Why I am pro choice, AND "pro life".

[MamboDervish]

It's not hard to produce examples. Just follow the money.

As compared to what? Are you asserting that abortions are lucrative, as compared to other pursuits in medicine, surgery or healthcare in general? That argument is so easily parried, I won't bother.

You seem to be trying to convince yourself.

Another note from the land of zero evidence.

There is no evidence to contradict the obvious, which is that premature births are sentient.

Proving my point. Premature births are births! That's what makes them different.

The question is not if the unborn become sentient, but when that occurs.

And the answer is, after they are born. The unborn are never sentient.

 

[aociswundumho]

Not necessarily - and certainly not in the case of rape.

True.

That's a lie. It breathes air into its lungs. BIG difference.

Not regarding personhood.

A bullshit argument if ever there was one.

Why?

 

[DarkWizard12]

Are you prepared for the consequences of your choice?

yesh

Higher insurance premiums,

I don't have health insurance, so it's free

denial into events or travel.

I'm capable of making my own events

of course death and or possible long term issues due to COVID

I'll risk it.

 

[Jay59]

No I mean sentience

That's a different subject and an ongoing discussion. Is a baby sentient at birth? How can you tell? Are babies born four to six weeks early sentient? How can you tell?

Of course there is profit. I hope they make millions

Refuting the claim that no one wants abortions.

As compared to what? Are you asserting that abortions are lucrative, as compared to other pursuits in medicine, surgery or healthcare in general? That argument is so easily parried, I won't bother.

See other quoted post.

Another note from the land of zero evidence.

Disregarded evidence is not no evidence.

Proving my point. Premature births are births! That's what makes them different.

For the record, explain why a baby born early is different from a baby with the same gestational development that is unborn.

And the answer is, after they are born. The unborn are never sentient.

I am not getting your logical jump. Spell it out more clearly.

 

[vegas giants]

That's a different subject and an ongoing discussion. Is a baby sentient at birth? How can you tell? Are babies born four to six weeks early sentient? How can you tell?


Refuting the claim that no one wants abortions.


See other quoted post.


Disregarded evidence is not no evidence.


For the record, explain why a baby born early is different from a baby with the same gestational development that is unborn.


I am not getting your logical jump. Spell it out more clearly.

I see you have no evidence


Your claim is dismissed

 

[JustAFella]

i'm glad you support body autonomy. I'll see you defending my right to refuse the vaccine.

You do have that right. You just don't get to come to the shows or eat indoors with us without a mask.

It isn't "well reasoned" because the perfect bone marrow donor didn't cause the child to have severe aplastic anemia, whereas the mother literally creates the fetus by her own actions.


Nothing relevant about the baby changes after it is born. Only the baby's location has changed. If you support abortion, then the mother should be allowed to kill the baby after it's born if that's what she wants to do.

In that case, abortion is just like child birth. It is just a matter of changing the location of the fetus.

 

[DarkWizard12]

You do have that right. You just don't get to come to the shows or eat indoors with us without a mask.

you mean, you don't come to OUR shows. We're the majority here. If you want to wear a mask and stay home all day in fear, you go ahead and do that.

Me though, I'm living my life as normal.

Have fun!

 

[Craig234]

Moreover, the rich will go to foreign countries because they have the means, so repealing R v W will affect the poor more than the affluent. I suspect there will be a few hypocritical Republicans who will send their teenage daughters to foreign countries to get abortions, should they get impregnated by some young male of whom they do not approve.

They'll likely go to *states* that allow abortion. I think there's some confusion about that, because a repeal of Roe will make it up to the states; before Roe, there were few states that had only recently started to allow abortions. Now, there would be many more.

 

[soylentgreen]

i'm glad you support body autonomy. I'll see you defending my right to refuse the vaccine.

The two are not comparable. Abortion is a singualr choice that has no effect on the health of unrtelated people. Not getting a vaccine however is just a person so selfish that they do not care if others die because they have become infected.

Try to understand the meme that your right to swing your fist ends at the point of contact with another nose. Your anti vac stance is you swinging your fist into other peoples noses.

 

[DarkWizard12]

The two are not comparable. Abortion is a singualr choice that has no effect on the health of unrtelated people. Not getting a vaccine however is just a person so selfish that they do not care if others die because they have become infected.

Try to understand the meme that your right to swing your fist ends at the point of contact with another nose. Your anti vac stance is you swinging your fist into other peoples noses.

I demand you get the vaccine for the common flu every year then, on top of all the boosters you're going to need for corona.

afterall, you refusing is you swinging your fist into other people's noses.

 

[aociswundumho]

Try to understand the meme that your right to swing your fist ends at the point of contact with another nose. Your anti vac stance is you swinging your fist into other peoples noses.

Then that should also apply to people who are exhaling carbon dioxide.

 

[MamboDervish]

For the record, explain why a baby born early is different from a baby with the same gestational development that is unborn.

??HUH?? You've answered your own question. One is born - the other is unborn. How much more of a difference do you need? Their identity isn't dependent on their development. Their identity is bestowed at birth. Before it is born, it is only an unoccupied body. The lights may be on, but there's nobody home.

I am not getting your logical jump. Spell it out more clearly.

One body has the breath of life in it - the other not.

 

[Jay59]

??HUH?? You've answered your own question. One is born - the other is unborn.

Why are we supposed to understand this apparently trivial distinction? If one is sentient, so is the other.

How much more of a difference do you need?

A difference would be nice. This is a distinction where there appears to be no difference.

Their identity isn't dependent on their development. Their identity is bestowed at birth.

For what reason? Logically and scientifically, it makes no sense.

Before it is born, it is only an unoccupied body. The lights may be on, but there's nobody home.

You appear to be making a religious distinction. I have not heard this for religious reasons before.

One body has the breath of life in it - the other not.

Don't tell a biologist that unless you enjoy being laughed at. Again, I note the religious phrasology.

Your whole argument is that an arbitrary distinction is total. The law does this sort of thing, but not science and usually not real life.

 

[vegas giants]

Why are we supposed to understand this apparently trivial distinction? If one is sentient, so is the other.


A difference would be nice. This is a distinction where there appears to be no difference.


For what reason? Logically and scientifically, it makes no sense.


You appear to be making a religious distinction. I have not heard this for religious reasons before.


Don't tell a biologist that unless you enjoy being laughed at. Again, I note the religious phrasology.

Your whole argument is that an arbitrary distinction is total. The law does this sort of thing, but not science and usually not real life.

Waiting for evidence of sentience

 

[Jay59]

Waiting for evidence of sentience

You still have not provided the definition of sentience, so get on it.

Until then, the best we can do is to say that if a baby born at a given number of weeks is sentient, then an unborn fetus of that number of weeks is also sentient. The birth changes nothing of importance to the topic.

 

[vegas giants]

You still have not provided the definition of sentience, so get on it.

Until then, the best we can do is to say that if a baby born at a given number of weeks is sentient, then an unborn fetus of that number of weeks is also sentient. The birth changes nothing of importance to the topic.

I dont need to
I didnt set it as a standard


It's not according to US law

 

[OscarLevant]

until you start mandating it of course

Mandates have been about choices, thus far, so they are not 'forced', and, as such, do not rise to 'making it illegal to refuse vaccination' ( which I oppose ).

From employers: choose to vaccinate or get tested weekly.

From schools: choose to vaccinate child or homeschool.

However, on the latter, for those who would be financially burdened for homeschooling, in my view, the state has an obligation to provide financial assistance.

I adamantly oppose, for the same reason stated in my views on pro choice, against making refusing vaccination illegal. That would violate the privacy and body autonomy R v W constitutional ruling.

 

[OscarLevant]

I agree with your friend.

Whether the unborn is considered to a human life or a tissue mass is really unrelated to the topic of legality of abortion in our society. Legality and morality rarely intersect in our legal system.

The mother is saddled with the sole responsibility of the care of the child before and after birth. Our society has delegated this responsibility to the mother and to her alone.

Unless and until the responsibility is re-assigned, the right that accompanies the responsibility must be in the mother's.

That said, though, I am neither a woman nor am I in danger of impregnating a woman, so, I really don't have a dog in this fight.

Not personally regarding pregancy, but as a citizen on the general principle, you do. Privacy and body autonomy principles giving rise to R v W also go to vaccines, forced medication, and other violations of privacy and body autonomy, ( forced transplants, as stated in the argument ) etc.

 

[OscarLevant]

They'll likely go to *states* that allow abortion. I think there's some confusion about that, because a repeal of Roe will make it up to the states; before Roe, there were few states that had only recently started to allow abortions. Now, there would be many more.

I meant in a post RvW repealed world.

 

[Craig234]

I meant in a post RvW repealed world.

So did I. With Roe, no state can ban abortion. Without Roe, it's up to the states. So many states it will still be legal, there's no need to go to another country.

 

[Argent]

Why are there convictions for drug abuse offenders for abusing the fetus? Also, it's a federal crime to commit acts of violence against the unborn.

The assumption in these cases being that the woman has chosen to carry to term and has chosen to not have an abortion, i.e. she allegedly wants the child.

 

[Argent]

Why are we supposed to understand this apparently trivial distinction? If one is sentient, so is the other.

Science has yet to prove when sentience begins. We haven't even figured out where consciousness resides yet. At some future point, we may solve those mysteries but I doubt it will lay to rest the unease of those who believe life begins at conception.

 

[The Old Soul]

As compared to what? Are you asserting that abortions are lucrative, as compared to other pursuits in medicine, surgery or healthcare in general? That argument is so easily parried, I won't bother.

Another note from the land of zero evidence.

Proving my point. Premature births are births! That's what makes them different.

And the answer is, after they are born. The unborn are never sentient.

"Are you asserting that abortions are lucrative, as compared to other pursuits in medicine, surgery or healthcare in general? That argument is so easily parried, I won't bother."

The Texas legislation just guaranteed that abortions are going to be very lucrative...there at least.

 

[Jay59]

I dont need to I didnt set it as a standard

That was the point. There is no standard until you provide one.

What we can say is that if a birthed child is sentient, then so is an unborn child with the same fetal development.

It's not according to US law

We are not talking about the law. We are talking science.

Science has yet to prove when sentience begins. We haven't even figured out where consciousness resides yet. At some future point, we may solve those mysteries but I doubt it will lay to rest the unease of those who believe life begins at conception.

See above.

If you get down to it, we can't define life or death.

 

[Bullseye]

A friend made the following argument, and I'm copying and pasting it, here:

Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes 'human life' - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.

Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the US Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut ( 1965 ) McFall v Shimp (1973), and, of course, Roe v. Wade (1973).

Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow math for a child with severe aplastic anemia, no other person on earth is a child with severe aplastic anemia, no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body without your consent.

It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, of if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else -- the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die, if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased, or how many lives they would save. That's the law.

Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life -- it must be offered voluntarily. By all means. profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the life is morally just, and refusing it is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees.

But, legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may
choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reason, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.


That I support Roe v Wade means that I reject returning to the days prior to the ruling, because I recall my sister, a young teen, in 1965, who did not tell her parents she was pregnant, who got a unlicensed person to help her abort her child, and she almost died.

I am pro-life because I believe supporting Roe v Wade prevents the deaths and maming of women who will, but for R v W, go underground to get abortions, unsupervised by medical professionals. Moreover, the rich will go to foreign countries because they have the means, so repealing R v W will affect the poor more than the affluent. I suspect there will be a few hypocritical Republicans who will send their teenage daughters to foreign countries to get abortions, should they get impregnated by some young male of whom they do not approve.

Repealing R v W will not stop abortions, but will increase deaths and injuries in women.

You cannot, therefore, argue for 'freedom' and 'pro life' if you do not support body autonomy and the health of women.

You simply cannot.

Hmmm. This sounds familiar. :lol:
Maybe this does too.
Except, in the case of marrow donation, the potential donor was a disinterested party who did nothing to generate the correct marrow. Baring incest or rape the woman was a willing participant in the creation of the zygote/fetus, which I suggest modifies the body autonomy argument.