Is this an extreme position?

[Trippy Trekker]

What do my views have to do with your opinion?

Your views impacted how I answered your poll in this thread. Your views do not have anything to do with my opinions.

 

[Josie]

Your views impacted how I answered your poll in this thread. Your views do not have anything to do with my opinions.

What I think should have no impact on your answer. Your answer is your opinion.

You think no restrictions isn't extreme? Are you for no restrictions?

 

[Trippy Trekker]

What I think should have no impact on your answer. Your answer is your opinion.

You think no restrictions isn't extreme? Are you for no restrictions?

You don’t get to decide who or what impacts how I answer a poll. That authority remains firmly within my purview.

In the context of this thread’s poll, you can easily observe I voted for no restrictions. I also explained why in a previous post.

I prefer abortion limitations by conscience and health considerations of mother and fetus, not limitations by law beyond a woman’s choice in consultation with her licensed medical doctor.

 

[Josie]

You don’t get to decide who or what impacts how I answer a poll. That authority remains firmly within my purview.

In the context of this thread’s poll, you can easily observe I voted for no restrictions. I also explained why in a previous post.

Yes. Your explanation was:

I voted NO based on my knowledge of the pollster’s Pro-Life views.

I prefer abortion limitations by conscience and health considerations of mother and fetus, not limitations by law beyond a woman’s choice in consultation with her licensed medical doctor.

So you didn't vote "no" based on my views. You voted "no" based on your views.

 

[Lursa]

What's the middle ground between slave owners wanting to keep slaves, and slaves wanting to be free?

Also, you appear to have missed my challenge: LINK

Note that instead of answering your post, she tried to divert by asking her own first.

 

[Lursa]

A newborn's body is self-regulating and independent, as is the body of a someone with a severe disability. That doesn't mean that they don't need help in navigating the world, need food, love, and mental sustenance. But they are physically independent. A zygote most definitely is not.

"Physiologically" independent refocuses it more accurately IMO. The unborn is physiologically intertwined with the woman and cannot live without using her physiological systems. The woman functions independently of the unborn.

To me, there's little that makes it more clear that 'birth' is not an arbitrary milestone, nor is it about 'geographical location' when recognizing that legal decisions in our country use "equal status" when creating laws regarding humans. And that dependence makes it very very clear that the unborn is not "equal" to born humans. It's silly to rely on 'biology,' as science recognizes no rights nor subjective value for any species.

When African Americans were enslaved, they were also considered "less-than-human;" but it was easy to disprove this because as soon as they were freed, they were able to exercise all or most of their rights (they were already exercising some of them too)...the unborn cannot exercise a single right until birth.

 

[CLAX1911]

Some issues don't require a middle ground. What is the middle ground on slavery?

There can be no middle ground on slavery there is a middle ground on abortion look at Europe.

 

[CLAX1911]

Sure. A discussion of what makes something extreme has zero relevance in a thread about whether something is extreme. Makes absolute sense.

Don't get mad at me cuz I'm not taking your bait and go try and find some other fish.

I don't want to have yet another stupid moronic in this argument about the merits of abortion has been talked absolutely to death and the corpse has been beaten so much it's dust so go find someone else to play with you.

I refuse take the hint it's not subtle.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Yes. Your explanation was:





So you didn't vote "no" based on my views. You voted "no" based on your views.

You responded with nonsense. Sigh

 

[Schism]

Is wanting no legal restrictions on abortion at all at any stage of pregnancy an extreme position? Please vote and comment below.

Yes it's extreme. Supporters claim that third trimester abortions NEVER happen, but when they DO, are rare and necessary.

That's fine, but that argument doesn't refute the need for restrictions, oversight, or limits to reasons for late term abortion.

When faced with this, they usually just start screaming about millions dying. That's nothing more than an emotional outburst.

 

[Schism]

Compared to no legal abortions, no.

Because of the ambitious and overzealous attempts to legalize killing babies seconds before birth because of cleft palates, downs syndrome, and other birth defects, abortion supporters are now shut out of that conversation and will have to claw back even the most basic of abortion measures state-by-state.

This is where extremism has led them. They've created their own dilemma.

In the end, I believe most states will legalize convenience abortions up to a certain point, and limit acceptable reasons for abortions after that point. Personally, I support a woman's right to choose up to 12-16 weeks, and maybe a little longer in the case of rape and incest, and right up until birth for the life of the mother.

As for 'life of the mother' I would say that the baby's life is still a matter of priority, but second to the mother. BOTH lives should be saved if at all possible, but I know that many women have died during childbirth while the child survived. IOW, if it's not entirely necessary to terminate, then it shouldn't be done. When it is, it should be demonstrated and verifiable to have been necessary.

 

[Lursa]

Because of the ambitious and overzealous attempts to legalize killing babies seconds before birth because of cleft palates, downs syndrome, and other birth defects, abortion supporters are now shut out of that conversation and will have to claw back even the most basic of abortion measures state-by-state.

Source this happening in the US. No Dr can be compelled to do it anyway.

 

[Schism]

Source this happening in the US. No Dr can be compelled to do it anyway.

If it's not happening, there should be zero objection to restrictions and limitations.

Your request for examples is disingenuous and an attempt at intellectual dishonesty.

Otherwise you could clearly state your objection without resorting to "where is this happening?" nonsense.

 

[choiceone]

What if an infant is born not breathing and the NICU team has to resuscitate?
What if a baby is born blind and/or deaf?

A baby is legally a person after birth whether they can or cannot breathe, see or hear.

Actually, I don't know whether a baby is a person whether or not they can breathe.

When a newborn is not breathing, doctors have no proof of its being born alive. By tradition, doctors spanked them to get them to breathe or cry, which requires breath. There is no "resuscitation," because they weren't breathing inside the woman, either - they were receiving oxygen through the blood.

It's my understanding that, unless they breathe, they aren't "born alive" - they're stillborn, as there is none of this essential body movement. Of course, a living EEG could exist, but if there were no breathing, it certainly wouldn't last long/

 

[choiceone]

Yes, I know you think that. So you're talking about born babies, not fetuses.

You seem to have an English definitional problem, as do some other persons here.

If a woman has miscarried at a time in pregnancy when doctors expect the expelled entity to be non-viable because insufficiently developed, it's a fetus.

If doctors expect the expelled entity to be viable because sufficiently developed, but at birth it never breathes, it's a stillborn.

The problem comes when the expelled entity is "on the cusp." But when it's not clearly viable, as in the case of the earliest births, at 21 weeks and 1 day, 21 weeks and six days, it can be treated as if a premature newborn. Should it be? That doesn't depend on the estimated time of pregnancy, but the medically estimated development of the fetus cum preemie.

You would give a legislator authority, or a governor power at this point?, The chances of a legislator's or governor's being a medical specialist in fetal medicine is much lower than fetal viability at 24 weeks. No intelligent person would give a legislator the power to make medical decisions.

 

[choiceone]

Slaves only have to work part time. /s

Good try, but I think of the recent practice of unpaid internship at a fancy corporation. You work at least an 8 hour day for which you aren't paid, and you pay for your own place to live, food to eat, clothing, and transport to and from work. For the privilege of working for the fancy corporation.

 

[choiceone]

I'm guessing (hoping) this was a joke.

Do all human fetuses begin as female?

No, that is not true. The sex of humans is determined from fertilization, that is, as soon as it becomes a zygote: if it is XX, it will be a

www.invitra.com

You're quick.

Actually, despite DNA, the actual phenotypic, and therefore morphological, sex of the human organism developed from a human zygote depends utterly on the hormonal state in the uterus during the seventh week of pregnancy.
If the environment is not sufficiently hormonally androgenized or is excessively feminized, a phenotypic female form will develop regardless of DNA (and vice versa for female DNA and phenotypic male form). So one can't use DNA sex to determine sex absolutely in developed human organisms.

\Of course, some day, medicine may figure out how to make them match 100% of the time.

 

[choiceone]

Having now read everything here, I'm prepared to give my reason for saying no legal restrictions on abortion is not extreme.

Every attempt to enforce legal restrictions can result in the death, permanent or temporary injury, disablement, or disease or at least traumatic experience for some women and girls who are medical practitioners' patients.

As those women and girls include utterly innocent patients who did nothing to deserve those results, the legal restrictions are a form of criminal negligence on the part of the legislators or governors and, therefore, on the part of those voters who vote for representatives/governors who make such legal restrictions. I'm utterly disinterested in claims that "it's just inconvenient." Irish law killed Savita Halappanavar. Etc.

This does not mean that I do not sympathize with those who would at least put in place sensible regulations of medical practitioners who perform abortions later in pregnancy. But if they really wanted to do that, they could consult with the AMA and the main, pro-choice group for obgyns on that.

I sincerely doubt the good faith of all those who demand that others agree that embryos and fetuses are persons equal to the women or girls gestating them or even that they are partly equal to them.

I was horrified when Catherine Foster of Americans for Life testified at the House hearing in July that, in the case of the 10 year old Ohio rape victim, her treatment wouldn't be an abortion, and that treatment for ectopic pregnancy and missed miscarriage is not abortion. She actually wanted to redefine the English language and medical terminology, as does the Catholic church to which she belongs, in order to control others' reproduction.

As long as any embryo or fetus is using a woman's bodily organs and substances for its own survival, whether or not intentionally, it's not equal because, yes, it's physiologically dependent on the woman but the reverse isn't true. That's inequality. Not a person? No rights. Person? All basic rights. Period.

 

[aociswundumho]

"Physiologically" independent refocuses it more accurately IMO. The unborn is physiologically intertwined with the woman and cannot live without using her physiological systems. The woman functions independently of the unborn.

To me, there's little that makes it more clear that 'birth' is not an arbitrary milestone, nor is it about 'geographical location'

Well, too bad, because it is an arbitrary milestone, because a newborn is just as dependent upon its mother for survival as it was when it was inside of her.

There will come a time when human embryos are grown in a lab in artificial wombs, and then your entire argument falls apart, because it was shit to begin with.

when recognizing that legal decisions in our country use "equal status" when creating laws regarding humans. And that dependence makes it very very clear that the unborn is not "equal" to born humans. It's silly to rely on 'biology,' as science recognizes no rights nor subjective value for any species.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

Is wanting no legal restrictions on abortion at all at any stage of pregnancy an extreme position? Please vote and comment below.

There is no such thing as "abortions without restrictions". Doctors take an oath to "do no harm". I recall you denouncing Covid restrictions as well. I'm guessing you don't trust doctors much. You get your medical advice from Facebook?

 

[TXNormalGOP]

"No restrictions" means legal abortion up until birth, yes.

There is no such thing. No one's going to murder a viable infant at birth.

 

[Josie]

There is no such thing as "abortions without restrictions". Doctors take an oath to "do no harm".

There is no such thing. No one's going to murder a viable infant at birth.

If there are no abortion laws, that's abortions without restrictions.

I recall you denouncing Covid restrictions as well.

Citation needed.

I'm guessing you don't trust doctors much. You get your medical advice from Facebook?

You're a poor guesser.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

If there are no abortion laws, that's abortions without restrictions.



Citation needed.



You're a poor guesser.

You're pushing right wing propaganda. If you think a doctor would kill a healthy infant, then you don't trust doctors.

 

[Josie]

You're pushing right wing propaganda. If you think a doctor would kill a healthy infant, then you don't trust doctors.

Do you think there should be any laws about abortion?

And still waiting for citation of your Covid comment.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

Do you think there should be any laws about abortion?

And still waiting for citation of your Covid comment.

There are restrictions on abortion, I told you. It's called the hippocratic oath.