I guess I'm saying there is a point where we as a state are obligated to ensure that the birth occurs. By week-30, abortions begin to become rather problematic.
Pretty much... no women are aborting a 9 month old fetus for shits and giggles...
I oppose needless abortions morally but support them legally...
I am not sure anybody that is not psychotic approves of murdering an infant child...
As long as the State's obligation ensures not only that a birth occurs, but that the infant is provided for, educated, and raised humanely all the way through to adulthood. But frankly, I'd be astounded if the political will to follow through with that will ever appear on the horizon. The rabid right-wing-nuts would rather force the birth of the child, then watch it starve to death, than create yet another social program.
Yes, ethically, the state must ensure the born child is properly cared for. That should apply to all born children, not just those saved from abortions.
People don't behave intelligently and ethically in every aspect of their lives except just one. The locus of the problem isn't with the doctors or women. It's with the religious conservatives spreading the myth that doctors are irresponsible and unethical about abortion and women are brainless, selfish and ignorant. They commit unspeakable evil so they must be in, the name of God, controlled. In your pursuit of re-establishing Calvin's 16th century Geneva you have forgotten that In the 18th century we wrote a Constitution that protects everybody from your religious laws and assures people's privacy in personal lives.
It is not innocent. It is invasive and can kill the host.
I guess I should say that I kinda oppose it. I guess I should also say that only when two have unprotected sex. It they have no intention of being pregnant then I do not oppose it. I probably oppose maybe 3-5% of abortions.
Sorry but the link did not work when I first read your post, but it does now. It is the same information as the link I looked for.
My apology I did miss this.
But if they are legally allowed to at 3 months, then they should be legally allowed to at 9 month?
I already said that they should be allowed to...
In a perfect world people trust others are making the best decisions they can, where no laws control a simple medical procedure. Most pro-choice advocates believe in a perfect world. It's not realistic.
I want to highlight that bold part again. This concept that a majority should determine what happens absolutely mean that we can vote slavery back in because a majority wants it. Where is the line before we don't let the 99% get what they want?
Seems like we're back at my viability question from this. However, there still is nothing per se in US law granting fetal rights.
I didn't ask about anyone believing in a right, but in exercising it. Does not exercising a right mean that one doesn't believe in that right? Look what I asked about gun ownership again. Is there a certain level of exercising a right to keep the right existing?
Unless I aligned the quotes wrong, this makes no sense to what I was asking. First by saying that ethics are above and beyond the law, I mean that the ethics will prevent the action even if the law allows it. My second part noted that while RvW prevents laws that prohibit an abortion (at least prior to viability), no law or lack thereof forces a doctor to perform an abortion. The doctor can refuse the procedure if it violates his own ethics.
And now we're back to what I asked later in the post. What makes a good reason? Why should the woman be required to have a good reason? Why should it make a difference that she decides it would be better to go dancing at 3 month or at 9 months?
I'm pointing out that if abortion is a private medical issue and not a legal one, then so is conversion therapy, and should no more be subjected to a ban than abortion is.
Then why did you bring it up?
Is it, when many pro-choice also support a viability limit?
That would go back to my pointing out that the viability point, at least in law, would have to be arbitrarily chosen.
That doesn't answer my question. If it is a right for her to be able to get an abortion if she wants to, then what does it matter what the reason is? And given that good and bad are subjective views, who gets to determine whether her reason is good or bad?
My apology, when you referred to 99% of the people I foolishly assumed you meant a rational people, as opposed to this mob that apparently lives only to behave as evil as possible. So I would look at this as if there must be a good reason to bring slavery back.
Character limits are gods way of telling you, you talk to much.
So if the mods, who are probably 1% decide that character limits will be the right of 99% of the users, then that's ok.
Prior to current attempts to make the variable a constant, the point was the moment of birth. That's a point that cannot be mistaken or misread. It held legal standing because it was clear and difficult to deny. Your example of 18 years old is not a variable or arbitrary. It's a fixed point in time that the courts can see and support.