations would do the right thing and criminals would stop breaking the law.'

Libertarians are a total joke.

And, no, I don't consider elective abortions "healthcare".

Doctors actually do. I thought you trusted doctors in this scenario?

 

[soylentgreen]

You're evading the argument, just like @Lursa is.

The idea is that the mother may kill the baby because the baby doesn't have the right to live at the mother's (or anyone else's) expense. That doesn't change once the baby is born.

Why does that not change. Considering it would then become murder to kill a baby.