[W:962]The right to intervene in someone's private life.

[Ahlevah]

An unborn is not a human being , an unborn is not a person, an unborn is not a child, an unborn is not an individual .
An unborn has no rights and a animal has no rights.

So a preemie delivered by Caesarian section at, say, 26 weeks is a human being while a full-term fetus is synonymous with an animal? It's thinking like that that's cracking the abortion egg in this country.

 

[Ahlevah]

Roe v Wade has been reviewed and reaffirmed by several different Supreme Courts since 1973.

Right. And that's not stopping states from engaging in a full-frontal assault against it. Mississippi won't be happy until it's closed its last abortion clinic, and it is down to one. So, notwithstanding Roe v. Wade, abortion is virtually a memory in this state.

 

[minnie616]

Right. And that's not stopping states from engaging in a full-frontal assault against it. Mississippi won't be happy until it's closed its last abortion clinic, and it is down to one. So, notwithstanding Roe v. Wade, abortion is virtually a memory in this state.

An unborn has no rights. None , it is not a citizen, it is not counted in the US census.
It is only a maybe.

Once a preemie/ infant is Born in the United States it is a US citizen and has the rights of US Citizens.

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 ("BAIPA" Pub.L. 107–207, 116 Stat. 926, enacted August 5, 2002, 1 U.S.C. § 8) is an Act of Congress. It extends legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. It was signed by President George W. Bush.
…..
The Born Alive infants Protection Act of 2002 :

Defines a "Born alive infant" as "Person, human being, Child, Individual"
Gives rights as a human to any child born within the United States

Born Alive" is defined as the complete expulsion of an infant at any stage of development that has a heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, breath, or voluntary muscle movement, no matter if the umbilical cord has been cut or if the expulsion of the infant was natural, induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

 

[minnie616]

Right. And that's not stopping states from engaging in a full-frontal assault against it. Mississippi won't be happy until it's closed its last abortion clinic, and it is down to one. So, notwithstanding Roe v. Wade, abortion is virtually a memory in this state.

Did you know that Mississippi has has had one abortion clinic since 2008?

Anti abortion activists have been trying to close it down for the last 13 years.

In fact in 2012: The Mississippi Legislature passed a law requiring doctors performing abortions to be board-certified or board-eligible in obstetrics and gynecology and have hospital admitting privileges.

U.S. District Judge Dan Jordan blocks Mississippi from enforcing the admitting privileges portion of the law after the state's only abortion clinic sues.

 

[Lursa]

So there are folks who think it should be more heavily regulated or outlawed. Mississippi has one abortion clinic in the entire state, but it's working hard to get rid of that one, too. So, at least in this state, it has almost, de facto, been outlawed already, and it isn't the only state passing anti-abortion laws. That's what.

Mississippi asks U.S. Supreme Court to overturn abortion rights landmark

WASHINGTON — The state of Mississippi on Thursday urged the Supreme Court in a major case set to be argued in its next term to overturn the landmark 1973 ruling

www.unionleader.com

2021 Is on Track to Become the Most Devastating Antiabortion State Legislative Session in Decades

Updated on June 14, 2021 Right-wing ideologues are engaging in a shock and awe campaign against abortion rights that is largely getting lost against the background of a broader attack on other basic rights, including a wave of voter suppression laws and attacks on LGBTQ people.

www.guttmacher.org

One regulation that's heavily promoted by the pro-lifers is limiting it to very early term.

And yet, oddly, they dont realize that the more they limit ACCESS to abortion, like only one clinic? Women have to wait longer to have their abortions, thus needing later term procedures. They cut off their noses to spite their faces, they dont seem to have the wherewithal to think the consequences thru.

 

[Ahlevah]

Did you know that Mississippi has has had one abortion clinic since 2008?

Anti abortion activists have been trying to close it down for the last 13 years.

In fact in 2012: The Mississippi Legislature passed a law requiring doctors performing abortions to be board-certified or board-eligible in obstetrics and gynecology and have hospital admitting privileges.

U.S. District Judge Dan Jordan blocks Mississippi from enforcing the admitting privileges portion of the law after the state's only abortion clinic sues.

I couldn't recall the year, but, yeah, I've known it's had only one abortion clinic in Jackson for a number of years. In the late '80s there were five.

Meanwhile:

Mississippi isn’t alone in its recent barrage of abortion bills. Since January 2021, there have been 546 abortion restrictions introduced across 47 states, according to the Guttmacher Institute. In many cases, the authors of the bills have expressed their desire to draft a bill that would attract the attention of the Supreme Court. Most of them don’t.

Can Mississippi’s Last Abortion Clinic Survive?

The Supreme Court’s decision on a law banning abortions after 15 weeks could have major consequences for the mostly poor Black women who come to the ‘Pink House.’

www.politico.com

 

[Ahlevah]

One regulation that's heavily promoted by the pro-lifers is limiting it to very early term.

And yet, oddly, they dont realize that the more they limit ACCESS to abortion, like only one clinic? Women have to wait longer to have their abortions, thus needing later term procedures. They cut off their noses to spite their faces, they dont seem to have the wherewithal to think the consequences thru.

I imagine they just go out of state. New Orleans is thirty minutes from the Mississippi border. And if a woman gets to the point where she can't abort her fetus that seems like a win for the antis.

 

[Ahlevah]

An unborn has no rights. None , it is not a citizen, it is not counted in the US census.
It is only a maybe.

Once a preemie/ infant is Born in the United States it is a US citizen and has the rights of US Citizens.

At some point the "it" evolves into a viable human being. That doesn't just magically happen when it's born, regardless of any law, such as Canada's, that states otherwise. In the U.S. we place a limit on when a fetus can be aborted. If an abortion were done solely to advance the rights of the mother, as people have maintained in this thread, why would that be restricted? Why bother with a "balancing test"? Even Roe recognized the fallacy of that conclusion:

97 With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE.

www.law.cornell.edu

In fifty years we have made considerable medical advances in shortening the point to viability of a human fetus. So if viability is a criterion, I can see the court preserving the essence of Roe but, perhaps, moving the viability standard to a point before the beginning of the third trimester.

 

[Lursa]

I imagine they just go out of state. New Orleans is thirty minutes from the Mississippi border. And if a woman gets to the point where she can't abort her fetus that seems like a win for the antis.

Well, no...she waits and waits...has to save up more money to travel, spend the night, maybe lose work time, etc...and still has the later term abortion. Going out of state like you said.

So again, pro-lifers still end up making things worse (according to their own complaints).

 

[Ahlevah]

So again, pro-lifers still end up making things worse (according to their own complaints).

I don't see any abortion as an ideal solution, except in rare circumstances such as protecting the life of the mother. I tend to agree with the father of medicine (his version, not the modern one with the abortion reference removed):

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.[7] Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.

Hippocratic Oath - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath is barely recognizable from the original. If Hippocrates were alive today he would sue the medical profession for putting his name on a document that says "do no harm" yet debases a human being to the point of being little more than medical detritus.

 

[minnie616]

…..I tend to agree with the father of medicine (his version, not the modern one with the abortion reference removed):

Hippocratic Oath - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath is barely recognizable from the original. If Hippocrates were alive today he would sue the medical profession for putting his name on a document that says "do no harm" yet debases a human being to the point of being little more than medical detritus.

The old Hippocratic oath was wrong

“ I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.[7] Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.


Pessary’s were not used for abortions.

A pessary is a prosthetic device inserted into the vagina for structural and pharmaceutical purposes.
It is most commonly used to treat stress urinary incontinence to stop urinary leakage, and pelvic organ prolapse to maintain the location of organs in the pelvic region.

So the old Oath did not mean that a doctor would not perform an abortion like you think you think it meant .

 

[Scrabaholic]

Well, yes, murder is a crime, but, like I said, you can't legally "murder" a dog. And we don't bring someone up on a separate criminal charge if the bitch is carrying puppies. Anyway, at what point do you think a fetus moves beyond being considered little more than property or an extension of the woman to become a human being? Is it the Medieval (Canadian ) belief that that occurs only after it's born, or does it occur sooner? In this country we've moved beyond that belief to at least regard a fetus or embryo a separate victim, depending on the jurisdiction. That's when the double think occurs, depending on who's doing the killing.

U.S.C. Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

www.govinfo.gov

You can't legally murder anything, since murder, by definition, is an illegal act.

The fetus becomes a human being upon live birth.

 

[Lursa]

I don't see any abortion as an ideal solution, except in rare circumstances such as protecting the life of the mother. I tend to agree with the father of medicine (his version, not the modern one with the abortion reference removed):

Why should your opinion or experience affect a woman who has her own health, circumstances, needs, responsibilities, etc? (or a man who lived when women and children were taken care of by family for them most part? And apparently ignored the women dumped by the men with their 'bastards' and both mother and child had their lives ruined, if they didnt starve to death on the streets?)

Are you going to pay the consequences for that unaffordable pregnancy? Or for her ruined health? Or for the loss of income for a family? No, so it's easy for you to just feel that your opinion should matter to the women that WILL pay the consequences.

Hippocratic Oath - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath is barely recognizable from the original. If Hippocrates were alive today he would sue the medical profession for putting his name on a document that says "do no harm" yet debases a human being to the point of being little more than medical detritus.

If elective abortion is banned...any woman who must remain pregnant against her will suffers harm...in many ways. So any responsible Dr would attend to his patient's needs...whatever they were. Her other kids losing a roof over their heads due to losing a job during pregnancy? That's harm. Dying...it happens and cannot always be predicted...er, harm. Long-term health consequences? Harm.

The unborn might not even survive to birth.

2/3rds of all embryos don’t survive ​

​

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101003205930.htm​

​

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die.​

It's a balance and a responsible Dr would favor the contributing member of society who already has responsibilities and commitments in life, not a "potential" unborn who may or may not even live to be born. The responsible Dr would respect the woman's choice either way.

 

[Ahlevah]

The old Hippocratic oath was wrong

So Hippocrates was wrong and the revisionists improved it, eh?

Pessary’s were not used for abortions.

Tell that to the ancient Greeks:

The Oath's "destructive pessary" is believed to be one that induced an abortion.

The Destructive Pessary - Medical Ethics - Flanders Health Blog

Vaginal pessaries were commonly used in ancient Greece. These were wool tampons soaked in a variety of substances, including opium poppies, bitter almond oil,

www.flandershealth.us

In any case, you're tossing in another strawman. My point was, at least from what I can tell, Hippocrates (and the Pythagorean philosophers to whom he dedicated his life) did not approve of practices destructive to human life:

Coming now to the Greeks, one has to refer to the famous Oath of Hippocrates (460-380 B.C.), which mentions: "Ι will not give to a woman an abortive remedy" [5]. For many people Hippocratic Oath reflects the ideas of the Pythagoreans. [6] For the physician when forswearing the use of poison and of abortive remedies, Hippocrates adds: "In purity and in holiness Ι will guard my life and my art". [5] It must be the purity and holiness of the "Pythagorean way of life" to which Hippocrates dedicates himself.

iMedPub | Insight Medical Publishing

We werent able to find this page. Here are some other open options you might take up

www.hsj.gr

Of course, there are two sides to an argument, so there are people who, like you, argue that Hippocrates either didn't know what he was talking about or the term "abortion" didn't apply to abortion or, at least, all abortions.

 

[minnie616]

So Hippocrates was wrong and the revisionists improved it, eh?



Tell that to the ancient Greeks:

The Destructive Pessary - Medical Ethics - Flanders Health Blog

Vaginal pessaries were commonly used in ancient Greece. These were wool tampons soaked in a variety of substances, including opium poppies, bitter almond oil,

www.flandershealth.us

In any case, you're tossing in another strawman. My point was, at least from what I can tell, Hippocrates (and the Pythagorean philosophers to whom he dedicated his life) did not approve of practices destructive to human life:

iMedPub | Insight Medical Publishing

We werent able to find this page. Here are some other open options you might take up

www.hsj.gr

Of course, there are two sides to an argument, so there are people who, like you, argue that Hippocrates either didn't know what he was talking about or the term "abortion" didn't apply to abortion or, at least, all abortions.

Thank you for the info.

I stand corrected. I was not aware a pessary had a different meaning in ancient times.

 

[Ahlevah]

Why should your opinion or experience affect a woman who has her own health, circumstances, needs, responsibilities, etc? (or a man who lived when women and children were taken care of by family for them most part? And apparently ignored the women dumped by the men with their 'bastards' and both mother and child had their lives ruined, if they didnt starve to death on the streets?)

Another example of faulty reasoning. In fact, this example was taken straight out of my logical fallacy bible, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, by T. Edward Damer as an example of a poisoning the well fallacy:

You're not a woman, so anything you might say about abortion is of no significance.

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

Are you going to pay the consequences for that unaffordable pregnancy? Or for her ruined health? Or for the loss of income for a family? No, so it's easy for you to just feel that your opinion should matter to the women that WILL pay the consequences.

You're getting the cart before the horse. Why are people who can't afford babies getting pregnant? Maybe they (and we if the don't) should work on being more proactive than reactive. I'm all in favor of funding birth control and sex education programs for people who can't seem to figure out how to use a rubber. But he primary responsibility for raising a child should fall with the parent(s). If they can't do it, then place the kids with someone who can, either through adoption, placement with a willing relative, foster care, or a group home. Individual circumstances will vary, but I'm not going to give everyone a "get out of jail free" card simply for having an unwanted pregnancy or being an idiot.

It's a balance and a responsible Dr would favor the contributing member of society who already has responsibilities and commitments in life, not a "potential" unborn who may or may not even live to be born. The responsible Dr would respect the woman's choice either way.

I think a responsible doctor would examine his own conscience, and if he feels that a fetus is not just a "potential life" but a viable, living miracle of nature that deserves a chance at life then he should refrain from performing the procedure.

 

[Lursa]

Another example of faulty reasoning. In fact, this example was taken straight out of my logical fallacy bible, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, by T. Edward Damer as an example of a poisoning the well fallacy:

It has nothing to do with you not being a woman, I write the same thing to pro-life women...so please address my point: that you are not the one that will be facing a stranger's consequences and you dont know her circumstances better than she does.

So aside from holding a private opinion, which is fine, do you think there is justification to have your view forced on women that dont agree with you? If so, please explain those justifications.

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

I never wrote that so you posting it as such was completely dishonest. I never said or implied anything about you 'not being a woman.'

You're getting the cart before the horse. Why are people who can't afford babies getting pregnant? Maybe they (and we if the don't) should work on being more proactive than reactive. I'm all in favor of funding birth control and sex education programs for people who can't seem to figure out how to use a rubber. The primary responsibility for raising a child should fall with them. If they can't do it, then place the kids with someone who can, either through adoption, placement with a willing relative, foster care, or a group home. Individual circumstances will vary, but I'm not going to give everyone a "get out of jail free" card simply for having an unwanted pregnancy or being an idiot.

Please address the questions in the quote you're responding to before asking more of your own. That couples end up with accidental pregnancies, even when having responsible sex, is a given. All thru history, and it's not going to change, people will NEVER start having less sex...and there's no reason for them too. Your opinion also doesnt affect that either.

You are just trying to change the subject to avoid my points. Please address them first.

I think a responsible doctor would examine his own conscience, and if he feels that a fetus is not just a "potential life" but a viable, living miracle of nature that deserves a chance at life then he should refrain from performing the procedure.

That's fine...doctors are not forced to do elective abortions. So, again, you are avoiding my argument that Hippocrates' world was entirely different from today's. My points were valid and here you are, completely avoiding them, not even acknowledging them.

You are not discussing in good faith...it's speaks to the continual failure of your arguments, just IMO. Please directly address my questions and arguments and I'm happy to do the same.

 

[minnie616]

Another example of faulty reasoning. In fact, this example was taken straight out of my logical fallacy bible, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, by T. Edward Damer as an example of a poisoning the well fallacy:


Sorry, I couldn't help it.

Irrelevant

And

Not funny …

You're getting the cart before the horse. Why are people who can't afford babies getting pregnant? Maybe they (and we if the don't) should work on being more proactive than reactive. I'm all in favor of funding birth control and sex education programs for people who can't seem to figure out how to use a rubber. But he primary responsibility for raising a child should fall with the parent(s). If they can't do it, then place the kids with someone who can, either through adoption, placement with a willing relative, foster care, or a group home. Individual circumstances will vary, but I'm not going to give everyone a "get out of jail free" card simply for having an unwanted pregnancy or being an idiot.

Condoms are not the really an answer

Even with perfect use Condoms fail 3 percent of the time.

That means for every 100 couples who use condoms consistently and perfectly 3 of those women will find they have an unexpected pregnancy within a years time.

Then your solution is force the woman to continue the unexpected pregnacy.

And then if she cannot afford to raise a child steal the child from her and give it to someone else to raise.

That is not a solution …..You are beginning to sound like the nuns in a Catholic Home for unwed mothers in the 50s and 60s who traumatized unwed teens and forced them to give up their newborns to strangers after the babies were born. Do you have any idea
how many women who were forced to give up their newborns are still tramized to this
very day ?

I think a responsible doctor would examine his own conscience, and if he feels that a fetus is not just a "potential life" but a viable, living miracle of nature that deserves a chance at life then he should refrain from performing the procedure.

As Lursa said doctors are not forced to give elective abortions so that statement is irrelevant.

 

[Ahlevah]

It has nothing to do with you not being a woman, I write the same thing to pro-life women...so please address my point: that you are not the one that will be facing a stranger's consequences and you dont know her circumstances better than she does.

So aside from holding a private opinion, which is fine, do you think there is justification to have your view forced on women that dont agree with you? If so, please explain those justifications.

Your attack is irrelevant, whether it's based on a pregnant woman's circumstances or my own (you don't know her circumstances better than she does). It has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of my position that abortion should be avoided in most circumstances for moral reasons.

I never wrote that so you posting it as such was completely dishonest. I never said or implied anything about you 'not being a woman.'

I never claimed the circumstances were completely identical. It was just an example.

You are not discussing in good faith...it's speaks to the continual failure of your arguments, just IMO. Please directly address my questions and arguments and I'm happy to do the same.

Okay, well, practically speaking, my opinion or experience won't affect any woman in any circumstance you can imagine. For what's worth, as I've said throughout this thread, I feel that at some point the life of the unborn child matters more than whatever rights the mother may have other than preserving her own life. Morally, abortion becomes unjustifiable, IMHO But the opinions of the seven male SCOTUS justices who ruled in favor of permitting states to proscribe abortion with the onset of the third trimester did matter. Their individual circumstances were irrelevant to that conclusion.

 

[Ahlevah]

Condoms are not the really an answer

Even with perfect use Condoms fail 3 percent of the time.

That means for every 100 couples who use condoms consistently and perfectly 3 of those women will find they have an unexpected pregnancy within a years time.

A condom will only fail if a person uses it. Seems to me preventing 97% of unwanted pregnancies AND preventing the spread of STDs is a worthwhile endeavor. Plus they address the issue of affordability. So far I haven't seen anyone argue against getting a COVID-19 vaccine because "they only prevent 97% of vaccinated people from being hospitalized."

Then your solution is force the woman to continue the unexpected pregnacy.

Yup. And what if it's still unwanted in the third trimester? You in favor of aborting it? I mean, since it has no rights--like an animal?

And then if she cannot afford to raise a child steal the child from her and give it to someone else to raise.

Steal the child? No, we have courts to determine whether a parents are fit or not. And if they can't do it, yeah, give it to someone else to raise.

That is not a solution …..You are beginning to sound like the nuns in a Catholic Home for unwed mothers in the 50s and 60s who traumatized unwed teens and forced them to give up their newborns to strangers after the babies were born. Do you have any idea how many women who were forced to give up their newborns are still tramized to this very day .

Why do people always assume the past is prologue? We got rid of most public inpatient mental hospitals (other than those for the criminally insane) with one argument against them being similar to yours. And what was the de facto modern progressive solution: crazy people living in the streets and populating our prisons.

But, again, if we took a poll of adoptees who were placed in loving homes instead of being aborted I wonder what they would have chosen. And I don't think having an abortion--in essence snuffing out a life inside of her--is an altogether emotionally painless procedure for a woman, either, at least not one with a conscience. That's an incentive by abortion advocates to try to dehumanize the unborn, just as we've seen in this thread. THAT's what I find not funny.

 

[Lursa]

Your attack is irrelevant, whether it's based on a pregnant woman's circumstances or my own (you don't know her circumstances better than she does). It has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of my position that abortion should be avoided in most circumstances for moral reasons.

What attack? It's a calm, relevant, logical question. And why do you refuse to answer it?

And of course it has bearing on that. What is moral about strangers deciding what consequences a woman must suffer against her will? So again, why arent you answering the question?

How is this an attack? Please address my point: that you are not the one that will be facing a stranger's consequences and you dont know her circumstances better than she does.

So aside from holding a private opinion, which is fine, (again, how is this an attack?) do you think there is justification to have your view forced on women that dont agree with you? If so, please explain those justifications.

I never claimed the circumstances were completely identical. It was just an example.

It failed.

Okay, well, practically speaking, my opinion or experience won't affect any woman in any circumstance you can imagine. For what's worth, as I've said throughout this thread, I feel that at some point the life of the unborn child matters more than whatever rights the mother may have other than preserving her own life. Morally, abortion becomes unjustifiable, IMHO But the opinions of the seven male SCOTUS justices who ruled in favor of permitting states to proscribe abortion with the onset of the third trimester did matter. Their individual circumstances were irrelevant to that conclusion.

OK, so then I think that my questions are still relevant and appropriate to the discussion.

So aside from holding a private opinion, which is fine, (again, how is this an attack?) do you think there is justification to have your view forced on women that dont agree with you? If so, please explain those justifications.

As mentioned, a decision to force a stranger's beliefs on a woman that leads to her pain and suffering and consequences that may ruin her health, leave her family without support financially or otherwise, that leads to her foregoing her other commitments in society, is hardly 'moral.' I find it disturbing that anyone would believe they could force all that on someone else, against their will.

So again, please provide your justifications.

 

[Ahlevah]

What attack? It's a calm, relevant, logical question. And why do you refuse to answer it?

This is a debate board, correct? If it makes you feel better, call whatever it is you're doing a "counter argument" or, for that matter, whatever you want. Just don't have a conniption over it, because I certainly am not.

So aside from holding a private opinion, which is fine, (again, how is this an attack?) do you think there is justification to have your view forced on women that dont agree with you? If so, please explain those justifications.

Okay, I'll try again. The justification to have my view forced on women is there comes a point where the life of the fetus outweighs any right of the mother, other than her right to preserve her own life. The seven justices who ruled in favor of Roe agreed with that point of view and placed that point at the beginning of the third trimester.

Are you still having issues with my answer? Because that's it. I'm moving on.

 

[minnie616]

….
Why are people who can't afford babies getting pregnant? Maybe they (and we if the don't) should work on being more proactive than reactive. I'm all in favor of funding birth control and sex education programs for people who can't seem to figure out how to use a rubber. But he primary responsibility for raising a child should fall with the parent(s). If they can't do it, then place the kids with someone who can, either through adoption, placement with a willing relative, foster care, or a group home. Individual circumstances will vary, but I'm not going to give everyone a "get out of jail free" card simply for having an unwanted pregnancy or being an idiot.

No get out of jail free card ?

You think a women should be punished because she had an expected pregnancy.

Yep punish the sinner …what antiquated thinking.

So you want turn back time and punish women who have an unexpected pregnancy . You wish to force them to give childbirth and they steal away newborns like they did in the mid 1900s.

A ‘shame-filled’ prison: Inside the maternity homes that forced teen moms to give away their babies

In the 1950s and ’60s, mostly white, middle-class teens were hidden in maternity homes during pregnancy

www.thelily.com

 

[Ahlevah]

Yep punish the sinner …what antiquated thinking.

Maybe that's part of the problem. Women today, instead of looking at giving birth as the ability to bring life and joy to this planet, look upon it as some sort of curse or punishment. I never went to Sunday school, but I'm guessing most Bible school teachers skipped that lesson. But I'm still wondering: At what point you think the punishment outweighs the benefit? Or is there one? Should a woman be able to avoid punishment if she's, say, at full term?

So you want turn back time and punish women who have an unexpected pregnancy . You wish to force them to give childbirth and they steal away newborns like they did in the mid 1900s.

No, I don't want to punish anyone. I'd like people to be proactive and avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place, most of which are avoidable. But I don't see demeaning the value of human life and slaughtering millions of viable human beings as progress. I think Hippocrates was ever so right twenty-five centuries ago.

 

[Lursa]

This is a debate board, correct? If it makes you feel better, call whatever it is you're doing a "counter argument" or, for that matter, whatever you want. Just don't have a conniption over it, because I certainly am not.

Yes it is a debate board...so why do you keep running from the debate? The clear, direct, civil questions?

Here it is again:
Please address my point: that you are not the one that will be facing a stranger's consequences and you dont know her circumstances better than she does.

So aside from holding a private opinion, which is fine, (again, how is this an attack?) do you think there is justification to have your view forced on women that dont agree with you? If so, please explain those justifications.

Okay, I'll try again. The justification to have my view forced on women is there comes a point where the life of the fetus outweighs any right of the mother, other than her right to preserve her own life. The seven justices who ruled in favor of Roe agreed with that point of view and placed that point at the beginning of the third trimester.

That's your belief, not justification for having it forced on women. And if they agreed with you, why didnt they ban elective abortion altogether? That dog just dont hunt, sorry.

Are you still having issues with my answer? Because that's it. I'm moving on.

You are moving on without answering...without 'honestly debating'...because you cant justify your belief and the imposition of it on women that dont believe the same. (I've already noted that you are welcome to your opinion personally.)

In America, that's not the way we respect the individual and personal liberty. You place the life of the unborn ahead of her life, her health, and all the people in her life (her family for instance) and work and community that she has responsibilities and obligations to.

Some of us value quality of life over quantity. Since you would force pain and suffering on a woman against her will, IMO it's your position that is seriously immoral.